LightWave 3D® 2019 is Now Available - Official Discussion Thread

gar26lw

New member
Got something against RH making a living? ;)

no. just this topic seems to require a good explanation. perhaps a translation or consolidation to the docs.

get him to do it. my opinion is fueled by the knowledge that you need the base price of lw, od toolset, various other plugins and then you have to buy the documentation as well. add it all together and other packages look cheap.
 

RebelHill

Goes bump in the night
you need the base price of lw, od toolset, various other plugins and then you have to buy the documentation as well.

You really dont. While certain plugins may be considered "must have" in the colloquial sese, they're not actually necessary in a strict one. You can always buy addons for damn near any kind of product you care to think of to accessorise it to make it easier/cooler/whatever.

And as for the docs... all the info is in there, if you have the background knowledge in 3D graphics and rendering to begin with, you can figure all this stuff out yourself. There's no reason to expect the docs ought teach you that. Do you get free driving lessons when you buy a car? Training in the culinary arts when you buy a cooker? A course in carpentry when you buy a saw ad a drill? Nope. Manufacturers of tools/machines document the specific operational parts and controls of their products within the context of the practice for which they're designed to be used. If you need additional information or training beyond that, you need to acquire that separately.

Having all these add ons and trainings to be included as standard out the box would only inflate prices on everyone, including those without the requirement for them. Like almost anything else you can think of, you buy a central tool(s), and extras as befits your own needs and cicrumstances.
 

SBowie

'the write stuff'
Staff member
I think I am not mistaken that there are ample examples of third party training materials available at cost for other packages, as well. It must, then be the case that these are seen to add some value, covering aspects not as well revealed in the original documentation provided by the developer (else the producers of the extra cost training material would not bother). So your contention cannot be that the original docs supplied with all other packages are 100% complete and satisfactory in every way.

This fact, then, places the discussion on a gradient of necessity - is the original documentation so woefully inadequate that everyone is really forced to pay the extra cost for supplemental material? Or is it reasonable that the basic docs cover basics, and more sophisticated users of the software can benefit from advanced material provided by experts in a particular aspect of the field?

Frankly, I think this all flows entirely from Chuck's use of the word "essential". Maybe "excellent" would have been less contentious, but are we really that pedantic? If so, by all means let's leap on the fact that he simply gives RebelHill props if it provides the even the slightest opening to bash LW.
 

gar26lw

New member
ok, well to keep it productive. can the confluence docs accept user comments so as to expand explanations and request more info? I think another 3D package does this or did it. Could be handy.

I'm not looking to bash LW, its just with subscriptions, plugins, maintenance etc, this stuff really adds up and if on a reasonable budget with alternatives providing (for a lack of a better way of putting this) superior or perceived as superior info, integrated solutions etc It would be worth bearing in mind for the future.

Personally I am trying to support NT and as many LW plugin devs as much as I can but I certainly notice that one maintenance price elsewhere is more cost effective. Its getting difficult to ignore.
 
Last edited:

ianr

Active member
A Plate for Sbowie to go with & match his Viking
props!........... Enjoy LW & PSHOP
Longship.jpg
 
Last edited:

gar26lw

New member
Do you get free driving lessons when you buy a car? Training in the culinary arts when you buy a cooker? A course in carpentry when you buy a saw ad a drill? Nope. Manufacturers of tools/machines document the specific operational parts and controls of their products within the context of the practice for which they're designed to be used.

Yeah, yeah! If not, why not?!

 

RebelHill

Goes bump in the night
If the answer to your question is not obvious to you, I think we've found the reason why you need every last step spelled out for you.
 

gar26lw

New member
If the answer to your question is not obvious to you, I think we've found the reason why you need every last step spelled out for you.

I am kidding buddy :)

Don't get so offended so easily. I thought you were from the UK. British humour and all that. Not a Red Dwarf fan?
 
Last edited:

vncnt

Well-known member
Sometimes the LW manual is a little too much like "Button xE5vb90 activates function xE5vb90", to my taste.

Please explain (at least for all us non-native speakers) why would I need function xE5vb90 at all.
Capabiities? Limitations? Known bugs?
 

SBowie

'the write stuff'
Staff member
Sometimes the LW manual is a little too much like "Button xE5vb90 activates function xE5vb90", to my taste.
Those kind of statements are, in my experience, usually either placeholders for late-breaking items that you haven't been able to get a straight answer about from engineers, or - less commonly - items that are just boringly obvious.
 

wingzeta

Member
I'll chime in with this. I bought the RH rendering tutorials, and they are very worthwhile if you are rendering in LW 2018 and beyond. What he said about not getting driving lessons when you buy a car is quite right. But I will say, what makes the current situation with LW a bit awkward, is that unlike many other new, complicated, and different render systems added to other software, in this case, they took away the old renderer we all knew how to use, thus eliminating what would have been the transition period. As in, the transition period where more advanced users dive into the new system, produce some "next level" renders, and everyone else asks "how did you do it?". And the knowledge would filter down, and more and more people would migrate to the new renderer for it's greater power. I would guess something like that happened between the older AD renderers and Mentalray, and then Mentalray to Arnold, because they added the new renders on, but still had the old ones at hand, so you could do day to day work. AFAIK LW required some under the hood changes that made keeping the old renderer too difficult to be worth it (If not, they should have kept it). Thus this painful transition for the average user, who wants to take advantage of the latest version, but finds themselves thrown into the deep end of the pool. Lets also be frank, the new system is not as easy for a new user as the classic LW renderer, and because it's new, there are not many resources online to help people figure it out. That could be a problem for getting new users. I think a lot of people became LW users because it was easy to jump in and get a result, vs other software with more esoteric settings hidden everywhere. Unfortunately the new render is like that, with quite a few "gotcha" boxes that have to be checked across numerous panels, to get a clean result. There was a good effort to consolidate panels over LW 11-2015, so maybe it will similarly get cleaned up going forward. Arnold has a panel with most of the sample settings in one place, so that might be something good to add.

Anyhow, RH was able to take advantage of the situation, and it's good he did, otherwise the awkward transition might last quite a bit longer, and be more painful. That still doesn't totally let NT off the hook, for increasing the difficulty of the user experience without a bit more hand holding in the basics. It's like selling someone a car, with five extra pedals on the floor, not giving them at least "what's new" driving lessons, then Chuck stealing their bike and laughing at them;-):devil:
 

RebelHill

Goes bump in the night
the LW manual is a little too much like "Button xE5vb90 activates function xE5vb90"

Yeah... it reads like stereo instructions, cos that's kind of what it is. How to operate the EQ switches is explained, but why you'd want to isnt. That's not product knowledge, its knowledge of the field (and its practicioners) the product is aimed towards.

they took away the old renderer we all knew how to use, thus eliminating what would have been the transition period.

Its a while back now, but I seem to recall this was mentioned during 2018 beta, and part of what was communicated was the fact that because the geometry system in layout was being replaced, that there would have to be extensive rewrites to the old rendering system so as the (old) renderer could actually sample those surfaces. This would have added a good deal of extra work (recall, it was already aiming to be LW 2016), so you can imagine trying to wrangle all that on top of the new stuff. There was also the fact that, it would have meant maintaining 2 whole sets of everything... material nodes, lights, so you'd have had old version conductor, new version conductor... old version area light, new version area light... And if you'd mixed them up wrong in a single scene, you'd either get a messy render, or lots of back, or crashes.

I suspect that alone would have made the transition far harder for most folks, than the way it was done in the end.
 

wingzeta

Member
Its a while back now, but I seem to recall this was mentioned during 2018 beta, and part of what was communicated was the fact that because the geometry system in layout was being replaced, that there would have to be extensive rewrites to the old rendering system so as the (old) renderer could actually sample those surfaces. This would have added a good deal of extra work (recall, it was already aiming to be LW 2016), so you can imagine trying to wrangle all that on top of the new stuff. There was also the fact that, it would have meant maintaining 2 whole sets of everything... material nodes, lights, so you'd have had old version conductor, new version conductor... old version area light, new version area light... And if you'd mixed them up wrong in a single scene, you'd either get a messy render, or lots of back, or crashes.

I suspect that alone would have made the transition far harder for most folks, than the way it was done in the end.

Yeah, I think they did what they had to do to move the software forward. Hopefully it laid the groundwork for continued improvements. Now, it just needs to keep being developed, with the new owners coming in.
 

jaxtone

Creative Director
I may sound like a grumpy old man, and in deed I am, but I can assure you all that I was way more fit, naive and energetic when I first put my hands on Lightwave in the mid 90´s.

Well, let me share some positive energy first: Lightwave/Newtek are still running on my computers since this 3D application is probably the last outpost before Autodesk takes over the whole world which scares the hell out of me since greed is their surname.


LW 3D is generally good but unfortunately still got the "old techguru-isched upperclass rule printed behind its eyelids. I mean that this is one of the worst enemies LW 3D has that actually hold back new inventions and challenges to compete with the world outside.

Just take a look at our grandchildren´s way of using gadgets that lands up in their hands where the apps are extremely easy to use and are updated with new and faster inventions all the time, from morphs to wigs, from particles splits, liquid and fire. These kids are all more focused in the creative process and would never accept swallowing problems that developers or production teams couldn't solve before the apps were released.

I just mention this because its shameful to hear youngsters ask what the heck we older are doing when struggling to create something they already can do in their sleep at no time at all. The future cannot be built on a walk for miles to create something that the software itself should handle without any doubts or questions.

So what´s the fuzz and what would I like to see in the software I both hate and love?

More easy to use presets for hair, morphs, fire, liquid, dynamics, particles and CA not to mention the most important thing for any 3D-animator out there that do not have an enormous amount of render machines or huge budgets.

In 2019 when graphic boards and computers are at least a hundred times faster than decades ago, how come any developer team comes up with a render engine that are so slow that the whole idea of rendering becomes a nightmare of Elm Street in slomo?
 

vncnt

Well-known member
Yeah... it reads like stereo instructions, cos that's kind of what it is. How to operate the EQ switches is explained, but why you'd want to isnt. That's not product knowledge, its knowledge of the field (and its practicioners) the product is aimed towards.
I think that depencies, impact/capabities or limitations are relevant topics for a reference manual because they can depend on specific software.
Too many times you need to cruise the forums to find answers.
 

SBowie

'the write stuff'
Staff member
Just take a look at our grandchildren´s way of using gadgets that lands up in their hands where the apps are extremely easy to use and are updated with new and faster inventions all the time, from morphs to wigs, from particles splits, liquid and fire. These kids are all more focused in the creative process and would never accept swallowing problems that developers or production teams couldn't solve before the apps were released.
Funny this comes up this morning. Just last evening I discussed this with someone in senior management. Here is part of my email:

"I’ve often thought that the arcane knowledge required in some domains had lagged somewhat deliberately, having as much to do with job security as real demands of the field. Imagining that this sort of ‘guild’ approach can continue indefinitely in this new millennium is usually going to be a mistake.

Most of the upcoming generation have the attention span of a flea on amphetamines, and no patience with documentation. They’ve become accustomed to UI conventions from the cradle, and quickly become frustrated with the unfamiliar, complex or tedious. You’d best have a very good reason for not following standard Microsoft or Adobe practice; simply because you’ve got a better way is not good enough. Nor is the fact that making the presentation of a feature simpler, more intuitive, will take a little extra engineering time."​

A salute, then, from one curmudgeon to another. :)
 
Top Bottom