Any recent info/rumors on LW 2021/22 ?

prometheus

REBORN
LW's VDB appears a thrown-together thin wrapper/integration of the existing OpenVDB library APIs in most cases. Of COURSE it's got a horrible UI/UX, it has all the hallmarks of a "last-minute bullet-point add", likely when someone with a shred of sense realized offering _just_ a new render engine alone after years of near-silence would lead to an outright customer revolt.

A deserved revolt, considering how litte of what was delivered in LW2018 a) worked, and b) reconciled with Newtek's own communications about what was coming. Large swathes of VDB weren't really usable through most of LW2018 product cycle (and well into LW2019's product cycle), just as large sections of the "new render engine" weren't all that usable in the same periods. Whether the issues were later fixed in LW2019 is meaningless, it's quite depressing to see what all "delivered" in LW2018 actually _worked in a stable and reliable manner_ by the final update of LW2018.

It´s really a shame, I bought in to the upgrade from 2015 to 2019 version, primarely because I felt the VDB tools was exciting though crude, but figured that would be continued to be improved, is realy really a huge shame, since had they implemented some other stuff with proper multiscatter for primitive volumes, and GPU, and a bit better tools for the fluids, then they could have had something really strong and competitive.
Had I known about Lightwave getting stuck within a "no tell or confirm development, and a by by dev team wink off"..such as the current status seem to be, then I would perhaps not have invested in that upgrade.

Lightwaves new primitive volumes and how you work with them, is despite some minor detachment from the easy access philosophy with the old legacy hvs´s, Still one of the best tools to get up and running with volumetric items, it´s just the GI slow renderspeed and lack of multiscattering that is the big issue.
VDB´s a lot more missing though, and unlike primitive volume items, VDB´s would take much more effort to fix/improve.
 

lwanmtr

Lwanmtr
HV was powerful in its day, but yeah, the lack of much development on it was a major shame. Newtek had a history of hiring devs to write these really cool things, but then letting them go, which meant that the neat thing they wrote doesnt get updated because the more permanant devs at Newtek didnt know how it worked.
 

Rayek

Well-known member
I think @LightWaveGuru expressed it best when said:

"LightWave is not for kids. It's forbidden fruit."

"LightWave is for engineers."

"LightWave is for the NASA guys, my friend."

I think he meant Houdini? Houdini, right?

In my opinion, I think if the tool exists and you fully understand how to leverage it, only then are you qualified to comment on it's value.
That's a very elitist attitude.

Define "fully understand". Is it good enough in your opinion to qualify when someone focuses on one or two parts of a DCC for their work? Or more? Or less? Can they comment on only those parts then? When does full understanding arise? Who decides what encompasses "full understanding"?

Is it actually possible to fully understand and leverage a tool nowadays in ALL circumstances? New features are added all the time, so does the expert become a non-expert when they are not aware of all the new features of their tool?

Also, if an expert in LightWave, Maya, Max, and Blender is having trouble with the GUI in Houdini while learning it (they may feel some of the GUI is quite old-fashioned), are they not allowed to comment on that GUI? So anyone, even industry experienced veterans, lose the right to comment when learning a new tool? That would be a bit short-sighted, don't you think?

The problem is that black-and-white statements are generally not very helpful. It's actually a tad arrogant and 'unwise'. What's more LightWaveGuru's statements are the epitome of a select group of which membership is reserved only to elevated thinkers/tinkerers, and there is no place for the common people in it.

Polarized thinking is not going to be very helpful to others trying to understand LightWave, Houdini, or any other topic. Everyone started out with no knowledge at all, and only by questioning and self-doubt can we grow. Trial and error, discovery, free inquiry - basic principles of learning. This includes the right to question things, as long as we understand we are trying to understand and that we allow our understanding to change accordingly.

Only by questioning and commenting on the value of a tool can we truly understand its worth.

"The more I know, the more I understand how little I know".
 

prometheus

REBORN
HV was powerful in its day, but yeah, the lack of much development on it was a major shame. Newtek had a history of hiring devs to write these really cool things, but then letting them go, which meant that the neat thing they wrote doesnt get updated because the more permanant devs at Newtek didnt know how it worked.

There are a couple of things that they should have kept from that legacy workflow, which is...

1. keeping the hypertexture option directly available in a list and optional to enter nodes for more flexibility and power, but not required as now.

2. they lost the ability to apply on vertices.

3. no sprite function

4. no function of using vertex color and weight map based on painted mesh.

5. the old legacy panel of having it separate from object properties ment that you could deactivate and activate from within that panel, and also move and arrange other items in the scen while having the volumetrics panel open, that is not possible now since you have to let go of any volume item and move other items, and then get back to selecting the right volume item to adjust it, it was way easier by moving a camera or null, then click on the desired item to deactivate or activate or copy and paste to several other nulls.

What they gained with the new volumetrics, by far more realistic volumetrics, and some new primitive shape types such as cubic, some more interesting ways of nodal control of the transforms and much better softer edging and a black body node.​
 

prometheus

REBORN
I think he meant Houdini? Houdini, right?


That's a very elitist attitude.

Define "fully understand". Is it good enough in your opinion to qualify when someone focuses on one or two parts of a DCC for their work? Or more? Or less? Can they comment on only those parts then? When does full understanding arise? Who decides what encompasses "full understanding"?

Is it actually possible to fully understand and leverage a tool nowadays in ALL circumstances? New features are added all the time, so does the expert become a non-expert when they are not aware of all the new features of their tool?

Also, if an expert in LightWave, Maya, Max, and Blender is having trouble with the GUI in Houdini while learning it (they may feel some of the GUI is quite old-fashioned), are they not allowed to comment on that GUI? So anyone, even industry experienced veterans, lose the right to comment when learning a new tool? That would be a bit short-sighted, don't you think?

The problem is that black-and-white statements are generally not very helpful. It's actually a tad arrogant and 'unwise'. What's more LightWaveGuru's statements are the epitome of a select group of which membership is reserved only to elevated thinkers/tinkerers, and there is no place for the common people in it.

Polarized thinking is not going to be very helpful to others trying to understand LightWave, Houdini, or any other topic. Everyone started out with no knowledge at all, and only by questioning and self-doubt can we grow. Trial and error, discovery, free inquiry - basic principles of learning. This includes the right to question things, as long as we understand we are trying to understand and that we allow our understanding to change accordingly.

Only by questioning and commenting on the value of a tool can we truly understand its worth.

"The more I know, the more I understand how little I know".

No he ment Lightwave, and Yes, that came across as sitting on a high horse on the elite track.
Of course, if it´s done with a sense of humour, it´s a different thing..but perhaps we have different perspectives on humour, it didn´t sound funny at all, and to fit in to a context of humour within such thread, it just seemed ill placed.

Could be my lack of humour, or his, or being fully serious :)
 
Last edited:

Rayek

Well-known member
No he ment Lightwave, and Yes, that came across as sitting on a high horse on the elite track.
Of course, if it´s done with a sense of humour, it´s a different thing..but perhaps we have different perspectives on humour, it didn´t sound funny at all, and to fit in to a context of humour within such thread, it just seemed ill placed.

Could be my lack of humour, or his, or being fully serious :)
That's the problem with text-only communication: 99% of the original intent / emotions tend to be lost in translation. If it was meant in jest, please take my comments with a grain of salt as well.
 

Rayek

Well-known member
PS I am learning Houdini currently. It's interesting, even if I find some of the GUI quite old-fashioned.
 

lwanmtr

Lwanmtr
Houdini is definitely a different beastie and make sure you have a therapist on hand..Im still getting to grips with the UI...lol
If you havent, I do suggest adding Renderman to houdini, the free version is quite powerful and easy to use...the materials almost have a LW feel in setting them up.
 

prometheus

REBORN
That's the problem with text-only communication: 99% of the original intent / emotions tend to be lost in translation. If it was meant in jest, please take my comments with a grain of salt as well.

Yes I know, it´s difficult with text com, and He´s a bit of a trickster, sometimes a lot of joking, sometimes it seems not to be any of it.
Guess we all need a possible joke button to hit when posting threads, but ..for some people it may actually be a bit fun letting people live in uncertainty of your comments, or thought´s testing your senses. :D

Smileys? so a grin is offensiv, or happy, or a joke:) we need better ways to communicate well in the postings :) more smileys perhaps🃏😜
 

prometheus

REBORN
Houdini is definitely a different beastie and make sure you have a therapist on hand..Im still getting to grips with the UI...lol
If you havent, I do suggest adding Renderman to houdini, the free version is quite powerful and easy to use...the materials almost have a LW feel in setting them up.

Im just mainly processing VDB´s fluids, saving out CloudFx to Lightwave, or sims, or hair strands, or dynamics.

Tip of the day for CloudFx, if you model a cloud mesh in lightwave or in there or sculpt in blender and add cloud fx to it, just jump in to the node tree and try to adapt to be on the end of the chain when exporting, like this with cloudfx, just stand on the cloud light node, right click and choose save geometry and select folder, rename it to VDB, you do not have to select any file format, it automaticly adjust this once you set the right extension as .vdb

add null in lightwave and load the vdb file, or in blender load volume.

Houdini paint fog volume is something neither blender or Lightwave has, useful if you know how to paint freely your volume, and especially around terrain perhaps, to paint in full dimensions, choose projection mode screenplane.
And you can go back to that node at any time.


I need a newer apprentice version though, and perhaps install free 3Delight, how well that performs as renderer of volumetrics? I don´t know.

cloudpaintvolume.jpg
 
Last edited:

prometheus

REBORN
Wish I had lw fractals though for the cloudFX, I am not happy with the types that are in there in Houdini, there´s only a couple of them, even though you can tweak them with scaling etc, the UI of it and the parameters feels clunky compared to if I would tweak some procedurals in Lightwave, which also seem to respond faster when you tweak.

Now the cloudFX happens within the VDB toolset, and is voxelized by resolution, so you can´t compare it properly agains a simple primitive volume, and noise in there though, since Lightwave primitive volumes has no voxel size resolution to deal with for primitive in volume mode.
Houdini have to cook process the VDB..which slows it down depending on resolution of course.

Lightwave VDB is a different thing, you can´t add noise fractals in Lightwave like how you do it in houdini..staticly, other than advect simulate it and play the timeline.
Blender and houdini does that nice though, blender with none OpenVdb volumes, but voxelised datasets and mesh to volume and volume displace, and houdini by just adding a cloudnoise to any volume mesh, One major difference is that you can export the houdini dataset, while you can´t with blenders mesh to volume and volume displace.
 
Last edited:

Rayek

Well-known member
Houdini is definitely a different beastie and make sure you have a therapist on hand..Im still getting to grips with the UI...lol
If you havent, I do suggest adding Renderman to houdini, the free version is quite powerful and easy to use...the materials almost have a LW feel in setting them up.

Good idea: lately I've been considering to try Renderman in Blender and Houdini seems a good candidate for it as well.

Today I worked out how to render with the newer Karma render engine, which allows for a more modern in-viewport render preview, much like Cycles. It is supposed to become the new default render engine, I believe.

Let's just say it is rather counter-intuitive to set up, and I had to watch a video tutorial to accomplish it. Never before did I have to watch a tutorial to explain to me how to render my scene in any 3d app since Amiga times LOL.

And then it wouldn't render my materials, while they would render in Mantra. Fun times!

Other things are pretty self-explanatory, such as building models via nodes.

I am sure to test Renderman this week.
 

Rayek

Well-known member
Im just mainly processing VDB´s fluids, saving out CloudFx to Lightwave, or sims, or hair strands, or dynamics.

Tip of the day for CloudFx, if you model a cloud mesh in lightwave or in there or sculpt in blender and add cloud fx to it, just jump in to the node tree and try to adapt to be on the end of the chain when exporting, like this with cloudfx, just stand on the cloud light node, right click and choose save geometry and select folder, rename it to VDB, you do not have to select any file format, it automaticly adjust this once you set the right extension as .vdb

add null in lightwave and load the vdb file, or in blender load volume.

Houdini paint fog volume is something neither blender or Lightwave has, useful if you know how to paint freely your volume, and especially around terrain perhaps, to paint in full dimensions, choose projection mode screenplane.
And you can go back to that node at any time.


I need a newer apprentice version though, and perhaps install free 3Delight, how well that performs as renderer of volumetrics? I don´t know.

View attachment 151072

That looks pretty good. As you know (I've mentioned it before) I am less experienced with doing 3D work of the fluffy kind. Just simple stuff.

USD is going to be interesting: Houdini is embracing that 1000%, and there's a good free USD add-on for Blender. Interoperability is hopefully going to be simplified in the near future between apps.
 

prometheus

REBORN
That looks pretty good. As you know (I've mentioned it before) I am less experienced with doing 3D work of the fluffy kind. Just simple stuff.

USD is going to be interesting: Houdini is embracing that 1000%, and there's a good free USD add-on for Blender. Interoperability is hopefully going to be simplified in the near future between apps.

Looks good?

well thank you..but I just made a simple tweak without any effort, it would need a much better noise and main volume paint. and that is openGL not any render.

And that was just a fiddle with painting fog volume directly in 3D screen space, then add cloud noise and cloud light to it, some tweaks on the noise, select last node which is cloud light, and right click, save geometry and rename to cloudpaint.vdb, accept to let it save out properly.
And you are free to use it with cycles for multiple scattering or in lightwave..without multiple scattering unless having octane of course.

Not much room for 3D hobbywork right now though, I am busy with some basic photoshop, illustrator and indesign courses, even though I have formal education on the two first, it was quite a while ago, so I need to stay fresh, and complement with indesign, even though I worked with that on my last job.
 

Shabazzy

LightWave Fan Boi
I think he meant Houdini? Houdini, right?


That's a very elitist attitude.

Define "fully understand". Is it good enough in your opinion to qualify when someone focuses on one or two parts of a DCC for their work? Or more? Or less? Can they comment on only those parts then? When does full understanding arise? Who decides what encompasses "full understanding"?

Is it actually possible to fully understand and leverage a tool nowadays in ALL circumstances? New features are added all the time, so does the expert become a non-expert when they are not aware of all the new features of their tool?

Also, if an expert in LightWave, Maya, Max, and Blender is having trouble with the GUI in Houdini while learning it (they may feel some of the GUI is quite old-fashioned), are they not allowed to comment on that GUI? So anyone, even industry experienced veterans, lose the right to comment when learning a new tool? That would be a bit short-sighted, don't you think?
A lot of what you say I would agree with were it not for the element of misunderstanding on your part.

The part of my post that you quoted was intended to focus on a particular tool within the application. LightWave is a software application that consists of a large number of tools that perform different tasks.

To state, with any authority, the value of any one of those tools' (within the application) worth without fully understanding how that tool works means, in my opinion at least, that your (in the general scope and not pertaining to any one individual) claims are less than definitive.

The problem is that black-and-white statements are generally not very helpful. It's actually a tad arrogant and 'unwise'.
Actually, I find that black and white thinkers to be mostly efficient, purposeful, rational, logical, productive, precise and usually correct.

I find that grey area thinkers to be mostly inefficient, draining, imprecise, problematic, irrational, petulant, hard to work with and unproductive.

What's more LightWaveGuru's statements are the epitome of a select group of which membership is reserved only to elevated thinkers/tinkerers, and there is no place for the common people in it.

@LightWaveGuru jokingly made those comments in a video that demonstrated just how powerful LW is in the right hands. I think they were in reference to and animation he created that utilised LW expressions, Dr Wheel and Ask A Professor.

You can read the thread here if you want.

And if you consider him to be an elevated thinker, it's only because he deserves the status. He's done the work to get the education to move beyond being just a "common" person.

In my opinion, the "common people" should look at him as a shining example of what they could achieve if they adopted a more black and white thought process.

Polarized thinking is not going to be very helpful to others trying to understand LightWave, Houdini, or any other topic. Everyone started out with no knowledge at all, and only by questioning and self-doubt can we grow. Trial and error, discovery, free inquiry - basic principles of learning. This includes the right to question things, as long as we understand we are trying to understand and that we allow our understanding to change accordingly.

Only by questioning and commenting on the value of a tool can we truly understand its worth.

"The more I know, the more I understand how little I know".
And who would question? The person who fully understands the tool or the person who doesn't?

I would probably say that @LightWaveGuru is more qualified to inform us on LW's VDB's strengths, weaknesses and therefore its value, than someone who uses LW who has little to no STEM background or experience.

If given the choice as to who to listen to, I know which one I'd choose.
 

prometheus

REBORN
they better, Mantra is horribly slow. Even LightWave sings above it.

Perhaps, depends on what to render I guess.
For volumetrics at first glance lightwave may seem faster, but if you dig in to the mantra settings it seems to be faster.
But very hard to compare if not using the same type of volumetric main system.

The thing is that mantra takes a darn long time to initiate, while lightwave seem to kick in at once, and of course, you do not have to create a render node to render in Lightwave..just aim and fire off with f9.

Not sure if karma is there with houdini apprentice latest version?
 

prometheus

REBORN
A lot of what you say I would agree with were it not for the element of misunderstanding on your part.

The part of my post that you quoted was intended to focus on a particular tool within the application. LightWave is a software application that consists of a large number of tools that perform different tasks.

To state, with any authority, the value of any one of those tools' (within the application) worth without fully understanding how that tool works means, in my opinion at least, that your (in the general scope and not pertaining to any one individual) claims are less than definitive.


Actually, I find that black and white thinkers to be mostly efficient, purposeful, rational, logical, productive, precise and usually correct.

I find that grey area thinkers to be mostly inefficient, draining, imprecise, problematic, irrational, petulant, hard to work with and unproductive.



@LightWaveGuru jokingly made those comments in a video that demonstrated just how powerful LW is in the right hands. I think they were in reference to and animation he created that utilised LW expressions, Dr Wheel and Ask A Professor.

You can read the thread here if you want.

And if you consider him to be an elevated thinker, it's only because he deserves the status. He's done the work to get the education to move beyond being just a "common" person.

In my opinion, the "common people" should look at him as a shining example of what they could achieve if they adopted a more black and white thought process.


And who would question? The person who fully understands the tool or the person who doesn't?

I would probably say that @LightWaveGuru is more qualified to inform us on LW's VDB's strengths, weaknesses and therefore its value, than someone who uses LW who has little to no STEM background or experience.

If given the choice as to who to listen to, I know which one I'd choose.
To be honest, he knows A lot, but he doesn´t know it all...so called expertis status doesn´t mean he can cover it all, or is right about everything VDB.
It shouldn´t be a matter of listening to anyone Purely from biased status, without taking in others opinions and form your own perception based on what actual assertments there are.
It is a good place to start of course, but don´t stop there.

Lightwave Gurus knowledge and research with VDB liquids are invaluable for sure, don´t get me wrong on that.

Your move chief.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom