All Lightwave Music Video

All Lightwave Music Video

Post by Tolar » Sun, 09 Feb 2003 01:42:25



On Fri, 7 Feb 2003 11:19:40 -0000, Chris Brizon wrote..

Quote:>never been a problem with XSI, and those side bars are thicker that LW's. I
>think even with quad view it would still leave a lot of space for actual
>working. I have modeler setup something similar at the moment, with the four
>panels, numeric, layers etc. on the side, never been a problem of not having
>enough space, [..]

--
Personal preference, i guess; i already have problems with
view resolution when working with more complicated drawings
and/or long models. And since combined setup would leave you
with a viewport of ~8oo x 48o..[when using screen resolution
of 128o x 96o] would feel too much like working on Amiga
again, am afraid.

T.
...not in the good way in this particular situation.

 
 
 

All Lightwave Music Video

Post by Chris Brizo » Sun, 09 Feb 2003 01:53:15


well not really, since if your comparing it to the Amiga, it would be
fitting the viewport and the toolbars etc. into the 800x480 example of
yours, instead of having them on the outside of it as this way demonstrates,
you can of course hide them as normal anyway.. besides, you at one point
mentioned using quad views, which are even smaller than that, so im sure
you'll live :)


Quote:> On Fri, 7 Feb 2003 11:19:40 -0000, Chris Brizon wrote..

> >never been a problem with XSI, and those side bars are thicker that LW's.
I
> >think even with quad view it would still leave a lot of space for actual
> >working. I have modeler setup something similar at the moment, with the
four
> >panels, numeric, layers etc. on the side, never been a problem of not
having
> >enough space, [..]
> --
> Personal preference, i guess; i already have problems with
> view resolution when working with more complicated drawings
> and/or long models. And since combined setup would leave you
> with a viewport of ~8oo x 48o..[when using screen resolution
> of 128o x 96o] would feel too much like working on Amiga
> again, am afraid.

> T.
> ...not in the good way in this particular situation.


 
 
 

All Lightwave Music Video

Post by Exceptio » Sun, 09 Feb 2003 03:39:28



Quote:> Hi,

> > -Make UV maps work in the freaking preview ball for chr*sts sake

> Make a "Load custom object" in a *resizable* surface preview... kinda
lillte
> Viper. Max has it, and its damn useful. More than Viper i think, because
it
> traces everything.

> > -Make the image editor less buggy (crashes)

> Put into in a crop\resize\rotate\stretch\clip tools and so on.

Yes, and a PROPER hdri expose plugin... I dont get it, that black point /
white point never works. I dont understand why you cant have one that just
works with stepping like camera's and HDRshop.

Quote:> > -Being able to make an object exclusive from reflection instead of only
> > rays. Very important for HDRI lighting.
> > -Implemented Vertibevel. The one powerfull tool modeler misses.

> A storage of multiple bevel sessions would be engough

Umm, I mean beveling multiple faces as if it were one. Smooth scale sucks.

Quote:> > -Being able to tile UV images. How hard can it be?!

> ehm.. already doable.

No its not. I tried it on a complex UV map and scaling the map outside of
the 0 and 1 regions(or the other way around, I always mix em up) just takes
too long, is tedious and confusing and not intuitive at all. Just have a
tile factor option in the
surfaces: UV texture panel

Quote:> > -Adjustable curve for light falloffs.

> agree. Add a graph to design falloff, so light can kee it intensity
constant
> for a while and then decay, etcetc.

> > -selective radiosity bounce for objects (for instance a skydome should
> have
> > 2 and all others one)

> And a surface parameter to make radiosity emittance independent from
diffuse
> param. A want to see my floor at 75% diffuse but i want it to emit a 300%
> radiosity.

Yes, thats a good one...

And a Juliette that works!

 
 
 

All Lightwave Music Video

Post by Exceptio » Sun, 09 Feb 2003 03:42:20


Am I actually hearing someone request ICONS to be used in LW?
Oh my god... where is the world comming to. When LW will substitute function
names with icons, I will sell my copy of LW. As an interface designer, I
have utmost respect for LW's interface, and to put in an icon would kill it.
Instantly.





> > On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 18:45:00 +0100, "Philours"

> > >Not me because i think that there is a HUGE difference between
"cosmetics"
> > >and features.
> > >Windows compliant or specific interface won't change the features of
the app
> > >and this is really not the same level of development/problems.

> There are plenty of good reasons to keep the interface the way it is.
> My only reason to have a mor "Windows" like interface (proper context
> sensitive menus on the right mouse button, with a minimum of cut copy
> and paste, on the right mouse button. A curved back arrow for undo.
> More undos, everywhere in the program, stuff like that). Not because
> it's better, but because I use a lot of different programs, and it is nice
> when things are in the same places from one program to the next.

> > we also are likely to never see a windows interface to assist with its
> > platform independence.

> Point taken, but  I, personally, don't move from one computer platform
> to the next, but I do have to remember how to use a lot of differendt
software.
> There can be months that I don't use Lightwave, and months that I don't
use
> After Effects, etc..

> David

 
 
 

All Lightwave Music Video

Post by Exceptio » Sun, 09 Feb 2003 04:00:18


Quote:> As far as i'm concerned i know that if liwghtwave 8 keeps separated apps i
> immediately leave it for Maya because it will be the sign of the beginning
> of it's end and i dont need to fight with my tools, i need
future-oriented,
> quick and efficient ones.

I see your points but I think what you say is based on a wrong sense of
logic. Just because OTHER applications have an integrated app. Lightwave is
old fashioned because it doesnt?
I'm sorry, but I think that is sheer nonsense. You say people only think of
themselves when ranting about what they want, but so do you. I happen to
truly benefit of the separation of layout and modeler. This doesnt mean it
should stay separated just because I enjoy its benefits, however I can name
a few functional key factors in why it is beneficial to most people. The
most important aspect in this is that it is already a separated application,
and the division is clean and every proper user of LW knows exactly what he
can do in modeler or layout. If you build on this and continue to enhance
the programs it doesnt mean the program will be behind its competitors
because it doesnt have an integrated app. If you can do what you need in the
same or shorter amount of time as in the other programs you have succeeded,
whether or not you have integrated apps.
I can tell you why its beneficial to me. When I have layout open I do not
want the memory usage or interface clutter of the modeling application.
Opening modeler with some scenes I have sometimes doubles my mem usage. Now
the funny thing is that, when you add up modeler and layouts mem usage you
just get a little over the mem usage I get when I have the same scene open
in MAX 5. That means I save considerable memory from not having modeler open
over MAX. But most importantly: I can model whilst my computer is rendering.
You can't do that in MAX or Maya or any other integrated app unless you
start 2 instances which is more than often not even possible, and then you'd
get the extra memory hit of another instance of the complete integrated
program.
Slight indication: 3ds max's minimum mem usage on my system is more than 80
mb, modeler's mem usage is 27 mb. Do the math.
But if there are good reasons to merge the two apps, and its an improvement
then I will still stick with LW, because it would be an improvement. If the
guys at Newtek decide not to and improve other things, then I will still
stick with Lw because it is my preference. Either way I am not going to
thereaten to leave LW to the wolves just because it is doing what it has
always done. Why dont you leave it for maya now? Since you seem so focussed
on having an integrated app, aparently that is the deciding factor for you
to decide whether the program is actually good or not. I think this is just
the implementation of it and doesnt say anything about its functional
quality.
 
 
 

All Lightwave Music Video

Post by Exceptio » Sun, 09 Feb 2003 04:02:20


Thats sad to hear but I experience that I get driven to LW more and more and
other apps just do not do what I need remotely anymore... People change,
people's work change and your needs will change. It will be sad for you I
guess to see that you are growing into another direction that LW is, but
this doesnt mean LW isnt growing.


Quote:> > Well -- for that version -- lets just see if we can keep you on the
shore.
> > ~~Deuce
> > NewTek

> I really hope, Deuce. But dont miss my words; i love LW and my "leaving"
> does not mean
> i wont keep updating LW til i'll be grandpa. Maybe i should apologize for
> being somewhat aggressive sometime.
> Mine is not a childish "threat", simply  my needings drive me toward other
> tools now to put *aside* LW... and this will cost me lots of money and lot
> of time, and i've not either..
> But let's see LW [?]  (look, i found the new slogan...)

> Bye
> Paolo Zambrini

 
 
 

All Lightwave Music Video

Post by Exceptio » Sun, 09 Feb 2003 04:03:33


Doesnt make me happy. Still gives me a double memory hit of modeler when Im
rendering and modeling at the same time.
The hub should just do what it should and should be tighter.


Quote:> My 2 & 1/2 cents:

> STEP 1: Intergrate layout and modeler into one kickass app.
> STEP 2: Include a standalone version of modeler in ver. 8 along with the
> intergrated LW8
> STEP 3: Get rid of the hub. (people who like the modeler seperate should
> use it seperate.)

> my thee steps to keep everybody happy :))

 
 
 

All Lightwave Music Video

Post by David McCal » Sun, 09 Feb 2003 04:03:21



> Am I actually hearing someone request ICONS to be used in LW?
> Oh my god... where is the world comming to. When LW will substitute function
> names with icons, I will sell my copy of LW. As an interface designer, I
> have utmost respect for LW's interface, and to put in an icon would kill it.
> Instantly.

I'm no longer pushing for a "Windows" interface. I was just explaining
why I thought it would be helpful to people that only use Lightwave
occasionally. Back when I was pushing for a standard interface, LW
wasn't worth the effort on anything but Windows anyway. As a user of
Windows applications all of the time, I have developed expectations of
context sensitive right mouse button function, undos and redos, open/
save, etc. Moving from application to application is far easier if the
interface is the same. That's all.

I realize that the LW power users only occasionally use other applications,
and find them awkward because of the icons, and menu locations,
that are foreign to them. We now have some Mac users (although I can't
understand why :-)

BTW, if Lightwave did add an undo icon (with a decent number of undo levels),
what would you buy to replace it after ditching LW?  Would you be against a
history function as used in Photoshop too? Just curious.

David

 
 
 

All Lightwave Music Video

Post by Exceptio » Sun, 09 Feb 2003 04:16:51


Quote:> Also in this case you have the choice whether you want to work on the
"prop" in
> the
> studio or in the workshop....you're not forced to take the prop to the
workshop
> every
> time you need a small change or adjustment. I think Aardman wouldn't be
happy
> with
> a setup like that ;-)

No but walking is significantly slower than pressing alt-tab.
I dont see any functional reasons from you why it SHOULD be an integrated
app. I alwso only hear it should be because maya and softimage are. Well
maya wasnt around a long time ago and softimage was, and softimage has
always been more expensive than lightwave and somepeople have always
preferred softimage or lw over the other, and it is still that way. I dont
see why now Newtek would miss its 'big chance' by not integrating it. It
would have missed it last year then too and the yer before, but still, Im
here still and many others are and I didnt really hear that Newtek was going
broke yet so it doesnt seem like too many people think this is _the_ factor
that decides if LW is a good app or not.
I dont get it, there's nothing in maya or Softimage that *I* cannot do in
lightwave because its not an integrated application. Seriously. But I have
my field of work and you have yours, so why dont you explain why?

Quote:> > But I tell you what I would very much like to see - and that's full
> > integration of a render preview in Modeller where I can see final output
of
> > my texturing on my object and the render angle could simply be based on
the
> > view selected in the OpenGL: preview window.

> Well..there's a start....just give it some more thought and you'll come
around
> ;-)

Well, thats not a start, thats still modeler as a separate application. I
dont mind that either but its just a logical nest step just as textured
openGL previews were implemented into modeler too over the last versions.
Thats not admitting that it should go more towards layout, thats just
extending modeler's functionaly, like it has every new version. And I dont
think this render preview from modeler would be too hard. Taking that the
render engine is a separate utility anyway also implemented into LWSN.exe,
it could just fire up the renderengine with a predefined set of scene stuff
defined by you earlier in layout, and just replace the object with the one
from modeler.

Quote:> > Now some may say that this is a bit hypocritical of me and that this is
> > partial integration anyway! - but essentially this is just developing
what
> > modeller already has  now by adding a render preview ability. It's what
we
> > already have just a little bit better and WITHOUT all the clutter of
having
> > the entire layout app there tagging along for the unused ride during the
> > modelling process.

I agree 100%.

Quote:> If Newtek does it properly there's hardly any more clutter than we have
now. In
> the
> ideal situation you would not loose  Modeler or Layout, but gain modeling
tools
> in
> Layout and animation tools in Modeler.

Indeed, but I would also need more RAM.

Quote:> > I mainly work in modeller as that is what I mainly do - I model -
sometimes
> > I "don't" even get to texture my meshes - that's done by someone else -
why
> > then should my work interface be unneccessaarily cluttered as a result
of
> > the merger?

> Because you're not the only one working with Lightwave ? Geez...

You arent either.

Quote:> > But I've just had an idea - if the core programming and certain
universal
> > inbuilt plugins were better integrated; couldn't we just give the end
user
> > the ability to *choose* whether they prefer an integrated app or a
divided
> > one when they install LWxx for the first time?
> If the merger would be done properly you would not have to and would
"never
> see" the animation tools if you were just modeling. Heck if the interface
is as
> customizable
> as it is now ( or better ) you could adjust it to you own liking. I see no
> problem there.

Yes, very true. It will in the end depend on the target audience Newtek
wants to address, and not to our personal preferences. If its up to me, Id
rather work with soemthing I like less and use more ram if that would "save"
lightwave, but I am not convinced it needs saving at all.
 
 
 

All Lightwave Music Video

Post by Fish » Sun, 09 Feb 2003 07:31:03


Quote:

> > If Newtek does it properly there's hardly any more clutter than we have
> now. In
> > the
> > ideal situation you would not loose  Modeler or Layout, but gain modeling
> tools
> > in
> > Layout and animation tools in Modeler.

> Indeed, but I would also need more RAM.

I keep reading that in this thread, but I just did a little test and guess what.
When I load
Modeler, Layout with the Hub active, with one object loaded in both Layout and
Modeler they all together eat 99640 K.
Now when I load the same object in Maya 4.0 , it uses "only" 85376 K.

So after all, Maya uses less memory then Lightwave. So much for that argument
:-0

grtz,

-- Fish
--  http://www.veryComputer.com/  |  http://www.*fish.nl  --

 
 
 

All Lightwave Music Video

Post by Tolar » Sun, 09 Feb 2003 07:01:38


On Fri, 7 Feb 2003 19:39:28 +0100, "Exception"

Quote:>> > -Being able to tile UV images. How hard can it be?!

>> ehm.. already doable.

>No its not.

--
Yes, it is.

Quote:>I tried it on a complex UV map and scaling the map outside of
>the 0 and 1 regions(or the other way around, I always mix em up) just takes
>too long, is tedious and confusing and not intuitive at all. Just have a
>tile factor option in the surfaces: UV texture panel

--
ctrl+u to unweld the polys if necessary, invoke Transform
UVs command and punch in the numbers -- 200% for 2
repetitions, 300% for 3 etc. Really takes no longer and is
functionally the same [i.e. equally simple/confusing] to
opening surfaces panel and entering 'tile factor' in there,
imo.

Quote:>And a Juliette that works!

--
Works fine for me...

Tolaris

 
 
 

All Lightwave Music Video

Post by Tolar » Sun, 09 Feb 2003 07:05:53


On Fri, 7 Feb 2003 16:53:15 -0000, Chris Brizon wrote..

Quote:>well not really, since if your comparing it to the Amiga, [..]

--
I was referring more to the exclusive follow-the-line-
in-tiny-viewport-to-find-that-next-vertex-to-select
experience rather than doing a technical comparison. :>

T.

 
 
 

All Lightwave Music Video

Post by Chris Brizo » Sun, 09 Feb 2003 07:24:26


hehe, okie.. simple fix. -fully- customisable GUI, and I mean fully. put
menu's, viewports, buttons -anywhere- you want them. build up a library of
Interface styles that can easily be switched back and forth, so you could
setup one interface specially for texture mapping, one for animation, one
for modeling and so on, maybe link them to F key shortcuts or other keys,
have little icons (yes dreaded icons :) up in the title bar to switch them
around, save a bit extra space. Keeps only the tools you need in the
interface at any given time, and they could be so easy to jump back and
forth with that switching from the animation setup to the modeling setup
would become second nature. Maya has something similar, but mostly for just
the menu bar, Softimage can do it and believe me its a very nice feature
that I've yet to really go in depth with, but the amount of customisation
that an interface in the LW style would give would be amazing. People could
make interfaces available to others on Newtek's website, Dual monitors would
obviously become supported, aswell as single or even triple monitor setups.
Each viewport could be independant in the interface editor, so you could
have one view on one monitor, and a couple on another, sized how you want
and with all the tools and controls you need.. perhaps add the option of
sticky panels, where, aswell as having viewports and menu's and buttons, you
could also place panels into the interface, so it would become part of it
and not just a panel, wouldn't dissapear or move around, it would be an
actual part of the chosen interface... having both apps and that much
customization would be perfect and I'm pretty sure anyone using it would
love it, users would eventually fine tune their setup for the quickest
functionality for how they work. I really really hope they do something like
that, supply it with say ten or so different interfaces to give people a
choice to begin with until custom made ones start appearing on the net.
Sure, would maybe bring problems when dealing with online interfaces using
plugins some might not have, but thats the way it always is, even now with
the menu setups available at the moment, their often setup with some plugs
others don't have. Happens in all of them, but its a minor problem.

*hopes Deuce n Chuck are reading this* :))


Quote:> On Fri, 7 Feb 2003 16:53:15 -0000, Chris Brizon wrote..

> >well not really, since if your comparing it to the Amiga, [..]
> --
> I was referring more to the exclusive follow-the-line-
> in-tiny-viewport-to-find-that-next-vertex-to-select
> experience rather than doing a technical comparison. :>

> T.

 
 
 

All Lightwave Music Video

Post by Deuc » Sun, 09 Feb 2003 07:57:43


How can I avoid reading that one great giant paragraph.

Take a breath once in a while.

~~Deuce
NewTek


> hehe, okie.. simple fix. -fully- customisable GUI, and I mean fully. put
> menu's, viewports, buttons -anywhere- you want them. build up a library of
> Interface styles that can easily be switched back and forth, so you could
> setup one interface specially for texture mapping, one for animation, one
> for modeling and so on, maybe link them to F key shortcuts or other keys,
> have little icons (yes dreaded icons :) up in the title bar to switch them
> around, save a bit extra space. Keeps only the tools you need in the
> interface at any given time, and they could be so easy to jump back and
> forth with that switching from the animation setup to the modeling setup
> would become second nature. Maya has something similar, but mostly for
just
> the menu bar, Softimage can do it and believe me its a very nice feature
> that I've yet to really go in depth with, but the amount of customisation
> that an interface in the LW style would give would be amazing. People
could
> make interfaces available to others on Newtek's website, Dual monitors
would
> obviously become supported, aswell as single or even triple monitor
setups.
> Each viewport could be independant in the interface editor, so you could
> have one view on one monitor, and a couple on another, sized how you want
> and with all the tools and controls you need.. perhaps add the option of
> sticky panels, where, aswell as having viewports and menu's and buttons,
you
> could also place panels into the interface, so it would become part of it
> and not just a panel, wouldn't dissapear or move around, it would be an
> actual part of the chosen interface... having both apps and that much
> customization would be perfect and I'm pretty sure anyone using it would
> love it, users would eventually fine tune their setup for the quickest
> functionality for how they work. I really really hope they do something
like
> that, supply it with say ten or so different interfaces to give people a
> choice to begin with until custom made ones start appearing on the net.
> Sure, would maybe bring problems when dealing with online interfaces using
> plugins some might not have, but thats the way it always is, even now with
> the menu setups available at the moment, their often setup with some plugs
> others don't have. Happens in all of them, but its a minor problem.

> *hopes Deuce n Chuck are reading this* :))



> > On Fri, 7 Feb 2003 16:53:15 -0000, Chris Brizon wrote..

> > >well not really, since if your comparing it to the Amiga, [..]
> > --
> > I was referring more to the exclusive follow-the-line-
> > in-tiny-viewport-to-find-that-next-vertex-to-select
> > experience rather than doing a technical comparison. :>

> > T.

 
 
 

All Lightwave Music Video

Post by Chris Brizo » Sun, 09 Feb 2003 08:02:11


:D


Quote:> How can I avoid reading that one great giant paragraph.

> Take a breath once in a while.

> ~~Deuce
> NewTek