Will you upgrade/buy when/if Lightwave 2021 comes out?

[Marander]

.

 

[chunderburger]

there is a nasty bug in 2020.0.2 which makes it useless. animate something with deformers and nodes, then press play and then try and do anything. you loose all input and cannot exit from play mode. Must kill off Lightwave via task manager. 2019 looks to be the last usable version.

When are bugs to be fixed? where is this support that was talked of in the blog?

 

[MichaelBeckwith]

Agreed Michael. As with all things in the visual arts, knowing how to produce great work is all about understanding composition, light and shadow and how to work it.

The 7D Mk I is still a very good DSLR that can produce outstanding results when placed in the hands of a pro photographer. My view is that there's too many so called artists who are constantly buying into the mantra of having the latest and greatest because they think it will improve the quality of their work, when in actual fact all it does is serve to limit their problem solving skills.

It's truly saddening to me to see the number of young 3D modelers and animators who have absolutely no clue about fundamental art and animation principles who then wonder why their work isn't working out the way they're visualising. I'm from the old school and I was taught the techniques to employ in order to break problems down to solve them, and when I show some these kids how I achieve certain animated sequences without the need for motion capture, plug-ins or tracking tools they are stunned that such things are possible because all they've ever known is that they have to get the latest tool to solve the problem at hand.

I tell them, that they aren't true artists if they've never learned the fundamentals. And if they continue to rely on tools to do the work for them, they never will be.

Just for your information, I still sometimes will use the Canon 7D MK I today over a full frame camera, and will get better photographs. Photographers who disagree don't understand cropfactor and frames per second if they argue that fullframe will ALWAYS trump APS-C. I also agree that it is important to learn the fundamentals before jumping into gear. To this day people that do Computer Science say as a Software Engineer why were you taught Software Engineering in Modula 2 and not C++. They don't realise that Software Engineer teaches you how to "Engineer Software" not teaching you C++ or not teaching you Modula 2 and they never get it!

For those that don't get the last statement you can do "Software Engineering" in C++ and/or Modula 2. You are learning "Software Engineering" that so happens to use C++ and/or Modula 2.

 

[WaveRider]

He sells crypto art and makes $3.5 mio with his renders in a single weekend and his latest sale is a 9 second animation (in my opinion horribly lit and textured) for 6.6 million dollars.

Mind-boggling. This has "money laundering scheme" written all over it.

 

[MichaelBeckwith]

Mind-boggling. This has "money laundering scheme" written all over it.

It is even funnier that people who do "money laundering" think that money does actually exist.

 

[prometheus]

Well, the world is changing. I agree art fundamentals are important for 'real' art and the things I personally like to see.

Also, I agree skills are more important than tools, even though I like to use the best and most efficient tools for the job whenever possible (not just 3D). Problem solving skills are important and required for more complex projects anyway, but not for basic stuff.

However that's maybe not what younger people like. For example Beeple, the well known Cinema 4D artist.

I really can't stand his daily renders, to me this is not art but he seems to hit a nerve for many.

His dailies (since about 13 years) contain stock meshes, simple shapes, some very basic modeling with extrusions and bevels and free DAZ characters.

He even titles his work Beeple Crap.

He sells crypto art and makes $3.5 mio with his renders in a single weekend and his latest sale is a 9 second animation (in my opinion horribly lit and textured) for 6.6 million dollars.

"We’re at this moment in time where there could be a drastic shift—a demographic shift, a generational shift—when it comes to what excites younger collectors, ...”

Beeple NFT Artwork Sells for $6.6 M. Ahead of Viral Christie’s Auction

According to the online marketplace, the work broke the record for a digital artwork at auction.

www.artnews.com

Yes..not a very "nice" image or good lit, but that isn´t the importance to sell the "art" it´s the items, subject and message it may have or give as an expression.
It´wouldn´t even reach a mid page on a normal 3D forum gallery..if it weren´t for something in there.

 

[chunderburger]

there are plenty of morons with way too much money out there

 

[prometheus]

Shabazzy Quote..

Agreed Michael. As with all things in the visual arts, knowing how to produce great work is all about understanding composition, light and shadow and how to work it.

Well Generally, and I think that should be a guide for it as well, but that isn´t always the truth as for how it is valued as art, you can vomit on a canvas, draw with your own thesis or blood, but a stone in the middle of the canvas, but offset i mm, nail a bird to the canvas...all that and put it to exhibition and there you go, expressive art.
When there is people reacting and then aknowledging it, it may be called art..even though it may have none of the General requirements I mentioned as guideline for great visual art.

then thera are middle positions where you do not have those extrems, could be flat line art, which has no shadows, no lighting, only forms and curves..which by themself may have a sort of composition in it´s drawn lines, but it is minimal, I could still call things like that for great art, so shadows and lighting isn´t always necessary at all, but mostly and generally they are.

 

[MichaelBeckwith]

Prometheus Quote

Well Generally, and I think that should be a guide for it as well, but that isn´t always the truth as for how it is valued as art, you can vomit on a canvas, draw with your own thesis or blood, but a stone in the middle of the canvas, but offset i mm, nail a bird to the canvas...all that and put it to exhibition and there you go, expressive art.
When there is people reacting and then aknowledging it, it may be called art..even though it may have none of the General requirements I mentioned as guideline for great visual art.

then thera are middle positions where you do not have those extrems, could be flat line art, which has no shadows, no lighting, only forms and curves..which by themself may have a sort of composition in it´s drawn lines, but it is minimal, I could still call things like that for great art, so shadows and lighting isn´t always necessary at all, but mostly and generally they are.

Photography is made up of two words photos which means light and the other graphy which means writing. The literal translation means writing with light which which applies to drawing, painting, photography and 3D rendering. Now you can draw light by painting with white paint and you can also paint shadow with black paint. There is nothing wrong with painting a shadow with black paint, or with black vomit. If the vomit has the appearance of shadow on a canvas you are still painting with light and shadow even if the shadow in this case is expressed with vomit which might be black vomit instead of black paint.

Stranger still is when you look at the painting you might not know if the the shadows are painted in black paint or black vomit. It is still painting with light and it is still art in my opinion. Whether they use black paint or black vomit is a matter of artistic choice. Those looking at the painting might not tell either way. There is artistic bullshit out there but deciding which is artistic bullshit and which is not is a lot lot lot harder than you think.

One last comment, what or how a person values art changes from person to person. The person that pays an insane amount for a simple render of a box or a sphere is not silly or stupid. They might know it is only a simple render of a box or a sphere but "how they value the art" to that person might be expressed in a lot of money. It "probably" isn't that they just have a lot of money, and it "probably" isn't that the the artwork is simple or complex, it is just that the "persoanlly" value you that piece of art work differently than you.

The take away here is if someone spends a lot of money whether they be rich or poor on a simple render of a cube, chances are they are NOT stupid OR rich they just value the artwork differently compared to you. So far as I am concerned if they value a simple piece of artwork and spend a lot on it, they are not stupid, nor are they the most stupidest person in the room, if we are talking about stupidity and the value of art here.

Some people argue that some work is "priceless". It doesn't necessarily that it has no value, on the contrary it has so much value, that you cannot put a numerical figure such as in cash on that piece of artwork. If a piece of simple artwork such as render of a box or sphere is classed as priceless then you cannot even buy it with money, let alone a lot of money. What is art, what has value and what is priceless is all subjective and differs from one person to another.

 

[scott.newman.ct]

Personally I would be very keen to upgrade when / if it comes out.

I would really like to see Lightwave go from strength to strength.

 

[MichaelBeckwith]

Personally I would be very keen to upgrade when / if it comes out.

I would really like to see Lightwave go from strength to strength.

I only really want to upgrade for gpu rendering. Not that it will make my work and skills better, my work and skills suck donkeys ass and with gpu rendering they will still suck donkeys ass. The good thing is that with gpu rendering though even though my art and skills still suck, my rendering times will come down.

 

[prometheus]

Photography is made up of two words photos which means light and the other graphy which means writing. The literal translation means writing with light which which applies to drawing, painting, photography and 3D rendering. Now you can draw light by painting with white paint and you can also paint shadow with black paint. There is nothing wrong with painting a shadow with black paint, or with black vomit. If the vomit has the appearance of shadow on a canvas you are still painting with light and shadow even if the shadow in this case is expressed with vomit which might be black vomit instead of black paint.

Stranger still is when you look at the painting you might not know if the the shadows are painted in black paint or black vomit. It is still painting with light and it is still art in my opinion. Whether they use black paint or black vomit is a matter of artistic choice. Those looking at the painting might not tell either way. There is artistic bullshit out there but deciding which is artistic bullshit and which is not is a lot lot lot harder than you think.

One last comment, what or how a person values art changes from person to person. The person that pays an insane amount for a simple render of a box or a sphere is not silly or stupid. They might know it is only a simple render of a box or a sphere but "how they value the art" to that person might be expressed in a lot of money. It "probably" isn't that they just have a lot of money, and it "probably" isn't that the the artwork is simple or complex, it is just that the "persoanlly" value you that piece of art work differently than you.

The take away here is if someone spends a lot of money whether they be rich or poor on a simple render of a cube, chances are they are NOT stupid OR rich they just value the artwork differently compared to you. So far as I am concerned if they value a simple piece of artwork and spend a lot on it, they are not stupid, nor are they the most stupidest person in the room, if we are talking about stupidity and the value of art here.

Some people argue that some work is "priceless". It doesn't necessarily that it has no value, on the contrary it has so much value, that you cannot put a numerical figure such as in cash on that piece of artwork. If a piece of simple artwork such as render of a box or sphere is classed as priceless then you cannot even buy it with money, let alone a lot of money. What is art, what has value and what is priceless is all subjective and differs from one person to another.

Line art has nothing to do with shadows, it isn´t shadow, if a motive is painted with the illusion of a shadow, then it´s a drawn shadow, not a real shadow, the rest is just microstructures and how we perceive it as some kind of color on the so called white canvas or whatever canvas color you choose.

I think I may misunderstanding what you try to describe here though, but...
As for going in to vomit description of wether or not it is shadows or not, isn´t really the issue here, vomit is not a shadow per say, for classic painting on canvas you do not paint with shadows or light, It´s the work how we paint to create a shadow or light, which is an illustion, but otherwise it´s the same microstructural change when the chemicals react..the only microshadow to talk of tecnically is the micromillimeter thickness of the vomit, that may cause a shadow effect depending on the actual true light in the room, but there´s no shadow per say in the actual vomit paint...huh, can´t believe we need to go in to a debate of vomit on a canvas to explain what art and shadow means on a canvas
then again, the vomit could be huge..and it may be thick and cause a lot of shadows, but shadows is nothing else than light affecting the matter, it´s not the matter itself on the canvas, how and if it is throwned to the canvas with the intention to create a shadow illusion is a different matter, and I would reckon it requires a desing to do so and not per gut feeling vomit expression only in order to acheive that.

I would argue that we do not paint with light nor shadows at all if we look at classic oil paint, pencil drawings or acryl, we just paint with colors that have a certain microstructure inherent within the chemicals of that color, the rest is just the hard work to give the illusion of Light and Shadows, unless there is a plain line art drawing which has none of that, just opposing that the term of painting with light and shadow isn´t correct in my opinion.

Then we have the Davinci style of sfumato paining, which is about putting in several layers of oil, let it dry between layers, and those oil layers together with how light falls in and how we look at it from certain angles ..gives an impression of blur and depth.

Must add, the Art discussion is interesting, but it could be talked about endlessly I suppose, and it would go too much off topic from the will you upgrade topic.

 

[MichaelBeckwith]

One thing that people seem to miss here. If Lightwave 3D 2021 does come out I will probably buy it. Before other people say that "at the moment" Lightwave 3D sucks compared B L E N D E R, Maya, C4D or 3Ds Max, one thing you have to understand from me is I like Lightwave 3D because of its uniqueness in being Lightwave 3D. I am not going to use B L E NDER, Maya, C4D or 3DS Max because it is better or worse.

Some people don't get that I like Lightwave 3D because it is Lightwave 3D, not because it has features x, y, z, or that because at the moment it is "cool" to like Lightwave 3D at the moment. No.............. to be honest I like Lightwave 3D because it is Lightwave 3D. Its not because it has better or worse functions, its not because the editor is better or worse and it isn't because the renders are better or worse. To be quite honest one of the reasons I like Lightwave 3D is because it is Lightwave 3D.

Now before you clever people say that is bullshit and that what I am saying is a circular argument. I need to let you know that I know what a circular argument is and this IS NOT THE CASE here.

 

[prometheus]

I only really want to upgrade for gpu rendering. Not that it will make my work and skills better, my work and skills suck donkeys ass and with gpu rendering they will still suck donkeys ass. The good thing is that with gpu rendering though even though my art and skills still suck, my rendering times will come down.

Gpu is one of the two Major implementations I would require, not certain of which One I would rate as number one though between GPU rendering and Modeling tools in Layout ..which is the second item required for any future LW upgrade consideration, o and yes, not even that..one major part is how they choose to communicate..not only just because I would need to know, but it´s really a matter of general customers will leave and go to those who have a more open communication about the development, and that affects the sales I am convinced on that, so the fact they have this policy...is a major factor to a failed concept, and I do not invest in failed concepts, so yeah..they need to implement a new changed philosophy as well for me to have that motivation of upgrading.

For me I think all that is the "Holy" three subjects that need to change.

 

[prometheus]

One thing that people seem to miss here. If Lightwave 3D 2021 does come out I will probably buy it. Before other people say that "at the moment" Lightwave 3D sucks compared B L E N D E R, Maya, C4D or 3Ds Max, one thing you have to understand from me is I like Lightwave 3D because of its uniqueness in being Lightwave 3D. I am not going to use B L E NDER, Maya, C4D or 3DS Max because it is better or worse.

Some people don't get that I like Lightwave 3D because it is Lightwave 3D, not because it has features x, y, z, or that because at the moment it is "cool" to like Lightwave 3D at the moment. No.............. to be honest I like Lightwave 3D because it is Lightwave 3D. Its not because it has better or worse functions, its not because the editor is better or worse and it isn't because the renders are better or worse. To be quite honest one of the reasons I like Lightwave 3D is because it is Lightwave 3D.

Now before you clever people say that is bullshit and that what I am saying is a circular argument. I need to let you know that I know what a circular argument is and this IS NOT THE CASE here.

Well unless you put an attribute to what it is doing for you, it´s not gonna have any weight to anyone you communicate that to, the expression you bring forth is that it in essential could be anything within the software, which you can´t describe, other than the fancy word of Lightwave3D..it just comes across as meaningless what you state.

You kind of contradict yourself by saying it´s not about features,functions editor, something worse or better..yet those things are parts of what makes a software unique or not, and you spoke about youliked Lightwaves uniqueness in being Lightwave 3D, and surely just the name Lightwave 3D isn´t the uniqueness you care about, then you could just rename the shortcuts of your blender software to be Lightwave 3D wouldn´t you?

 

[MichaelBeckwith]

Gpu is one of the two Major implementations I would require, not certain of which One I would rate as number one though between GPU rendering and Modeling tools in Layout ..which is the second item required for any future LW upgrade consideration, o and yes, not even that..one major part is how they choose to communicate..not only just because I would need to know, but it´s really a matter of general customers will leave and go to those who have a more open communication about the development, and that affects the sales I am convinced on that, so the fact they have this policy...is a major factor to a failed concept, and I do not invest in failed concepts, so yeah..they need to implement a new changed philosophy as well for me to have that motivation of upgrading.

For me I think all that is the "Holy" three subjects that need to change.

GPU rendering might be the future, but in my opinion it is in its infancy and that is an understatement. First of all a rendering package is sold as a product and the main buyers are probably commercial entities rather than hobbyists. As such the rendering package needs to address the main user base, rather than looking at the smaller percentiles of the distribution of the user base.

I am not a commercial modeller or renderer and need to make that clear. I do however believe that some big companies and self employed entities whether semi-professional or fully professional work with workloads that simply CANNOT be put into GPU memory AT THE MOMENT. As such a lot of rendering packages whilst starting to add GPU rendering to their program are look to the needs of the main users and not the hobbyists who only make up a small end percentile of the normal distribution.

I also don't want to get into an argument saying that you can render 5000 million different layers and composite it in video in post and CAN do it with a GPU right now. As for pros or semi pros I don't really like naming names, but I am aware that Lewis on here does CPU rendering and GPU rendering and as a possible pro or semi pro he can possibly shed more like on the situation as a working modeller and render, if he doesn't mind chipping in at the moment or anyone else that is a pro or semi pro. To be honest I still cannot see a fully fledged film such as 'The Avengers' style film special effects been done soley on a GPU just yet.

I would like to see Lightwave 2021 being released, but am not surprised if GPU rendering is not included just yet. There isn't probably a need for it for the core user base and probably won't be a need until GPU ram goes above 128+ GB and above. Until that happens GPU rendering is just a hobbyists wet dream.

 

[MichaelBeckwith]

Well unless you put an attribute to what it is doing for you, it´s not gonna have any weight to anyone you communicate that to, the expression you bring forth is that it in essential could be anything within the software, which you can´t describe, other than the fancy word of Lightwave3D..it just comes across as meaningless what you state.

You kind of contradict yourself by saying it´s not about features,functions editor, something worse or better..yet those things are parts of what makes a software unique or not, and you spoke about youliked Lightwaves uniqueness in being Lightwave 3D, and surely just the name Lightwave 3D isn´t the uniqueness you care about, then you could just rename the shortcuts of your blender software to be Lightwave 3D wouldn´t you?

I try to explain this in simplest terms. Lightwave 3D is a tool. I like the tool. I know that there are other tools which are better, but I like this tool and choose to use it. I get the same statement from fan bois in photography, they say don't use Canon cameras they suck! Nikons better! To which I respond irrespective of how good or bad Canon is and irrespective of how good and bad Nikon is as a tool. I like Canon cameras as a "tool" even if it is a worse tool compared to Nikon and you do not get it. You also don't get that if Lighwave 3D is a worse tool than B L E N D E R I will still always use Lightwave 3D and NEVER use B L E N D E R.

Just so everyone understands what it means to be an artist and for an artist to choose his or her tools. A carpenter is always praised for the finished product, rather than the tools that he or she uses. A master carpenter can create the most epic piece of carpentry with the most basic of tools. Please stop telling me what tools to use as an artist. I think you are missing what I am trying to say, when I do not want to use the tool B L E N D E R. You are trying to argue that B L E N D E R is superior and are missing the point entirely.

Just to clarify I have used Lightwave 3D, 3Ds Max and B L E N D E R and others (trial versions and hated ALL the others). For my own personal preferance for a tool I have chosen Lightwave 3D for me as a tool and want to only use Lightwave 3D for 3D modelling and rendering. I have tried others and as a choice of tool as an artist I have chosen Lightwave 3D. It is NOT the best tool, it is NOT the most expensive tool and it is NOT the most shiniest new cool tool around, but it is what I want and choose to use. Hope that clarifies things, yes there are better tools, yes there are more expensive tools and yes there are more shinier newer tools that exist, but as an artist I am NOT interested in them.

I really don't want other people trying to sell me or persuade me to use other tools in this Lightwave 3D Forum. I only really want to talk about Lightwave 3D here in the Lightwave 3D Forum. Sure other programs come up in the forum an sure we can debate them as I am sure that is allowed. But for example I don't want someone from Adobe to try and convince me to try 3Ds max and sell it to me in a Lightwave 3D Forum again and again and again. If Adobe wanted to make that pitch to me they can do, just please NOT in the Lightwave 3D forum. There is a time and place for everything. One last thing. I AM NOT going to do a sales pitch for Lightwave 3D to Adobe 3Ds Max users in the official Adobe forums for 3Ds Max and if I did, I don't think Adobe would like it, nor would they tolerate it. Which is interesting.

 

[Marander]

.

 

[prometheus]

I try to explain this in simplest terms. Lightwave 3D is a tool. I like the tool. I know that there are other tools which are better, but I like this tool and choose to use it. I get the same statement from fan bois in photography, they say don't use Canon cameras they suck! Nikons better! To which I respond irrespective of how good or bad Canon is and irrespective of how good and bad Nikon is as a tool. I like Canon cameras as a "tool" even if it is a worse tool compared to Nikon and you do not get it. You also don't get that if Lighwave 3D is a worse tool than B L E N D E R I will still always use Lightwave 3D and NEVER use B L E N D E R.

Just so everyone understands what it means to be an artist and for an artist to choose his or her tools. A carpenter is always praised for the finished product, rather than the tools that he or she uses. A master carpenter can create the most epic piece of carpentry with the most basic of tools. Please stop telling me what tools to use as an artist. I think you are missing what I am trying to say, when I do not want to use the tool B L E N D E R. You are trying to argue that B L E N D E R is superior and are missing the point entirely.

Just to clarify I have used Lightwave 3D, 3Ds Max and B L E N D E R and others (trial versions and hated ALL the others). For my own personal preferance for a tool I have chosen Lightwave 3D for me as a tool and want to only use Lightwave 3D for 3D modelling and rendering. I have tried others and as a choice of tool as an artist I have chosen Lightwave 3D. It is NOT the best tool, it is NOT the most expensive tool and it is NOT the most shiniest new cool tool around, but it is what I want and choose to use. Hope that clarifies things, yes there are better tools, yes there are more expensive tools and yes there are more shinier newer tools that exist, but as an artist I am NOT interested in them.

I really don't want other people trying to sell me or persuade me to use other tools in this Lightwave 3D Forum. I only really want to talk about Lightwave 3D here in the Lightwave 3D Forum. Sure other programs come up in the forum an sure we can debate them as I am sure that is allowed. But for example I don't want someone from Adobe to try and convince me to try 3Ds max and sell it to me in a Lightwave 3D Forum again and again and again. If Adobe wanted to make that pitch to me they can do, just please NOT in the Lightwave 3D forum. There is a time and place for everything. One last thing. I AM NOT going to do a sales pitch for Lightwave 3D to Adobe 3Ds Max users in the official Adobe forums for 3Ds Max and if I did, I don't think Adobe would like it, nor would they tolerate it. Which is interesting.

Sorry Michael, but all you convey to me is your choice of a tool, because you have choosen to do so, without any debate on why you choose to do so other than you have choosen to do so...your point of view is to have a none attributal approach to why, and as such there is nothing to discuss.

It´s just complete meaningless to any discussion at all in the forums where we debate on why and what attributes it brings to you as a user, it can only be of any meaning for you since you deep inside know exactly what it brings to you, for us others..it has no meaning what so ever to even debate around it.

to note, I haven´t and arent telling you what tool to choose, but appearantely you do not go in to discussion on Why it brings such joy and why you choose it....I am ok about your choice, but don´t even try to debate around it, just do your work in silence since you can´t describe anyway what it is that makes you want to choose it.

am I still misunderstanding you, or do you misunderstand me here?
Can´t grasp why anyone would debate around something that is completely without attributes, if not..it must have something you can debate around, if you do not want to go deeper in to that..it´s fine, but it would be better if you simply put it that way and not get lost in attributeless terms.

I think you get too fixated by people trying to "sell" another tool, that is not the case with me, and most others not..it may occasionally be a biproduct in the discussion due to that Lightwave can´t handle some tasks well, that should be served for developers and vizrt to do something about it, not for lightwave defenders to get upset about and think we are trying to sell blender or maya, modo to them.

 

[Marander]

.