Will LW work on a 486DX75 with 24 meg RAM ?

Will LW work on a 486DX75 with 24 meg RAM ?

Post by Alex Floo » Wed, 31 Jan 1996 04:00:00



I'm considering setting up a LW station on my PC,I don't care if it's
slow, just as long as it works. I'm still in training on LW, so I just
need a system to learn on. also, how do you test render frames on a PC?
since it doesen't have an NTSC output, do you have to have a PAR ? is
there a cheaper alternative?? Thanks for any help. Alex Flood
 
 
 

Will LW work on a 486DX75 with 24 meg RAM ?

Post by Sander Pil » Thu, 01 Feb 1996 04:00:00


: I'm considering setting up a LW station on my PC,I don't care if it's
: slow, just as long as it works. I'm still in training on LW, so I just
: need a system to learn on. also, how do you test render frames on a PC?
: since it doesen't have an NTSC output, do you have to have a PAR ? is
: there a cheaper alternative?? Thanks for any help. Alex Flood

I'm running it on a P133/32Mb ... and i am 'satisfied'.
I heard it is REAL slow on a DX2/16Mb ... i guess you are somewhere in between./It will work (W95 ?) ... but dont count on fast rendering.

 
 
 

Will LW work on a 486DX75 with 24 meg RAM ?

Post by Walter (J » Thu, 01 Feb 1996 04:00:00




>Subject: Will LW work on a 486DX75 with 24 meg RAM ?
>Date: 30 Jan 1996 14:40:13 GMT
>I'm considering setting up a LW station on my PC,I don't care if it's
>slow, just as long as it works. I'm still in training on LW, so I just
>need a system to learn on. also, how do you test render frames on a PC?
>since it doesen't have an NTSC output, do you have to have a PAR ? is
>there a cheaper alternative?? Thanks for any help. Alex Flood

Yes it will.  

It would probably be worth the expense to upgrade to a DX4-120, Cyrix 5x86 100
or 120, or maybe even a P24 Overdrive.

You can create .avi files if you want to see animation.  You can also look for
a freeware program called CMPEG and create MPEGs.  The MPEGs run a bit
smoother.  

You can render stills.  It doesn't have to be animation after all.

A PAR or PVR is a great thing to have if you intend to animate.

Lastly, you will learn faster on a Pentium.  It really does make a difference
getting feedback from tests faster.  Consider getting some tapes by Stranahan
and others (seems the Stranahan brothers just announced a CD tutorial to be
released soon - that should be pretty good).  These WILL speed up your
learning as well.


Studio 522 Productions           |http://www.primenet.com/~wturber
http://www.studio522.com         |ftp.primenet.com/users/w/wturber
Hey!!  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  We have our new Studio 522 URL!!                

 
 
 

Will LW work on a 486DX75 with 24 meg RAM ?

Post by Andrew Star » Fri, 02 Feb 1996 04:00:00


Yes you can run absolutly just fine no problem on a DX 75.

Remember, many are still on an Amiga 4000 /040 and you don't here them
complaining (and most are at 16 megs of ram!).  So your computer will be
just fine to do almost anything you want.  Don't worry about speed.  If
your doing it to make money... YOU WILL (if you get clients)!  If you get
too busy 'cause you've got too many clients... then worry about the speed.

I think people over buy, or over state what is actually needed to run LW
on a PC.

However... I am 2 days late now on my project.... :(
--

Andrew Starks    

 
 
 

Will LW work on a 486DX75 with 24 meg RAM ?

Post by Animation Factor » Fri, 02 Feb 1996 04:00:00



>I'm considering setting up a LW station on my PC,I don't care if it's
>slow, just as long as it works. I'm still in training on LW, so I just
>need a system to learn on. also, how do you test render frames on a PC?
>since it doesen't have an NTSC output, do you have to have a PAR ? is
>there a cheaper alternative?? Thanks for any help. Alex Flood

It will work,If you read your Manual it will tell you how to render a
frame. beings you don't have a Par you can view the frame in
Photoshop. Btw buy a Par when you get the Money.

Animation Factory
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 
 
 

Will LW work on a 486DX75 with 24 meg RAM ?

Post by Walter (J » Fri, 02 Feb 1996 04:00:00




>Subject: Re: Will LW work on a 486DX75 with 24 meg RAM ?
>Date: 1 Feb 96 15:18:40 GMT
>Yes you can run absolutly just fine no problem on a DX 75.
>Remember, many are still on an Amiga 4000 /040 and you don't here them
>complaining (and most are at 16 megs of ram!).  So your computer will be
>just fine to do almost anything you want.  Don't worry about speed.  If
>your doing it to make money... YOU WILL (if you get clients)!  If you get
>too busy 'cause you've got too many clients... then worry about the speed.
>I think people over buy, or over state what is actually needed to run LW
>on a PC.

Don't make the mistake of thinking there is a clear correlation in LW
performance on a PC and on the Amiga.  We did a comparison of working in
Modeler on a DX2-66 and a 28mhz 040 accellerated Amiga 2000.  We loaded a
complex model and timed how long it took to display the model.  The times
ended up about equal (66mhz vs. 28mhz ?!?).  However, the only reason the PC
was close was because Windows has superior disk I/O via it disk cache and VESA
local bus.  The PC loaded the file very quickly, but took a long time to
display it.  The Amiga labored at reading the disk, but displayed the object
much more quickly.  What this means practically, is that modeling complex
objects on a DX2-66 is much more sluggish than on a 28mhz 040 Amiga.  

This doesn't even touch on how long the PC takes to display background images
in Modeler and Layout, or how non-responsive the Limited Region function in
Layout is - even on a Pentium.  Of course, the DX2-66 will outrender our Amiga
(but not by a factor of two though).

IMHO a DX2-66 is a marginal LightWave platform.  A DX4-100 makes a big
difference.  That's not to say that a DX2-66 won't work though.  Different
people have different tolerance levels and use different features more or less
frequently.  For me, it takes a DX4-100 or better to make working on the PC an
all around more pleasant experience than working on our Amiga.  

So - don't be fooled into thinking there is any thing like a one to one
correspondence between cpu MHZ ratings and LightWave performance on the two
platforms.

P.S. We are running 3.5 on the Amiga, so this may be invalid as it compares to
4.0 on the Amiga.

Quote:>However... I am 2 days late now on my project.... :(
>--

If you are doing this as a business, get a Pentium - or two.  They will pay
for themselves in ways that may not be obvious.  

1) Better quality because you can run more tests in the same time period.
2) Better quality because using some of the features like raytracing,
transparecy, and some of the procedural textures is more viable with a
faster CPU.
2) More customers as you develope a reputation for getting your work in on
time or early.  We always try to set an internal date that precedes our
customer's actual due date.  We do virtually anything to avoid delivering
late.  Don't think reputation and service are small matters.
3) Better creativity because you will have more time to try different
ideas/treatments.

>Andrew Starks    



Studio 522 Productions           |http://www.primenet.com/~wturber
http://www.studio522.com         |ftp.primenet.com/users/w/wturber
Hey!!  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  We have our new Studio 522 URL!!                
 
 
 

Will LW work on a 486DX75 with 24 meg RAM ?

Post by Andrew Star » Mon, 05 Feb 1996 04:00:00



<stuff snipped>

Quote:>>I think people over buy, or over state what is actually needed to run LW
>>on a PC.
>Don't make the mistake of thinking there is a clear correlation in LW
>performance on a PC and on the Amiga.  We did a comparison of working in
>Modeler on a DX2-66 and a 28mhz 040 accellerated Amiga 2000.  We loaded a
>complex model and timed how long it took to display the model.  The times
>ended up about equal (66mhz vs. 28mhz ?!?).  However, the only reason the PC
>was close was because Windows has superior disk I/O via it disk cache and VESA
>local bus.  The PC loaded the file very quickly, but took a long time to
>display it.  The Amiga labored at reading the disk, but displayed the object
>much more quickly.  What this means practically, is that modeling complex
>objects on a DX2-66 is much more sluggish than on a 28mhz 040 Amiga.  

Actually, I agree with everything you say.  I didn't mean to make it
sound like a dx/2 66 is twice an Amiga.

In fact, on my computer (Dual p-100, 32megs, NT), modeler is a DOG!!.
Layout for the most part seems fine, but for some reason, it feels like
the programed Modeler in pascal or basic!  ANY complexity and the thing
goes to a crawl! BLECH!

Quote:>This doesn't even touch on how long the PC takes to display background images
>in Modeler and Layout, or how non-responsive the Limited Region function in
>Layout is - even on a Pentium.  Of course, the DX2-66 will outrender our Amiga
>(but not by a factor of two though).
>frequently.  For me, it takes a DX4-100 or better to make working on the PC an
>all around more pleasant experience than working on our Amiga.  

And this is my point.  "What do I need to run lightwave, I have a blah
blah blah..."  That question can be easily answered if they have and even
close to current pc:  YES!  It will run!  YES! It will be slow, but
you'll get started.

BTW: Is there any thing more fun than working on an Amiga?

Quote:>So - don't be fooled into thinking there is any thing like a one to one
>correspondence between cpu MHZ ratings and LightWave performance on the two
>platforms.
>P.S. We are running 3.5 on the Amiga, so this may be invalid as it compares to
>4.0 on the Amiga.
>>However... I am 2 days late now on my project.... :(
>>--
>If you are doing this as a business, get a Pentium - or two.  They will pay
>for themselves in ways that may not be obvious.  

(Just got the second petium and upgraded to NT. HUGE DIFFERENCE! :)


>Studio 522 Productions           |http://www.primenet.com/~wturber
>http://www.studio522.com         |ftp.primenet.com/users/w/wturber
>Hey!!  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  We have our new Studio 522 URL!!                

--

Andrew Starks    

 
 
 

Will LW work on a 486DX75 with 24 meg RAM ?

Post by Jont » Fri, 01 Mar 1996 04:00:00


Quote:>>Don't make the mistake of thinking there is a clear correlation in LW
>>performance on a PC and on the Amiga.  We did a comparison of working in
>>Modeler on a DX2-66 and a 28mhz 040 accellerated Amiga 2000.  We loaded a
>>complex model and timed how long it took to display the model.  The times
>>ended up about equal (66mhz vs. 28mhz ?!?).  However, the only reason the PC
>>was close was because Windows has superior disk I/O via it disk cache and VESA
>>local bus.  The PC loaded the file very quickly, but took a long time to
>>display it.  The Amiga labored at reading the disk, but displayed the object
>>much more quickly.  What this means practically, is that modeling complex
>>objects on a DX2-66 is much more sluggish than on a 28mhz 040 Amiga.  

What kind of stupid comparison is this?
DX2-66 is a CPU-model and Amiga2000 a computer!!
You need a graphicsboard to display anything with the DX2 and a
motherboard etc etc. Do you follow me? PC is a concept not a specific
computer! A PC can look almost like anything!You cant say that a DX2
66 is slower or faster then anything when it comes to things like
this!

/Jonas

 
 
 

Will LW work on a 486DX75 with 24 meg RAM ?

Post by Walter (J » Fri, 01 Mar 1996 04:00:00




>Subject: Re: Will LW work on a 486DX75 with 24 meg RAM ?
>Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 18:01:39 GMT
>>>Don't make the mistake of thinking there is a clear correlation in LW
>>>performance on a PC and on the Amiga.  We did a comparison of working in
>>>Modeler on a DX2-66 and a 28mhz 040 accellerated Amiga 2000.  We loaded a
>>>complex model and timed how long it took to display the model.  The times
>>>ended up about equal (66mhz vs. 28mhz ?!?).  However, the only reason the PC
>>>was close was because Windows has superior disk I/O via it disk cache and VESA
>>>local bus.  The PC loaded the file very quickly, but took a long time to
>>>display it.  The Amiga labored at reading the disk, but displayed the object
>>>much more quickly.  What this means practically, is that modeling complex
>>>objects on a DX2-66 is much more sluggish than on a 28mhz 040 Amiga.  
>What kind of stupid comparison is this?
>DX2-66 is a CPU-model and Amiga2000 a computer!!
>You need a graphicsboard to display anything with the DX2 and a
>motherboard etc etc. Do you follow me? PC is a concept not a specific
>computer! A PC can look almost like anything!You cant say that a DX2
>66 is slower or faster then anything when it comes to things like
>this!
>/Jonas

It is the kind of comparison that shoudn't be taken out of context.  

Additionally, if you read the post, disk I/O and bus type on the PC were
considered in reporting this SPECIFIC comparison.  Also mentioned was WHY it
was important.  Why wasn't the video I/O mentioned?  Mainly because the slow
redraw discussed is not the result  because of a video I/O bottleneck.  
On a PC the redraw  in Modeler isVERY much tied to CPU performance.  On the
Amiga 2000, there are (I'm pretty sure) some custom graphic chips that are
used to great advantage in speeding redraw. If you can find a DX2-66 that will
redraw a complex model faster than a 28mhz 040 accellerated Amiga 2000 - ONCE
THE FILE IS LOADED FROM DISK, I will be happy to eat my words.  

What you seem to miss is that my post was EXACTLY about the fact that it is a
mistake to compare computer performance with LightWave SOLEY on the
speed of the CPU because the architectures of the two machines are
significantly different.    That is why I specifically discussed one of
the architectural differences.  Yes, there are differences among DX2-66 PCs.  
However, NONE of those differences will make a DX2-66 redraw in Modeler  
significantly better.  


Studio 522 Productions           |http://www.primenet.com/~wturber
http://www.studio522.com         |ftp.primenet.com/users/w/wturber

 
 
 

Will LW work on a 486DX75 with 24 meg RAM ?

Post by Steve Kor » Sat, 02 Mar 1996 04:00:00



Quote:> Amiga 2000, there are (I'm pretty sure) some custom graphic chips that are
> used to great advantage in speeding redraw.

The line drawing and blitting performance of the ECS (and AGA) chipset
is abysmal.  The 2000 may refresh faster than the 486, but it is not
because ECS is fast.

  - steve