It's Bob Hoods baby, and Bob is also responsible for LScript as well. I
would certainly hope (I know) it's being worked on and I hope someone there
is coming to the realisation that it's busted and doesn't work as
advertised. I'd personally prefer it if Bob was off the StealthNet project.
I'm not having a go, but I think it's long stretch for Bob to be doing both
on-going LScript (priority 1)and on-going StealthNet (priority 2).
They are both crucial to LightWave and LScript is developed more than
StealthNet, just by virtue of the of the number of LScript updates available
vs. the number of StealthNet ones available (0).
I say separate it off to a group of programmers that can spend real
productive time on it (not that Bob hasn't) and know all about SysV
networking and are RFC aware and adherent, and give us something that
LightWavers can be amply proud of and something for the others to lust
after - imagine that - WAN/LAN rendering for free, per node, so easy to use
and so reliable that people actually dump their preferred distributive
rendering system and move to LightWave - a dream??? I believe not, if NewTek
can take the time to boost this sad feature and make a super big deal out of
it. Expensive to develop but the kudos for doing it will benefit NewTek far
into the future.
There has to come a time where NewTek admit that right from the start of the
distributive rendering scenario with LightWave, it's been a tagged on part
of the program. It was semi-integrated in 3.X, Integrated in 4.0,
5.0,5.5,184.108.40.206.6.5, but still not majorly developed or attended to really.
We got the brilliant LightNet for 5.X versions that works like ScreamerNet
should (all graphical, node restarts, frame re-renders and notification via
other than computer means when a scene has finished to name a few features).
It worked with TCP/IP and standard Windows (i.e. Un*x) type networking and
all was fine and dandy. Newtek then go and change the config files and
LightNet becomes useless, leaving us to grapple with an incomplete, overly
complex and partly functioning StealthNet.
It's intentions are good and it's advertised to make it enticing, but it's
broken and it's unacceptable, frankly.
Quote:> does anyone know if stealthNet is still being worked on?
> whether at NewTek or anywhere else?
> any info at all?
> * - *