LIGHTWAVE CONTEST and "THAT" STIGMA

[Drakaran]

Well, NT took off the contest content or moved it somewhere I can't find, so I have no idea what the winning reels were.

Honestly, since using LW since like version 6.2 or something, LW has always been focused on final render and animation. In any future contests, I hope that the contest also focuses where LW's strengths lie, and more flexibility is allowed in the tools used for the models.

The standard in production is to use a variety of tools and not just one package as some programs are more focused in certain areas than others. A realistic scenario for using LW would naturally be focused on LW's output. The modeling tools work fine for hard body modeling and basic organic modeling, but we all know that LW fails miserably in handling UVs and is a cludge at fine organic detailing.

I fully expect NT to continue focusing on improving render and animation and would hope that they will continue further integrating with other programs that handle modeling and texturing better. NT should use this as the criteria of their contests, and not the idea that they are a complete 3d solution.

I'd much rather see LW pushed into render output areas suggested in the thread about what people want to see in LW 10 than NT continuing to think they are a complete solution as they apparently are just not able to keep up with the competition otherwise (they aren't the only company that is struggling with the idea of being a complete solution, and it is obvious that the field is about to further delineate or specialize).

LW was originally a part of the Video Toaster, and was separated out years ago as the development of the CG field progressed. To me it seems that NT should further separate LW, focusing LW exclusively on animation and render quality and possibly take modeler as a new product to develop separately or integrate modeler further into LW as a tool for creating skeletons, motion paths etc and not worry about trying to use it for creating models.

It doesn't seem the other companies have caught onto the this yet, and NT could jump into an area that would put them at the forefront again.

 

[feelthefear]

This kind of videos should be used for promotion of Lightwave. Simply incredible. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzFpg271sm8

 

[Dexter2999]

SO

Is the idea to do a group video with 9.6? But what about when CORE is introduced? Will you still be able to do everything that 9.6 could?

Personally I am nervous about CORE. I think it is a step in the right direction, I just worry that it may have to take a step back before going forward.

 

[jasonwestmas]

SO

Is the idea to do a group video with 9.6? But what about when CORE is introduced? Will you still be able to do everything that 9.6 could?

Personally I am nervous about CORE. I think it is a step in the right direction, I just worry that it may have to take a step back before going forward.

Core is a step back if you are talking about number of features available but the platform will be much more advanced of course. No real reason to be nervous seeing as the Goal of Core is to replace LW classic. Meaning core is supposed to be better and faster and a more fluid world flow.

 

[Surrealist.]

Kind of like one step back and about 20 forward, I would think. CORE is not just a good idea, it was essential for NT to stay in business on the 3D market. But it will take a long time to implement which is why it should have happened a few years ago in my opinion.

 

[jasonwestmas]

Kind of like one step back and about 20 forward, I would think. CORE is not just a good idea, it was essential for NT to stay in business on the 3D market. But it will take a long time to implement which is why it should have happened a few years ago in my opinion.

Yeah, what he said!

 

[mijaba]

Forgive me if I'm off base, but development depends on revenue, and I can't see getting a product "upgrade" with fewer features than the original. That being said, unless they get a whole bunch of customers who will, CORE may indeed die on the vine. Perhaps a different approach, by slowly integrating the CORE architecture into future releases of LW classic until it's replaced altogether.
Of course, none of this makes a bale of hay if CORE's feature set is neglegeably less, the same or even better (what I would shoot for if I were developing it).
Just a thought

 

[jasonwestmas]

Forgive me if I'm off base, but development depends on revenue, and I can't see getting a product "upgrade" with fewer features than the original. That being said, unless they get a whole bunch of customers who will, CORE may indeed die on the vine. Perhaps a different approach, by slowly integrating the CORE architecture into future releases of LW classic until it's replaced altogether.
Of course, none of this makes a bale of hay if CORE's feature set is neglegeably less, the same or even better (what I would shoot for if I were developing it).
Just a thought

Yeah but Core is not an upgrade though you can get an upgrade price for it. Core is an entirely new product and I will take it as it is. As much as I would like Core 1.0 to be a better equivelent than Maya 1.0 I tend to invest in companies and communities not feature counts.

 

[Surrealist.]

Forgive me if I'm off base, but development depends on revenue, and I can't see getting a product "upgrade" with fewer features than the original. That being said, unless they get a whole bunch of customers who will, CORE may indeed die on the vine. Perhaps a different approach, by slowly integrating the CORE architecture into future releases of LW classic until it's replaced altogether.
Of course, none of this makes a bale of hay if CORE's feature set is neglegeably less, the same or even better (what I would shoot for if I were developing it).
Just a thought

Not off base at all. In fact that was my understanding of what NewTek was doing. I had no idea they had plans to start over from scratch at all. In fact it had been debated ad infinitum for many years here on the boards that they should have started from scratch when in fact they had planned to do exactly what you just said basically. The primary rebuttal to "starting from scratch" has always been financially based. How could they afford to? And the fact that they were basically putting development into the areas of LightWave that where being most used by studios, Layout rendering, and avoiding the other areas of character animation and the Modeler. Thus keeping the app working and selling to those likely to use it for its strengths while working in the background to rewrite the core. So in essence it was my understanding that 9.6 would lead to 10, 11 and so on with more and more integration.

Now maybe I am the one who will come off as off base here in saying that CORE had come completely from left field. So much, that people actually thought it was going to be full-featured because of what we have been led to believe up to that point. Basically that CORE was LW 10.

It took much prodding and demands for further clarification to get Netwek to finally come out and say that CORE was in fact a completely new beginning. Of course they said that initially, but in very very ambiguous wording that you had to read between the lines to understand. I say that mainly because I know at least one person close to me and who had been following it was fully thinking that CORE was basically LW10. In fact he had even said, weeks before that he had gotten an inside track from a former NT person that "LW10 would not disappoint", or something to that effect. He was still under an NDA so no details were presented but it was all under the idea that it was LW10.

I was not confused personally by the initial wording, I just saw it for what it was, but it seemed as if there was much confusion here.

So anyway, CORE is what it is and it is a good thing that finally happened even if with a little rocky start. I just hope for the sake of the LW community that they don't bung it up.

 

[SplineGod]

I was always under the impression that LW10 would be the culimination of a brick replacement of the old code with new code as thing proIngressed because of the cost in time, money and manpower to get it done.
In fact heres the quote:
While many have called for a "fresh start" that involves rewriting the application from scratch, NewTek has stated that it is taking a progressive "stage-at-a-time" approach to redesigning LightWave from the ground up. Why does NewTek feel this can work? What are the benefits to using this approach?
This is called a "parallel changeover" in the development world, and is often considered the best approach to take when you have an actively used product in the marketplace. If we were to have followed what others have done (max, wavefront->Maya, xsi), we would go dark for a long period of time, forcing users to wait years for the results. We do not view that approach as practical, given market conditions, and the fact that our customers have been very loyal to us. So, by using the parallel changeover model, we can make available new technologies earlier in the process, far earlier than they would have been with any other approach.

 

[jasonwestmas]

I was always under the impression that LW10 would be the culimination of a brick replacement of the old code with new code as thing proIngressed because of the cost in time, money and manpower to get it done.
In fact heres the quote:
While many have called for a "fresh start" that involves rewriting the application from scratch, NewTek has stated that it is taking a progressive "stage-at-a-time" approach to redesigning LightWave from the ground up. Why does NewTek feel this can work? What are the benefits to using this approach?
This is called a "parallel changeover" in the development world, and is often considered the best approach to take when you have an actively used product in the marketplace. If we were to have followed what others have done (max, wavefront->Maya, xsi), we would go dark for a long period of time, forcing users to wait years for the results. We do not view that approach as practical, given market conditions, and the fact that our customers have been very loyal to us. So, by using the parallel changeover model, we can make available new technologies earlier in the process, far earlier than they would have been with any other approach.

See, originally when that quote was released, I thought that it still included Layout. Wasn't this quote released during the Lightwave 9.6 beta before Core was announced? It kinda threw me off track from what NT really was planning. I was totally aware of this modulated brick by brick replacement in the LW code but at the same time I was thinking about how the "clunky-ness" of layout was "some how" going to be turned into a unified environment that included a full set of modeling tools in it that were all able to be animated; How that seemed to be impossible to me especially after reading so many things about how the Layout architecture was so limiting. I read a lot of things from Newtek about how they were rewriting the CORE but after the Core announcement I quickly realized that rewriting the CORE had nothing to do with Layout at all. I also thought it plausible that there were features "tacked onto" Layout that have characteristics of what CORE will eventually be able to inherit and that some how the Code was transferable. Meaning that the Newest features of 9.x will be better implemented into the CORE architecture and Lightwave 9.6 is not something that will just be thrown out with all that work going to waste in a context of the future; That there is a lot of code in there that is going to be used within the CORE. It is a bit fuzzy yet in my mind. I just find it hard to believe that all that work in 9.x will be useless to CORE and at the same time it was made known to us that CORE has nothing to do with the LW Layout architecture.

 

[Surrealist.]

Right. I can see how it would be confusing.The quote that Larry brought out there is as far as I know the general understanding of what was happening. Simply they changed their minds and did not tell us. Their way of telling us was to release this big secret a little at a time. Funny thing is that they seemed a little confused themselves if not miffed that we were confused. In reality it is simply that that "parallel" model just did not work. (By their own admission) They had to just start over and yes, that means everything they did in the 9x cycle is gone. This is why they made such a big point out of "LW9.6 being the best version to date" and "We will continue to support it.." That is the way I read between the lines the first time. Later they admitted to everything I kind of suspected. But that's is OK. Core is here. It is about time.

 

[jasonwestmas]

Right. I can see how it would be confusing.The quote that Larry brought out there is as far as I know the general understanding of what was happening. Simply they changed their minds and did not tell us. Their way of telling us was to release this big secret a little at a time. Funny thing is that they seemed a little confused themselves if not miffed that we were confused. In reality it is simply that that "parallel" model just did not work. (By their own admission) They had to just start over and yes, that means everything they did in the 9x cycle is gone. This is why they made such a big point out of "LW9.6 being the best version to date" and "We will continue to support it.." That is the way I read between the lines the first time. Later they admitted to everything I kind of suspected. But that's is OK. Core is here. It is about time.

Yeah, I suspect you are right. That the CORE thing started out being related to 9.x and 10.x release using much of 9.x features, but then NT suddenly changed their mind due to too many limitations in the LW architecture. It was a good move regardless! I'm glad NT started over, I'll still get plenty of use out of 9.6 anyway.

 

[SplineGod]

Im also thinking that this should have been decided and acted upon much earlier. This dev teams had LW now since version 8 which has been how long ago? I would think that one of the first things that would be done is do an inventory of the code to see just where it was at, limitations etc etc. It just seems strange that its only being discovered quite recently how bad or how limited the old code has been.

 

[Dexter2999]

I absolutely support Newtek and the idea of CORE. I will be ugrading at least one of my licenses when I can.

But, what I was trying to point out that the talk of a group project to showcase a discontinued 9.6 even as CORE is introduced and 9.6 being a "lame duck" product.

This isn't a slight of LW in any way. I just would hate to see alot of people put alot of effort into a project that would have a stigma attached to it. People would still enjoy it but it wouldn't neccesarily result in more LW users. How many people have watched the YouTube video of the guy SpeedPainting the Mona Lisa? Do you think this has raised the number of Paint Users? Not likely. But it doesn't detract from the accomplishment itself.

To those who are still enthused with the project and intend to move forward, more power to you guys. I'll be following closely.

 

[Cageman]

The modeling tools work fine for hard body modeling and basic organic modeling, but we all know that LW fails miserably in handling UVs and is a cludge at fine organic detailing.

In what way does LW "fail miserably" regarding UVs?

Sure, the native tools to create and manipulate UVs are old, I still think that LWs way of storing UVs are great (actually, the whole vertex map implementation in LW is among the best in the industry).

Anyhow... I have lost count on how much trouble it is to make use of multiple UV-sets in Maya. Lets not even go into all rendering trouble with MR that is related to UVs.

I guess it's about experience... I mean... doing full CG-productions with hundreds, if not even thousands of objects in Maya, and you start to notice why some things in LW are so sweet.

 

[Surrealist.]

Im also thinking that this should have been decided and acted upon much earlier. This dev teams had LW now since version 8 which has been how long ago? I would think that one of the first things that would be done is do an inventory of the code to see just where it was at, limitations etc etc. It just seems strange that its only being discovered quite recently how bad or how limited the old code has been.

Yep, I agree, it should have been earlier. I was on the fence about it myself because I understood the financial problems they were faced with. But I could not shake the feeling in my gut that, man, they should have dumped it.

Ironically, here we are, it is the same problem. Time/money. It will take time and money.

So now another way to look at what they are doing is putting the money part of the problem over to the CORE members. And with 9.6 being supported and working to keep as much data portable between apps in the mean time handles the time.

I just think it would have been better if they had simply said. "Look, we want to do this but it is going to take your support. We are not a big company with unlimited resources. To make it happen we will need time and your money. Here is how it will work..."

That stated as such would be so much better. I think they feel that the best practice is to just say little and try and get as much support on a mystery promise.

I think if you do core you have to look at it that way. You have to say, this is my opportunity to help develop this and the trade off is I get to help shape its outcome.

I would be good with that. If I had the money, that's the way I'd approach it. Just as a nice little investment into the my future as far as an app goes. A little risky but, I think it would be worth it.

What I think NewTek needs more of is to restore confidence. I don't think they do that by handling things they way they have.

I think more up front statements and honesty would be better than this idea of doing things on a mystery. In the long run it would win out.

Delivering what they actually promise would be a good start. And then if they do change course, that is fine. But be upfront. Tell us straight. Tell us now and don't make us plead for the information. Especially and here is the kicker, especially when the thing you are releasing is a 180 turn from what you have been telling us you were doing over that last few years. Nothing wrong with that, but picking that opportunity as the time to be mysterious can create confusion rather than the intended effect of a brilliant marketing ploy.

And worse, operating this way only sets up for more disappointment in the future, when people realize, "Oh my god, they really did mean it was starting over. It has been 2 years and still no CA tools! I didn't sign up for this!"

Will it take that long? I don't know. But I think one should not rule it out.

I think they underestimate us. I think many would go in for the long haul. Many of the same people who are anyway. And I think many people would do so with an up front understanding that it could be 1-3 years before seeing the final full blown bug-free product with ALL features intact. And the whole way getting more and more features ported over on a gradual basis.

Obviously I can not speak for everyone, but that is my take on it.

 

[bryguy]

That is pretty much my take on it too Surrealist...
I say 3/4 years before we can get rid of 9.6 though!

I agree that NT dont give us much credit...
There is only about 10 people here that are as stupid as NT thinks we all are!

 

[Surrealist.]

That long? OK maybe that is realistic, who knows. As long as CORE has more and more to offer I suppose it would be tolerated.

As far as giving credit, I don't know what they are thinking exactly. But what ever it is, it has that effect, at least to me.

Interesting that you have a similar take.

 

[SplineGod]

I agree about the length of time needed mainly because Core isnt an extension of LW its a completely new app.
LWs been thru the production wringer for years and has been battle tested. LWs strengths and shortcomings are generally well understood and workaround have been developed to cover the weak points. Core will be given certain features but then there will be a period of time to implement those features in a way that preserves what we like about LW as opposed to how everyone else implements them. Then the long process of hammering on it to make it bulletproof for production work. I think 3 - 4 years is actually being generous.