f



[ANNOUNCE] NewTek Announces 1st 64-bit Anim, New 3D Product


NewTek Produces First 64-bit 3D Animation for the Microsoft Launch of 
Windows XP Professional x64 Edition
Bill Gates keynote features LightWave� 64 animation


NewTek is pleased to  announce today the creation of the first 3D 
animation modeled, animated and rendered entirely in a native Windows 
64-bit environment. Using Windows XP Professional x64 Edition and the 
beta version of LightWave� 64 on a 64-bit AMD Opteron(TM) with 32GB of 
RAM, Rob Powers, lead creature animator on James Cameron's "Aliens of 
the Deep" created an extremely rich and beautifully textured undersea 
environment with hundreds of complex sea creatures which was featured in 
the Bill Gates keynote address at Microsoft Windows Hardware Engineering 
Conference (WinHEC) 2005.


For the complete text of the press release link to:


http://www.newtek.com/news/releases/04-25-05a.html


NewTek Previews Innovative New Low-Cost 3D Animation System
Maker of LightWave 3D� brings next-generation graphics toolset to 
graphics, illustration and design community


NewTek today previewed a new, easy to use 3D product - Inspire 3D(TM). 
Specifically designed for non-traditional 3D markets such as print, 
graphic design, education, video and web creation, Inspire 3D is built 
atop the LightWave 3D engine, production-proven in thousands of feature 
films, television shows, commercials and video games, as well as dozens 
of newspaper and magazine graphics departments.


For the complete text of the press release link to:


http://www.newtek.com/news/releases/04-25-05b.html
-- 

=========================================
Chuck Baker -- NewTek, Inc.
Senior Director  of Corporate Communications
http://www.newtek.com/
=========================================
0
Chuck
4/25/2005 6:16:25 PM
comp.graphics.apps.lightwave 3065 articles. 0 followers. genericsubscriptions (19) is leader. Post Follow

31 Replies
659 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 46

Boy, that's wonderful...

Couldn't find the stills or animation...

Can I use area lights now...?

Can I now move an object with more than 50K poly's...? (clunk, clunk,
clunk...oh, OpenGL problem)... 64bits fix that one?

Dual AMD Opteron 2.4G, 4G RAM, good video card... = $6,270.00 (No,
didn't shop around, just picked a company making CAD/DCC machines)...

Be scared: DDR PC2700 2G = $750.00 (crucial.com)

$750.00 x 16 = $12,000.00 (ROTFFL!!!!!)

What system holds 32G RAM? No, really, can someone point me to a site
that has anything like this?


How long before we're going to have this SHtuff shoved down our
throats? This is rapidly going to become a "P4 3.2Ghz" is junk, and we
can't talk about anything unless you're running a 64bit system... 

WTF does anyone outside of high-level CAD and DCC work need with a
64bit system? For crying out loud, most people can't "handle" the
systems that they have now... (no shit, how many people do you know
taht have the latest and greatest and they're using them for email and
games)? 

I guess my biggest problem with this "announcement" is the old story
of throw faster hardware at bad code, and let the shear clock-speed
make up for the crap that is being written today. Can I just get a
freakin' piece of code that's not a bandaged together hold-over from
DOS (and, mind you, I'm not knocking DOS! In fact, I'd take a command
line stand-alone program over Windows crap any day of the week).


In a bad mood... not getting what I want from a current render...

Mike Tripoli 






On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 13:16:25 -0500, Chuck Baker
<chuck_baker@newtek.com> wrote:

>
>
>NewTek Produces First 64-bit 3D Animation for the Microsoft Launch of 
>Windows XP Professional x64 Edition
>Bill Gates keynote features LightWave� 64 animation
>
>
>NewTek is pleased to  announce today the creation of the first 3D 
>animation modeled, animated and rendered entirely in a native Windows 
>64-bit environment. Using Windows XP Professional x64 Edition and the 
>beta version of LightWave� 64 on a 64-bit AMD Opteron(TM) with 32GB of 
>RAM, Rob Powers, lead creature animator on James Cameron's "Aliens of 
>the Deep" created an extremely rich and beautifully textured undersea 
>environment with hundreds of complex sea creatures which was featured in 
>the Bill Gates keynote address at Microsoft Windows Hardware Engineering 
>Conference (WinHEC) 2005.
>
>
>For the complete text of the press release link to:
>
>
>http://www.newtek.com/news/releases/04-25-05a.html
>
>
>NewTek Previews Innovative New Low-Cost 3D Animation System
>Maker of LightWave 3D� brings next-generation graphics toolset to 
>graphics, illustration and design community
>
>
>NewTek today previewed a new, easy to use 3D product - Inspire 3D(TM). 
>Specifically designed for non-traditional 3D markets such as print, 
>graphic design, education, video and web creation, Inspire 3D is built 
>atop the LightWave 3D engine, production-proven in thousands of feature 
>films, television shows, commercials and video games, as well as dozens 
>of newspaper and magazine graphics departments.
>
>
>For the complete text of the press release link to:
>
>
>http://www.newtek.com/news/releases/04-25-05b.html

0
Mike
4/25/2005 7:10:59 PM
Not Quite so upset here, but gripe> I'd be happy with updates to current OGL
standards..or directX or anything that would allow faster updates than what
we have now :-(


0
softdistortion
4/25/2005 8:22:34 PM
"softdistortion" <softdistortions@nospam.com> wrote in message 
news:7kcbe.1053$BW6.382481@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Not Quite so upset here, but gripe> I'd be happy with updates to current 
> OGL
> standards..or directX or anything that would allow faster updates than 
> what
> we have now :-(

My biggest issue is how dog slow modeler gets when textures are applied. 
Heck, even Poser6 has a faster response time now!

Zbrush does not have the same issue either, and when cheap-o smaller apps 
are beating you silly, it's a little overdue for an update.

Not a gripe, but an observation.


-- 
Gareee's Homepage:
http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/ellison/86/mainframe.htm

Remove Delicious spam to reply 


0
Gareee
4/25/2005 8:47:51 PM
Inspire....
hmm
rings a bell or two

8o)

cheers,

"Chuck Baker" <chuck_baker@newtek.com> wrote in message 
news:426D33F9.30008@newtek.com...
>
>
> NewTek Produces First 64-bit 3D Animation for the Microsoft Launch of 
> Windows XP Professional x64 Edition
> Bill Gates keynote features LightWave� 64 animation
>
>
> NewTek is pleased to  announce today the creation of the first 3D 
> animation modeled, animated and rendered entirely in a native Windows 
> 64-bit environment. Using Windows XP Professional x64 Edition and the beta 
> version of LightWave� 64 on a 64-bit AMD Opteron(TM) with 32GB of RAM, Rob 
> Powers, lead creature animator on James Cameron's "Aliens of the Deep" 
> created an extremely rich and beautifully textured undersea environment 
> with hundreds of complex sea creatures which was featured in the Bill 
> Gates keynote address at Microsoft Windows Hardware Engineering Conference 
> (WinHEC) 2005.
>
>
> For the complete text of the press release link to:
>
>
> http://www.newtek.com/news/releases/04-25-05a.html
>
>
> NewTek Previews Innovative New Low-Cost 3D Animation System
> Maker of LightWave 3D� brings next-generation graphics toolset to 
> graphics, illustration and design community
>
>
> NewTek today previewed a new, easy to use 3D product - Inspire 3D(TM). 
> Specifically designed for non-traditional 3D markets such as print, 
> graphic design, education, video and web creation, Inspire 3D is built 
> atop the LightWave 3D engine, production-proven in thousands of feature 
> films, television shows, commercials and video games, as well as dozens of 
> newspaper and magazine graphics departments.
>
>
> For the complete text of the press release link to:
>
>
> http://www.newtek.com/news/releases/04-25-05b.html
> -- 
>
> =========================================
> Chuck Baker -- NewTek, Inc.
> Senior Director  of Corporate Communications
> http://www.newtek.com/
> ========================================= 


0
Bytehawk
4/25/2005 10:09:40 PM
Mike Tripoli wrote:
> Boy, that's wonderful...
>
> Couldn't find the stills or animation...

You can watch all of the WinHEC keynote here:

mms://wnbgmsft-wm9.fplive.net/wnbgmsft/winhec_20050425_300.wmv

Be warned though. It is 1 hour 42 minutes and Gates is talking most of
the time. And to give you some idea, the opening announcer comes out
and says "really exciting" in a totally flat monotone. Haven't watched
the whole thing yet to see the animation, keep falling asleep part way
through. Personally, WindowsXP64 is a good thing and I will be getting
it, but not until dual-core 64-bit processors are available and that
probably won't be until Q3. How about this on top of all the other
"considerations" you had -- WindowsXP64 requires 64-bit drivers for all
your hardware, even though the application code is 32-bit. WindowsXP64
is supposed to have 16,000 drivers included but there is acknowledgment
that a lot of hardware isn't supported.

0
cgfx4d
4/25/2005 11:07:11 PM
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 15:10:59 -0400, Mike Tripoli <mtripoli@hell.com>
wrote:


>Dual AMD Opteron 2.4G, 4G RAM, good video card... = $6,270.00 (No,
>didn't shop around, just picked a company making CAD/DCC machines)...


Yeah, we can see you didn't shop around at all....


>Be scared: DDR PC2700 2G = $750.00 (crucial.com)


What is scary is that you are posting that price like it is reasonably
representative of anything. 

I found OCZ registered PC3200 1gb ram for 262.00 each. Took less than
2 minutes.

second, you quoted a price for a single 2gb. module. Of course it is
going to be expensive. Try looking at 1gb modules. Pretty darn
affordable. 



>What system holds 32G RAM? No, really, can someone point me to a site
>that has anything like this?


Uh, server boards.


>How long before we're going to have this SHtuff shoved down our
>throats? This is rapidly going to become a "P4 3.2Ghz" is junk, and we
>can't talk about anything unless you're running a 64bit system... 
>
>WTF does anyone outside of high-level CAD and DCC work need with a
>64bit system? For crying out loud, most people can't "handle" the
>systems that they have now... 


Well duh.

Last I checked, LW was a DCC app, and therefore is something that will
benefit from 64 bit.

as for the second part, if you are not doing DCC, then you don't need
to buy the best out there. 



0
Jarod
4/26/2005 3:17:07 AM
Mike Tripoli <mtripoli@hell.com> wrote in 
news:7jeq615j0uf85g89t4rb9592hb8juqctpc@4ax.com:

> Boy, that's wonderful...
> 
> Couldn't find the stills or animation...
> 
> Can I use area lights now...?
> 
> Can I now move an object with more than 50K poly's...? (clunk, clunk,
> clunk...oh, OpenGL problem)... 64bits fix that one?
> 
> Dual AMD Opteron 2.4G, 4G RAM, good video card... = $6,270.00 (No,
> didn't shop around, just picked a company making CAD/DCC machines)...
> 
> Be scared: DDR PC2700 2G = $750.00 (crucial.com)
> 
> $750.00 x 16 = $12,000.00 (ROTFFL!!!!!)
> 
> What system holds 32G RAM? No, really, can someone point me to a site
> that has anything like this?
> 
> 
> How long before we're going to have this SHtuff shoved down our
> throats? This is rapidly going to become a "P4 3.2Ghz" is junk, and we
> can't talk about anything unless you're running a 64bit system... 
> 
> WTF does anyone outside of high-level CAD and DCC work need with a
> 64bit system? For crying out loud, most people can't "handle" the
> systems that they have now... (no shit, how many people do you know
> taht have the latest and greatest and they're using them for email and
> games)? 
> 
> I guess my biggest problem with this "announcement" is the old story
> of throw faster hardware at bad code, and let the shear clock-speed
> make up for the crap that is being written today. Can I just get a
> freakin' piece of code that's not a bandaged together hold-over from
> DOS (and, mind you, I'm not knocking DOS! In fact, I'd take a command
> line stand-alone program over Windows crap any day of the week).
> 
> 
> In a bad mood... not getting what I want from a current render...
> 
> Mike Tripoli 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 13:16:25 -0500, Chuck Baker
> <chuck_baker@newtek.com> wrote:
> 
>>
>>
>>NewTek Produces First 64-bit 3D Animation for the Microsoft Launch of 
>>Windows XP Professional x64 Edition
>>Bill Gates keynote features LightWave� 64 animation
>>
>>
>>NewTek is pleased to  announce today the creation of the first 3D 
>>animation modeled, animated and rendered entirely in a native Windows 
>>64-bit environment. Using Windows XP Professional x64 Edition and the 
>>beta version of LightWave� 64 on a 64-bit AMD Opteron(TM) with 32GB of 
>>RAM, Rob Powers, lead creature animator on James Cameron's "Aliens of 
>>the Deep" created an extremely rich and beautifully textured undersea 
>>environment with hundreds of complex sea creatures which was featured 
in 
>>the Bill Gates keynote address at Microsoft Windows Hardware 
Engineering 
>>Conference (WinHEC) 2005.
>>
>>
>>For the complete text of the press release link to:
>>
>>
>>http://www.newtek.com/news/releases/04-25-05a.html
>>
>>
>>NewTek Previews Innovative New Low-Cost 3D Animation System
>>Maker of LightWave 3D� brings next-generation graphics toolset to 
>>graphics, illustration and design community
>>
>>
>>NewTek today previewed a new, easy to use 3D product - Inspire 3D(TM). 
>>Specifically designed for non-traditional 3D markets such as print, 
>>graphic design, education, video and web creation, Inspire 3D is built 
>>atop the LightWave 3D engine, production-proven in thousands of feature 
>>films, television shows, commercials and video games, as well as dozens 
>>of newspaper and magazine graphics departments.
>>
>>
>>For the complete text of the press release link to:
>>
>>
>>http://www.newtek.com/news/releases/04-25-05b.html
> 
> 

Well, I'm not angry and agree completely. But think of this, the kiddy 
coders that like to hide hidden games, messages and doors in their poor 
code will have so much more room to play. 

Nothing quite like finding out your 20,000 dollar software has the 
ability to play frogger if you hold down the right keys while facing 
backward and singing the national anthem. 

 
0
Chief
4/26/2005 5:02:11 AM
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 03:17:07 GMT, Jarod <Jarod@nothere.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 15:10:59 -0400, Mike Tripoli <mtripoli@hell.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>>Dual AMD Opteron 2.4G, 4G RAM, good video card... = $6,270.00 (No,
>>didn't shop around, just picked a company making CAD/DCC machines)...
>
>
>Yeah, we can see you didn't shop around at all....
 
You missed my point... I could BUILD a machine for far less than that
(far, far less). Most companies do not offer that as an option to
employees...

>
>
>>Be scared: DDR PC2700 2G = $750.00 (crucial.com)
>
>
>What is scary is that you are posting that price like it is reasonably
>representative of anything. 
>
>I found OCZ registered PC3200 1gb ram for 262.00 each. Took less than
>2 minutes.
>
>second, you quoted a price for a single 2gb. module. Of course it is
>going to be expensive. Try looking at 1gb modules. Pretty darn
>affordable. 

Again, you missed my point; Crucial sells only tested, stable mem
modules (and first choice for lots of manufacturers like HP, IBM,
etc.). A 1G PC3200 DDR400 stick is $145.99. IF you only have two slots
in a machine, you're going to want to max that out with 2G sticks, not
1G. If you want to spend $117 extra for "OCZ 2-2-2", go right ahead.
Counting clock cycles is a joke; anyone that is *really* worried about
CAS-RAS should get a better hobby...

BTW, I looked at the OCZ site; man, do they pander to those that
really don't know anything about what really matters in a system...
I'm impressed that they get away with this stuff...


>
>
>
>>What system holds 32G RAM? No, really, can someone point me to a site
>>that has anything like this?
>
>
>Uh, server boards.

Missed it again; work machines, like the one you're sitting at now
(unless of course you are using a server as your machine, in which
case, well, more power to you!

>
>
>>How long before we're going to have this SHtuff shoved down our
>>throats? This is rapidly going to become a "P4 3.2Ghz" is junk, and we
>>can't talk about anything unless you're running a 64bit system... 
>>
>>WTF does anyone outside of high-level CAD and DCC work need with a
>>64bit system? For crying out loud, most people can't "handle" the
>>systems that they have now... 
>
>
>Well duh.
>
>Last I checked, LW was a DCC app, and therefore is something that will
>benefit from 64 bit.
>
>as for the second part, if you are not doing DCC, then you don't need
>to buy the best out there. 
>
>

Duh? Huh? You're right, maybe I'm just kinda' slow. Except for, you
missed my point again. I'll spell it out; Bill Gates and the WiIntel
boys have decided that the world is going 64 bits, like it, or worse,
needed or not. And you have no choice but to comply... you will be
assimilated... 

Mike Tripoli
0
Mike
4/26/2005 12:44:40 PM
Mike Tripoli wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 03:17:07 GMT, Jarod <Jarod@nothere.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 15:10:59 -0400, Mike Tripoli <mtripoli@hell.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Dual AMD Opteron 2.4G, 4G RAM, good video card... = $6,270.00 (No,
>>>didn't shop around, just picked a company making CAD/DCC machines)...
>>
>>
>>Yeah, we can see you didn't shop around at all....
> 
>  
> You missed my point... I could BUILD a machine for far less than that
> (far, far less). Most companies do not offer that as an option to
> employees...
> 
> 
>>
>>>Be scared: DDR PC2700 2G = $750.00 (crucial.com)
>>
>>
>>What is scary is that you are posting that price like it is reasonably
>>representative of anything. 
>>
>>I found OCZ registered PC3200 1gb ram for 262.00 each. Took less than
>>2 minutes.
>>
>>second, you quoted a price for a single 2gb. module. Of course it is
>>going to be expensive. Try looking at 1gb modules. Pretty darn
>>affordable. 
> 
> 
> Again, you missed my point; Crucial sells only tested, stable mem
> modules (and first choice for lots of manufacturers like HP, IBM,
> etc.). A 1G PC3200 DDR400 stick is $145.99. IF you only have two slots
> in a machine, you're going to want to max that out with 2G sticks, not
> 1G. If you want to spend $117 extra for "OCZ 2-2-2", go right ahead.
> Counting clock cycles is a joke; anyone that is *really* worried about
> CAS-RAS should get a better hobby...
> 
> BTW, I looked at the OCZ site; man, do they pander to those that
> really don't know anything about what really matters in a system...
> I'm impressed that they get away with this stuff...
> 
> 
> 
>>
>>
>>>What system holds 32G RAM? No, really, can someone point me to a site
>>>that has anything like this?
>>
>>
>>Uh, server boards.
> 
> 
> Missed it again; work machines, like the one you're sitting at now
> (unless of course you are using a server as your machine, in which
> case, well, more power to you!
> 
> 
>>
>>>How long before we're going to have this SHtuff shoved down our
>>>throats? This is rapidly going to become a "P4 3.2Ghz" is junk, and we
>>>can't talk about anything unless you're running a 64bit system... 
>>>
>>>WTF does anyone outside of high-level CAD and DCC work need with a
>>>64bit system? For crying out loud, most people can't "handle" the
>>>systems that they have now... 
>>
>>
>>Well duh.
>>
>>Last I checked, LW was a DCC app, and therefore is something that will
>>benefit from 64 bit.
>>
>>as for the second part, if you are not doing DCC, then you don't need
>>to buy the best out there. 
>>
>>
> 
> 
> Duh? Huh? You're right, maybe I'm just kinda' slow. Except for, you
> missed my point again. I'll spell it out; Bill Gates and the WiIntel
> boys have decided that the world is going 64 bits, like it, or worse,
> needed or not. And you have no choice but to comply... you will be
> assimilated... 
> 
> Mike Tripoli

As I read these messages, he didn't miss any of your points - he just 
disagrees with them.

The fact of the matter is that there are plenty of professional users 
who need this kind of power and plenty of places to purchase the new 
hardware, whether you are an individual or a company, that will be 
economical.  There is nothing happening now that hasn't been the shape 
of things in the personal computer industry for more than a quarter of a 
century now.  Bit-width doubles every few years and processors get 
faster constantly. New things cost more when introduced but they get 
cheaper fast.  Some people get dragged along kicking and screamiing that 
we don't need things to be so much more powerful and then pretty soon 
everyone wonders how we ever put up with the old stuff.

-- 

=========================================
Chuck Baker -- NewTek, Inc.
Senior Director  of Corporate Communications
http://www.newtek.com/
=========================================
0
Chuck
4/26/2005 3:05:36 PM
<cgfx4d@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:1114470431.158662.211470@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> Personally, WindowsXP64 is a good thing and I will be getting
> it, but not until dual-core 64-bit processors are available and that

Dual-core Opteron CPUs are available now.  Dual-Core Intel Xeon series with 
EM64T will be entering the OEM channel within the next few days, so 
available within the next couple weeks.

> probably won't be until Q3. How about this on top of all the other
> "considerations" you had -- WindowsXP64 requires 64-bit drivers for all
> your hardware, even though the application code is 32-bit. WindowsXP64
> is supposed to have 16,000 drivers included but there is acknowledgment
> that a lot of hardware isn't supported.

True.  I've been running XP64 beta on my dual Opteron box and it's very 
frustrating.  There are a lot of developers who are dragging their feet when 
it comes to supporting 64bit.  Very confusing, I think a lot of software 
companies don't realize that This is the same type of shift we had when 
moving from 16bit to 32bit and that the 32bit CPUs are facing extinction 
within the next 2 years or earlier if market reception is good.  All of 
AMD's production CPUs now have 64bit instruction sets and Intel's will by 
the end of the year.  All dual-core CPUs from AMD and Intel are 64bit 
capable.

I think a lot of people also equate 64bit with being a lot faster.  Not the 
case...  It's true that there are certain things that can benefit and when 
moving a well written piece of code from a 32bit environment over to a 64bit 
environment, we can expect a 10 to 30 % increase in performance when run on 
similar (or the same) CPUs.  What 64bit CPUs and memory addressing gain for 
us all is no more 4GB limit within the 32bit world.  There are a lot of us 
who have been struggling with the 4GB limit for a year or two now...  4GB 
means that there's only 3.5GB usuable in most systems, and even less in 
systems with 512MB video cards.  Combine that with other hardware 
limitations and dual-channel memory requirements and it becomes very 
difficult or inefficeint to put more than 2GB of actual RAM into a 
workstation.  On a dual-CPU or dual-core machine this is a real problem 
since these machines have the ability to process more data at once and 
dedicate full CPU cores to individual applications.  64bit extensions to 
allow for memory addressing beyond 32bits (40bit in AMD64/EM64T), will allow 
us to allocate adequate RAM to these CPUs for once.



0
DarkScience
4/26/2005 3:48:14 PM
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 10:05:36 -0500, Chuck Baker
<chuck_baker@newtek.com> wrote:

Ok, here's the "real" question: is LW 64 any better? I'm not being
facetious. Is this a case of "old code - new faster hardware" or has
Newtek gone in and re-wrote the app substantially for 64 bits?

 I've set you up with that question; here's why. If you tell us it's
the same code "recompiled"  and nothing more for 64 bits, ok, fair
enough. But if Newtek has placed any kind of substantial time, money
and effort into working on 64 bits, then I ask the question, why in
god's name would you do this now, in my estimation, ignoring your
CURRENT customer base, in favor of a handful of "big" production
houses that have 32Gig systems at their disposal. Newtek has basically
"given" us all these "tools" (radiosity, caustics, "close" light
simulations (area lights), but, near as I can tell, has done nothing
to optimize these things such that they are useful in a day to day
job. It's as if NT plays the game of "us too"; XXX, Inc. has radiosity
- well, gee, so does LW. But you can't really USE it. How about no new
"features", and improve and or fix what's already there. Radiosity
exists, but you can't practically use it. Instead, how many users use
"spinning lights" and other work-arounds to do something that's built
in? What good is it to anyone to have all of things "available", but
afraid to turn them on for fear of waiting days for a render?

I'll make a statement that I *think* 80% of the LW user base would
agree with. NO NEW FEATURES. Make everything that's already in there
work, and work well. Make it so that we don't have to buy an endless
slew of plugin's (X-DOF, Shadow Designer2, HyperSmooth, FPrime, G2,
etc.,etc.). Update OpenGL at the very least!

In a way, I'm talking out both sides of my mouth; I am usually the
first to run out and spend a bunch of money on new SW-HW. Time has
shown that this is usually a good investment in that things are
better, faster. But, BUT, if I go and buy a new 64 bit system, loaded
for bear, and fire up LW 64, am I STILL going to wait endless hours on
hours if I "turn on" radiosity? Caustics? AREA LIGHTS? Integrated
"FPrime" (showing everything in the scene FPrime-G2 like). Or, is it
just because of "brute-force" that these things "seem" to work? None
of this stuff means anything if, in effect, we end up where we
started.

And, btw, I disagree that he was just disagreeing; I was making a
point about "common" users running P4 2.2-3.2G machines, not "money is
no object" monsters. I shouldn't be the one to remind you that LW came
from the days of the Amiga; it has been an exceptional application
that ran on a platform that the average professional user could use
and afford. Not an ILM/Pixar competitor. 

For those not paying attention: Modo eats Modeler alive (save the "no
plugins,etc. argument, Modo's not 15+ years old). Maxwell promises to
blow LW out of the water (again, give it 15 years to mature like LW
has). 

Mike Tripoli




>
>As I read these messages, he didn't miss any of your points - he just 
>disagrees with them.
>
>The fact of the matter is that there are plenty of professional users 
>who need this kind of power and plenty of places to purchase the new 
>hardware, whether you are an individual or a company, that will be 
>economical.  There is nothing happening now that hasn't been the shape 
>of things in the personal computer industry for more than a quarter of a 
>century now.  Bit-width doubles every few years and processors get 
>faster constantly. New things cost more when introduced but they get 
>cheaper fast.  Some people get dragged along kicking and screamiing that 
>we don't need things to be so much more powerful and then pretty soon 
>everyone wonders how we ever put up with the old stuff.

0
Mike
4/26/2005 3:58:05 PM
yepp...And don't forget about MotionBuilder's realtime redraw? Thank heavens
for .fbx.  :-)


0
softdistortion
4/26/2005 4:06:49 PM
Mike Tripoli wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 10:05:36 -0500, Chuck Baker
> <chuck_baker@newtek.com> wrote:
> 
> Ok, here's the "real" question: is LW 64 any better? I'm not being
> facetious. Is this a case of "old code - new faster hardware" or has
> Newtek gone in and re-wrote the app substantially for 64 bits?
> 
>  I've set you up with that question; here's why. If you tell us it's
> the same code "recompiled"  and nothing more for 64 bits, ok, fair
> enough. But if Newtek has placed any kind of substantial time, money
> and effort into working on 64 bits, then I ask the question, why in
> god's name would you do this now, in my estimation, ignoring your
> CURRENT customer base, in favor of a handful of "big" production
> houses that have 32Gig systems at their disposal. Newtek has basically
> "given" us all these "tools" (radiosity, caustics, "close" light
> simulations (area lights), but, near as I can tell, has done nothing
> to optimize these things such that they are useful in a day to day
> job. It's as if NT plays the game of "us too"; XXX, Inc. has radiosity
> - well, gee, so does LW. But you can't really USE it. How about no new
> "features", and improve and or fix what's already there. Radiosity
> exists, but you can't practically use it. Instead, how many users use
> "spinning lights" and other work-arounds to do something that's built
> in? What good is it to anyone to have all of things "available", but
> afraid to turn them on for fear of waiting days for a render?
> 
> I'll make a statement that I *think* 80% of the LW user base would
> agree with. NO NEW FEATURES. Make everything that's already in there
> work, and work well. Make it so that we don't have to buy an endless
> slew of plugin's (X-DOF, Shadow Designer2, HyperSmooth, FPrime, G2,
> etc.,etc.). Update OpenGL at the very least!
> 
> In a way, I'm talking out both sides of my mouth; I am usually the
> first to run out and spend a bunch of money on new SW-HW. Time has
> shown that this is usually a good investment in that things are
> better, faster. But, BUT, if I go and buy a new 64 bit system, loaded
> for bear, and fire up LW 64, am I STILL going to wait endless hours on
> hours if I "turn on" radiosity? Caustics? AREA LIGHTS? Integrated
> "FPrime" (showing everything in the scene FPrime-G2 like). Or, is it
> just because of "brute-force" that these things "seem" to work? None
> of this stuff means anything if, in effect, we end up where we
> started.
> 
> And, btw, I disagree that he was just disagreeing; I was making a
> point about "common" users running P4 2.2-3.2G machines, not "money is
> no object" monsters. I shouldn't be the one to remind you that LW came
> from the days of the Amiga; it has been an exceptional application
> that ran on a platform that the average professional user could use
> and afford. Not an ILM/Pixar competitor. 
> 
> For those not paying attention: Modo eats Modeler alive (save the "no
> plugins,etc. argument, Modo's not 15+ years old). Maxwell promises to
> blow LW out of the water (again, give it 15 years to mature like LW
> has). 
> 
> Mike Tripoli
>

Clearly there will not be a thing that I can say that will make a 
difference - as you say, you want to "set me up" with your questions and 
knock me down with your points and so there really seems to me to be no 
point in trying to argue with straw men.

The fact about a lot of features is that we had them first, they were 
not "me, toos".  A lot of the items that you dismiss as unworkable are 
being used by others every day.  And yes, we are working on improving 
and advancing these tools and their workflow, and making them far easier 
and more practical to use, as well as enhancing the performance radically.

Your assumptions about some of the products you discuss are startlingly 
incorrect, by the way.

-- 

=========================================
Chuck Baker -- NewTek, Inc.
Senior Director  of Corporate Communications
http://www.newtek.com/
=========================================
0
Chuck
4/26/2005 6:29:34 PM

DarkScience wrote:

>There are a lot of us 
>who have been struggling with the 4GB limit for a year or two now...  4GB 
>means that there's only 3.5GB usuable in most systems, and even less in 
>systems with 512MB video cards.  Combine that with other hardware 
>limitations and dual-channel memory requirements and it becomes very 
>difficult or inefficeint to put more than 2GB of actual RAM into a 
>workstation.  On a dual-CPU or dual-core machine this is a real problem 
>since these machines have the ability to process more data at once and 
>dedicate full CPU cores to individual applications.  64bit extensions to 
>allow for memory addressing beyond 32bits (40bit in AMD64/EM64T), will allow 
>us to allocate adequate RAM to these CPUs for once.
>  
>
This is what I'll be looking forward to, but won't even think about the 
64bit issue for at least a couple of years,
as I figure it's too much in it's infancy and won't really be of any 
real use (to me at least) for quite some time.
And I prefer to let others spend their loot on being the beta people to 
try out these newer technologies and revisions.
But, it'll sure be fun when it's a standard and normal poor folks can 
afford it all.

......................md :)

>
>
>  
>

-- 
-- 
Check out my Tutorials:

MD arts
Mark Dunakin
md@md-arts.com
http://www.md-arts.com 
0
Mark
4/26/2005 8:29:31 PM
>
>Clearly there will not be a thing that I can say that will make a 
>difference - as you say, you want to "set me up" with your questions and 
>knock me down with your points and so there really seems to me to be no 
>point in trying to argue with straw men.

First, let's be clear; I do not "want to set you up". I simply felt
like that was what I was doing by asking the question in the way that
I did. Nor do I want to "knock you down". I think perhaps you're being
a little sensitive, nothing was meant as a personal attack.

Secondly, you never answered the question. Your response was in fact
nice mis-direction - "Clearly there will not be a thing that I can say
that will make a difference" (maybe I'm being sensitive?). So the
question stands; will a 64 bit system open up the "items" that I have
deemed "unworkable", or, after investing in a 64 bit "monster" system
cure all? I would like you to understand something else as well;
believe it or not, I am one of LW's biggest fans. Since the day I
bought two seats back at ver.5, I have been hooked (like many people).
I have even gone the route of maintaining "LW" only machines that have
ONLY LW on them, fully optimized for running just this app. I also
have no problem purchasing any plugin that will a.) do something that
LW natively cannot or, b.) do it better. This has added literally
thousands of dollars to my initial investment. I do not do this for
fun, or lightly. 

>
>The fact about a lot of features is that we had them first, they were 
>not "me, toos".

OK, I'll take your word for it. I'm not a historian of features and
packages (frankly, I don't know much about any of the others, LW has
always been my first chioce, and I've never felt the need to look
elsewhere).

>  A lot of the items that you dismiss as unworkable are 
>being used by others every day. 

Not to nit-pick one thing, but I would love to hear of ONE person that
is using LW's native radiosity to produce anything of print quality.
If I was rendering 320x240 images, I wouldn't care. But render
something for a print target of 150-300 DPI. Even low-poly models take
forever. Hell, I don't even have to turn on radiosity for these to
become 14-18 hour jobs (I'm going to get al sorts of flack about how
things don't take this long, and all the "cheats" that can speed
things up...  an area light is still an area light). It's no accident
that people are turning to FPrime.  


> And yes, we are working on improving 
>and advancing these tools and their workflow, and making them far easier 
>and more practical to use, as well as enhancing the performance radically.

That's great news. Can't wait...
>
>Your assumptions about some of the products you discuss are startlingly 
>incorrect, by the way.

Such as? I am more than willing, no, sitting at rapt attention to know
just which products I am "startlingly incorrect" about. Ok, said with
extreme sarcasm.  Please don't feel like I am goading you, but I
really would like to know why you feel this way and about what
product(s) I mentioned.

Lastly, please, don't think that I am attacking you, or Newtek for
that matter. Like I said, I enjoy using LW (not something that can be
said about lot's of software). Also, I know what it means to run a
business that needs to respond to industry changes and continuely
improve year after year (I started my career designing scanning
electron microscopes 25+ years ago, then moved to toy design), so I
understand the frustration of updating and improving things. Going
back to what set me off in the first place - 64 bits. If moving to a
64 bit system, with all of the nauseating headaches that will be
included (no driver support, "beta" code, etc) will make a substantial
improvement in the way LW works, I'm there; I'll order a machine this
minute (try and get that past the accounting dept!). But, if after
doing this, one finds themselves with the same problems in a different
wrapper, I'll pass.

Mike Tripoli



  
0
Mike
4/26/2005 9:35:09 PM
Mike Tripoli wrote:

> houses that have 32Gig systems at their disposal. Newtek has basically
> "given" us all these "tools" (radiosity, caustics, "close" light
> simulations (area lights), but, near as I can tell, has done nothing
> to optimize these things such that they are useful in a day to day
> job. It's as if NT plays the game of "us too"; XXX, Inc. has radiosity
> - well, gee, so does LW. But you can't really USE it. How about no new

Why not? I use it all the time.

> "features", and improve and or fix what's already there. Radiosity
> exists, but you can't practically use it. Instead, how many users use
> "spinning lights" and other work-arounds to do something that's built
> in? What good is it to anyone to have all of things "available", but
> afraid to turn them on for fear of waiting days for a render?

For emergency jobs I'll use spinning lights, but radiosity doesn't take 
prohibitive amounts of time.

jw.
0
James
4/26/2005 10:42:12 PM
"Mike Tripoli" <mtripoli@hell.com> wrote in message 
news:6scs615vouu2cqmknuv3arcbti3flvvh0e@4ax.com...
>
> You missed my point... I could BUILD a machine for far less than that
> (far, far less). Most companies do not offer that as an option to
> employees...

> Again, you missed my point; Crucial sells only tested, stable mem
> modules (and first choice for lots of manufacturers like HP, IBM,
> etc.). A 1G PC3200 DDR400 stick is $145.99. IF you only have two slots

Yeah, Crucial sells some pretty good RAM, but not the best.  And if you buy 
direct from Crucial.com you're paying through the nose.  IMO, Corsair makes 
better modules than Crucial.  Having built several hundred systems ranging 
from simple desktops to high-end workstations and servers over the past few 
years, I have had more trouble with Crucial memory products than those from 
Corsair or Mushkin.  Not that I am complaining about Crucial/Micron and 
their products.  Most of their problems have been simple compatibility 
issues as their RAM is often a bit more finnicky with some of the higher end 
hardware.  :-?

> in a machine, you're going to want to max that out with 2G sticks, not
> 1G. If you want to spend $117 extra for "OCZ 2-2-2", go right ahead.
> Counting clock cycles is a joke; anyone that is *really* worried about
> CAS-RAS should get a better hobby...

Gee, that's funny.  Do you even know what the memory timings mean?  If we're 
comparing a memory intense operation that can bottleneck a memory interface 
in terms of access speed and it's an operation that can run over lengthy 
periods of time such as 3D rendering or continuous stream video processing, 
etc.., then moving to RAM with faster timings can be beneficial.  I do think 
that a lot of people place too much emphasis on these timings as many who 
build these systems are not using the full potential of the system, but to 
say that counting clock cycles is a joke is pretty naive.

> BTW, I looked at the OCZ site; man, do they pander to those that
> really don't know anything about what really matters in a system...
> I'm impressed that they get away with this stuff...

I don't know if that's really who they pander to...  It's more of an issue 
of marketing and they're targeting the overclocker crowd.  I personally 
don't care for OCZ products all that much.  They're more expensive than most 
of the Crucial and Corsair counterparts and often have slower rated timings 
than the better Corsair offerings.

> Missed it again; work machines, like the one you're sitting at now
> (unless of course you are using a server as your machine, in which
> case, well, more power to you!

I have a 2 x dual-core Opteron box on order (all the components for one) and 
it's going to arrive with 16GB.  It will hold up to 48GB once 4GB modules 
become available.  I think 16GB will be sufficeint for now, but we shall see 
what happens in another year or two.  This new system will become the 
primary unit on my render farm and I'm hoping that NewTek was smart enough 
to give LWSN the 64bit treatment because hugely complex scene renders at 
large print resolutions are straining the puny 2GB per process limit in the 
32bit architecture.

> Duh? Huh? You're right, maybe I'm just kinda' slow. Except for, you
> missed my point again. I'll spell it out; Bill Gates and the WiIntel
> boys have decided that the world is going 64 bits, like it, or worse,
> needed or not. And you have no choice but to comply... you will be
> assimilated...

Uh, "Bill Gates and the WiIntel boys" have little to do with deciding 
anything.  Most higher end unix systems from SGI/Sun have been 64bit for 
several years now - actually more than a decade.  AMD announced 64bit CPUs 
several years ago and delivered them nearly 2 years ago.  Intel has been 
dragging their feet and Microsoft has been doing the same.  Apple went 64bit 
with the G5 while Windoze 64 has been in continuous beta limbo for nearly 2 
years - since about the time AMD shipped the first Opteron CPU.  The PC 
*SHOULD* have been 64bit long ago.  All I can say about the PC going 64bit 
is, "It's about goddamned time!".

As for your sentiments about LW, yes there's a lot to bitch about and I do 
it quite a bit myself.  But havint used most other softwares, there's plenty 
to bitch about there too and nothing is perfect, not even close.  You have 
to look at LW's development from a business minded point of view.  If NewTek 
didn't continuously add new features, then it would be hard for them to 
attract new customers.  I do think that they need to make a better effort at 
stamping out bugs - especially those that are reported continuously or are 
blatantly obvious if they were to actually just try using their own 
software.  I also belive that they need to continuously evolve and upgrade 
their interface and underlying graphics engine.  The OpenGL performance and 
usage of 3D acceleration hardware is abysmal to say the least.

As for comparisons with Modo and Maxwell or other alternative modeling and 
rendering applications, I guess it's always fun to compare.  However, 
talking up Modo and bashing LW saying how good Modo will be once it's 
matured 15 years as LW has is completely foolish.  What matters is now and 
what tools arvailable now.  I've had Modo since it was pre-release beta and 
I think it is way cool, but it also suffers from a lot of the same outdated 
concepts we find in Modeler.  Many of the tools have vastly improved and new 
ones have been added.  The edge control features are excellent and are far 
superior to just about any other edge-capable modeler out there today.  But 
I still find myself using Modeler a lot of the time for several reasons... 
A lot of it is the add-ons and scripts I have collected and I haven't had 
time to try porting my LScripts over to Modo.  I'm also very well versed in 
using modeler as I have been using it almost on a daily basis for about 6 
years.  I can model a whole lot faster in Modeler even with the klunky tools 
and poor OpenGL performance.  Maxwell looks like a cool product, but what 
good is it to me?  I already have FPrime that serves it's use for some 
things, but I still have to use LW's renderer most of the time since it's 
the only renderer that gives me all the things I need (via plug-ins, anyway) 
such as hair/fur and other specialized effects.  I will continue to watch 
Maxwell (and other such products) and I will convert to a different tool as 
soon as it provides all of the functions I need and can offer superior 
quality or speed at a reasonable price.  Until then, it's just another thing 
to check a pulse on every now and then.

Like I said, the tools that matter are what is available now.  It's true 
that Modo and Maxwell are starting out very advanced and offer a lot of new 
concepts.  This was the same for LW when it arrived on the market.  So 
what's the point?  Just remember, wanna-be artists will argue about which 
paintbrushes are the best while a true artist will pick up a brush that 
seems reasonable for the job and will paint something.  I don't care what 
you think will happen in 15 years...  I have been in various niches of just 
about any kind of technical and engineering fields for several years and I 
have found that most of my predictions have always been incorrect and I can 
say the same for all the so-called "experts" out there.  In 15 years, LW and 
Modo could have completely disappeared and we could all be using CarrotWaxer 
v1.15 or something, or the sun could have gone nova and all human life will 
have perished.  Like I said, what's the point?  I'm creating 3D content now 
and LW fits my needs.  Yeah, I complain and bitch about all its 
shortcomings, but I've tried all the other softwares out there and they all 
suck too.  I could create my own 3D software and try to sell it, maybe it 
would do OK, maybe it would fail...  Some people might love it, but I have a 
hunch it would suck as bad as every other software out there in more than 
just one way.



0
DarkScience
4/26/2005 10:45:52 PM
DarkScience wrote:

> companies don't realize that This is the same type of shift we had
> when moving from 16bit to 32bit and that the 32bit CPUs are facing
> extinction within the next 2 years or earlier if market reception is
> good.

It's the same in some sense, but there are also important differences,
and I don't see 32-bit extinction happening that soon.

64-bit is something the vast majority of computer owners currently don't
need.  Not many are even aware that it's coming.

Contrast that with the move from 16 to 32, which when Wintel finally
made it had enormous, life-altering software implications.  It had
become virtually impossible to write modern software in 16-bit Windows.

The move from 32 to 64 is incremental.  We need to do it so that memory
capacity can continue to grow, and at some point we'll wonder how we
managed with 32, but that day's still relatively far off.

- Ernie                                  http://home.comcast.net/~erniew

0
Ernie
4/27/2005 12:20:17 AM
"Mr Gates confirmed that the new version of Windows, codenamed Longhorn,
would enable computers to process data at 64 bits per second,
compared with the current standard of 32 bits per second."

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,19509-1585849,00.html

hehe...
0
Reiner
4/27/2005 2:34:01 AM
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 22:42:12 GMT, James Willmott
<eat_spam@mcdonalds.com> wrote:

>Mike Tripoli wrote:
>
>> houses that have 32Gig systems at their disposal. Newtek has basically
>> "given" us all these "tools" (radiosity, caustics, "close" light
>> simulations (area lights), but, near as I can tell, has done nothing
>> to optimize these things such that they are useful in a day to day
>> job. It's as if NT plays the game of "us too"; XXX, Inc. has radiosity
>> - well, gee, so does LW. But you can't really USE it. How about no new
>
>Why not? I use it all the time.

Set camera at 3300x2550 (correct pixel aspect ratio as desired) and
tell me how long it takes to render ANYTHING with radiosity turned on
using just one area light.


>> "features", and improve and or fix what's already there. Radiosity
>> exists, but you can't practically use it. Instead, how many users use
>> "spinning lights" and other work-arounds to do something that's built
>> in? What good is it to anyone to have all of things "available", but
>> afraid to turn them on for fear of waiting days for a render?
>
>For emergency jobs I'll use spinning lights, but radiosity doesn't take 
>prohibitive amounts of time.


Huh? Why? Why use "spinning lights" at all? You use radiosity "all the
time". What's "an emergency job". Is this one in which quality doesn't
matter? Customer will never know? I don't get it...

MT



>
>jw.

0
Mike
4/27/2005 2:36:27 AM
Mike Tripoli wrote:

>>For emergency jobs I'll use spinning lights, but radiosity doesn't take 
>>prohibitive amounts of time.
> 
> 
> 
> Huh? Why? Why use "spinning lights" at all? You use radiosity "all the
> time". What's "an emergency job". Is this one in which quality doesn't
> matter? Customer will never know? I don't get it...

I should have been clearer. 'Emergency' being a delivery time in less 
than an hour.

jw.
0
James
4/27/2005 3:14:13 AM
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 16:45:52 -0600, "DarkScience" <jeff at applied
visual dot com> wrote:

>
>"Mike Tripoli" <mtripoli@hell.com> wrote in message 
>news:6scs615vouu2cqmknuv3arcbti3flvvh0e@4ax.com...
>>
>> You missed my point... I could BUILD a machine for far less than that
>> (far, far less). Most companies do not offer that as an option to
>> employees...
>
>> Again, you missed my point; Crucial sells only tested, stable mem
>> modules (and first choice for lots of manufacturers like HP, IBM,
>> etc.). A 1G PC3200 DDR400 stick is $145.99. IF you only have two slots
>
>Yeah, Crucial sells some pretty good RAM, but not the best.  And if you buy 
>direct from Crucial.com you're paying through the nose.  IMO, Corsair makes 
>better modules than Crucial.  Having built several hundred systems ranging 
>from simple desktops to high-end workstations and servers over the past few 
>years, I have had more trouble with Crucial memory products than those from 
>Corsair or Mushkin.  Not that I am complaining about Crucial/Micron and 
>their products.  Most of their problems have been simple compatibility 
>issues as their RAM is often a bit more finnicky with some of the higher end 
>hardware.  :-?

I use too much short-hand. You are obviosly an experienced builder of
systems, and have taken the time to evaluate mem sticks. What I'm
talking about are the cases when someone calls me and says that their
system keeps crashing, or behaving oddly. After looking through many
things, putting Crucial memory in has cured many ills. Perhaps it's
because, as far as I know, it's 100% tested. It may not be the best,
or the fastest, but I've found it to be very reliable, that's all.


>
>> in a machine, you're going to want to max that out with 2G sticks, not
>> 1G. If you want to spend $117 extra for "OCZ 2-2-2", go right ahead.
>> Counting clock cycles is a joke; anyone that is *really* worried about
>> CAS-RAS should get a better hobby...
>
>Gee, that's funny.  Do you even know what the memory timings mean?  If we're 
>comparing a memory intense operation that can bottleneck a memory interface 
>in terms of access speed and it's an operation that can run over lengthy 
>periods of time such as 3D rendering or continuous stream video processing, 
>etc.., then moving to RAM with faster timings can be beneficial.  I do think 
>that a lot of people place too much emphasis on these timings as many who 
>build these systems are not using the full potential of the system, but to 
>say that counting clock cycles is a joke is pretty naive.

Um... yes, I am, sorry to say, all too familiar with "what the timings
mean". Without giving you my CV, I have designed more than one image
capture system, and counted-clock cycles and timing latencies 'til I
could puke. I have designed power semiconductors and written spec's
until it's all I dreamed about. I'm happy to say, I don't do this
anymore. There's no question that during a CPU (and memory intensive)
situation that faster is better, but you pin-pointed my point; the
majority of people that are over-clocking, etc. and THINK that this
stuff matters is rubbish. UNLESS rendering or something of this
nature, what are most systems doing about 99% of the time? SYSTEM IDLE
PROCESS. Burning clock cycles, plain and simple. You can have a system
that runs at light speed.... unless it's doing something CPU
intensive, it's just burning cycles.  


>
>> BTW, I looked at the OCZ site; man, do they pander to those that
>> really don't know anything about what really matters in a system...
>> I'm impressed that they get away with this stuff...
>
>I don't know if that's really who they pander to...  It's more of an issue 
>of marketing and they're targeting the overclocker crowd.  I personally 
>don't care for OCZ products all that much.  They're more expensive than most 
>of the Crucial and Corsair counterparts and often have slower rated timings 
>than the better Corsair offerings.

I glanced at their website because someone brought up this particular
manufacturer. I saw, in just a few clicks of the mouse, analog pots
(of shitty quality) and though-hole components on a memory stick. Also
something about Ultra Low Noise (ULN) pcb layout. I don't expect
everyone to be an engineer, but for the love of Pete, if you are an
"over-clocker" understand the basics of what they are talking about. I
have no freakin' idea why you would need a pot on a memory stick, or
how one expects ULN from a through-hole component... or for that
matter, why there needs to be led's on a mem stick... then again, I
don't understand led's in a CPU heat-sink either... 

>
>> Missed it again; work machines, like the one you're sitting at now
>> (unless of course you are using a server as your machine, in which
>> case, well, more power to you!
>
>I have a 2 x dual-core Opteron box on order (all the components for one) and 
>it's going to arrive with 16GB.  It will hold up to 48GB once 4GB modules 
>become available.  I think 16GB will be sufficeint for now, but we shall see 
>what happens in another year or two.  This new system will become the 
>primary unit on my render farm and I'm hoping that NewTek was smart enough 
>to give LWSN the 64bit treatment because hugely complex scene renders at 
>large print resolutions are straining the puny 2GB per process limit in the 
>32bit architecture.
>
>> Duh? Huh? You're right, maybe I'm just kinda' slow. Except for, you
>> missed my point again. I'll spell it out; Bill Gates and the WiIntel
>> boys have decided that the world is going 64 bits, like it, or worse,
>> needed or not. And you have no choice but to comply... you will be
>> assimilated...
>
>Uh, "Bill Gates and the WiIntel boys" have little to do with deciding 
>anything.  Most higher end unix systems from SGI/Sun have been 64bit for 
>several years now - actually more than a decade.  AMD announced 64bit CPUs 
>several years ago and delivered them nearly 2 years ago.  Intel has been 
>dragging their feet and Microsoft has been doing the same.  Apple went 64bit 
>with the G5 while Windoze 64 has been in continuous beta limbo for nearly 2 
>years - since about the time AMD shipped the first Opteron CPU.  The PC 
>*SHOULD* have been 64bit long ago.  All I can say about the PC going 64bit 
>is, "It's about goddamned time!".

You are arguning my point! You said, specifically, "This new system
will become the primary unit on my render farm". Dead on. However, we
are going to see a blitz of advertising for 64 bit systems over the
next few years FOR THE AVERAGE HOME USER. This is EXACTLY what
happened when things changed from 16 to 32 bits. OK, it provided a
path for better games, etc. But, for the average user, using Word,
Excel, email, AIM (for crying out loud) this is a joke. But we WILL
see how "64 is better than 32" blah-blah-blah. There is NOTHING that
an average user does now that could not have been done on a 16 bit
machine if code was written the way it was, i.e. with some kind of
control over optimization and efficiency. NOBODY types faster than a
system can accept key commands. For laughs, open Task Manager and
eyeball SIP during "normal" use of a system (not rendering).  


>
>As for your sentiments about LW, yes there's a lot to bitch about and I do 
>it quite a bit myself.  But havint used most other softwares, there's plenty 
>to bitch about there too and nothing is perfect, not even close.  You have 
>to look at LW's development from a business minded point of view. 

I think I mentioned that; I did. And I agree, everything has it's
shortcomings.


 >If NewTek 
>didn't continuously add new features, then it would be hard for them to 
>attract new customers.  I do think that they need to make a better effort at 
>stamping out bugs - especially those that are reported continuously or are 
>blatantly obvious if they were to actually just try using their own 
>software.  I also belive that they need to continuously evolve and upgrade 
>their interface and underlying graphics engine.  The OpenGL performance and 
>usage of 3D acceleration hardware is abysmal to say the least.

Yup, said that.

>
>As for comparisons with Modo and Maxwell or other alternative modeling and 
>rendering applications, I guess it's always fun to compare.  However, 
>talking up Modo and bashing LW saying how good Modo will be once it's 
>matured 15 years as LW has is completely foolish. 

Read again, I did not bash LW, nor did I "talk up" Modo. Just the
opposite, I like LW.

> What matters is now and 
>what tools arvailable now.  I've had Modo since it was pre-release beta and 
>I think it is way cool, but it also suffers from a lot of the same outdated 
>concepts we find in Modeler.  Many of the tools have vastly improved and new 
>ones have been added.  The edge control features are excellent and are far 
>superior to just about any other edge-capable modeler out there today.  But 
>I still find myself using Modeler a lot of the time for several reasons... 
>A lot of it is the add-ons and scripts I have collected and I haven't had 
>time to try porting my LScripts over to Modo.  I'm also very well versed in 
>using modeler as I have been using it almost on a daily basis for about 6 
>years.  I can model a whole lot faster in Modeler even with the klunky tools 
>and poor OpenGL performance.  

I'm not going to argue this point (Modo vs. Modeler) or anything like
this. Here's why; they're all a joke. Let me explain where I'm coming
from. I don't model in either one (Modo or Modeler). I use SolidWorks.
Edge control, etc. etc. isn't an issue. I do product design, not
"organic" models like characters, etc. So, I just never "see" the fact
that beveling an edge is a big deal, or edges, or anything like that.
I set all my surfaces in SolidWorks as well. I use modeler for the
most fundametal things; assigning new surface names, reducing poly
count, etc. I can honestly say that other than screwing around, I have
never used modeler to model anything. Where I do become VERY
frustrated is that the models that I bring into Modler are typically
very high poly count. Trying to move them around is INSANE. I treated
this as a given, nature of the beast. Then I tried Modo. Now, my 500K+
poly models moved fluid like. Well! Why? I'll venture a guess; NT
hasn't implemented new OGL code in years. This is my complaint; I
don't need new features, I'd just like the basics to work. I really
don't think this is too much to ask. I think you are going to see,
soon, modeler get a real "boost". It has competition now... And btw,
god bless you guys modeling things in ANY polygon mesh modeler; I'd
have thrown myself from a building long ago if I had to do this 12
hours a day.


>Maxwell looks like a cool product, but what 
>good is it to me?  I already have FPrime that serves it's use for some 
>things, but I still have to use LW's renderer most of the time since it's 
>the only renderer that gives me all the things I need (via plug-ins, anyway) 
>such as hair/fur and other specialized effects.  I will continue to watch 
>Maxwell (and other such products) and I will convert to a different tool as 
>soon as it provides all of the functions I need and can offer superior 
>quality or speed at a reasonable price.  Until then, it's just another thing 
>to check a pulse on every now and then.

I made a statement in a different thread; these are all tools. I don't
own one wrench, or one hammer. I have lot's of different ones. I use
LW everyday. It serves a purpose just fine. I've purchased many
"high-end" plugins with out any remorse, just to "boost" LW. But I'm
not fanatical about it. I own FPrime, use ot for setup, never did a
final render with it until today. Might start using it more. But it
has shortcomings (blamed on LW's SDK, but I don't know this first
hand, not a programmer). 

>
>Like I said, the tools that matter are what is available now.  It's true 
>that Modo and Maxwell are starting out very advanced and offer a lot of new 
>concepts.  This was the same for LW when it arrived on the market.  So 
>what's the point?

The point is, unless you stay on top of things, address the basics
(OGL performance for starters?), there is always going to be someone
to eat your lunch. A fanatical devotion to anything is not progress. 

>  Just remember, wanna-be artists will argue about which 
>paintbrushes are the best while a true artist will pick up a brush that 
>seems reasonable for the job and will paint something.

Agreed.

> I don't care what 
>you think will happen in 15 years... 

You don't have to care about what I think. My point is, when people
talk about these things, they point at certain aspects (i.e Modo
doesn't support all of the plugins that Modeler does, for instance)
and dwell on these things. Modo is relatively new, it will get better.
Given where it started FROM, and knowing that the guys behind it also
know all the problems with Modeler (hopefully, they won't repeat), it
can't help but be better than Modeler. History shows this again and
again. It's not my opinion, it's fact. Will Maxwell hurt LW? I don't
think so, not really. It's for a different crowd. Like I said, another
tool.

> I have been in various niches of just 
>about any kind of technical and engineering fields for several years and I 
>have found that most of my predictions have always been incorrect and I can 
>say the same for all the so-called "experts" out there.  In 15 years, LW and 
>Modo could have completely disappeared and we could all be using CarrotWaxer 
>v1.15 or something, or the sun could have gone nova and all human life will 
>have perished.  Like I said, what's the point?  I'm creating 3D content now 
>and LW fits my needs.  Yeah, I complain and bitch about all its 
>shortcomings, but I've tried all the other softwares out there and they all 
>suck too. 

I agree. I don't have an opinion on other 3D packages, never used any
but LW. Been more or less happy (or I wouldn't keep ponying up $495
every couple of years or so...).

> I could create my own 3D software and try to sell it, maybe it 
>would do OK, maybe it would fail...  Some people might love it, but I have a 
>hunch it would suck as bad as every other software out there in more than 
>just one way.

I think you should give it a go; if for no other reason than to call
it "CarrotWaxer".

MT


0
Mike
4/27/2005 3:44:16 AM
TOO FUNNY! He's mis-quoted...  "Mr. Bill" is a weiner, he knows
better...

MT   

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 04:34:01 +0200, Reiner Schug
<rs0310@lightwavers.com> wrote:

>
>"Mr Gates confirmed that the new version of Windows, codenamed Longhorn,
>would enable computers to process data at 64 bits per second,
>compared with the current standard of 32 bits per second."
>
>http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,19509-1585849,00.html
>
>hehe...

0
Mike
4/27/2005 3:56:09 AM
Mike Tripoli wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 22:42:12 GMT, James Willmott
> <eat_spam@mcdonalds.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Mike Tripoli wrote:
>>
>>
>>>houses that have 32Gig systems at their disposal. Newtek has basically
>>>"given" us all these "tools" (radiosity, caustics, "close" light
>>>simulations (area lights), but, near as I can tell, has done nothing
>>>to optimize these things such that they are useful in a day to day
>>>job. It's as if NT plays the game of "us too"; XXX, Inc. has radiosity
>>>- well, gee, so does LW. But you can't really USE it. How about no new
>>
>>Why not? I use it all the time.
> 
> 
> Set camera at 3300x2550 (correct pixel aspect ratio as desired) and
> tell me how long it takes to render ANYTHING with radiosity turned on
> using just one area light.

3200x2400, 138k polygons, 11 lights, 1 area light, raytraced shadows and 
reflections, radiosity, 1 hour 49 minutes.

jw.
0
James
4/27/2005 5:22:11 AM
Finally downloaded the keynote presentation and scrubbed through it to
the Lightwave part, it is about a quarter of the way in and is very
short, just a few minutes. It is presented by Jay Kenny, a Microsoft
Product Manager. The whole venue is kind of strange. WinHEC isn't for
graphics types and it is probably safe to say that a large majority of
the audience could care less about graphics except maybe some of the
coding behind it. Still, there was the exposure. He was saying some
questionable things. He was showing a solid shaded scene and saying
that was all 32-bit Windows could handle, that it took 64-bit Windows
to show the scene textured with OpenGL lighting. He should have been
wearing a cheerleader outfit with the stego logo on his chest. He
claimed that a scene that would take a 32-bit Windows machine three
days to render would only take overnight on a 64-bit machine (his
words). No clarification of how that comparison was made like platform
differences, just the claim that WindowsXP64 would provide a three-fold
increase in render speed. He also claimed that 32-bit Windows required
rendering in layers, that was the only way rendering could be done and
that WindowsXP64 would no longer require that. As for the Layout screen
shots, nothing really different, looks like it might have just been
recompiled for 64-bit. So, who knows? More snake oil than substance but
still some laudenum punch to the elixir. Boy, that hokum about not
being able to provide a link to the keynote sure sounds bogus since it
was available almost immediately after the keynote presentation. And
what was up with that NAB video reel? Todd Rundgren video from 1994,
DAVE school clips from 2002. It was almost like somebody decided to set
the Wayback machine about 5 years, Mr. Peabody. Man, it has been pretty
obvious Lightwave was going retro but that was almost ridiculous.

0
cgfx4d
4/27/2005 5:34:18 AM
"Reiner Schug" <rs0310@lightwavers.com> wrote in message 
news:d4mtmm$6hg$04$1@news.t-online.com...
|
| "Mr Gates confirmed that the new version of Windows, codenamed Longhorn,
| would enable computers to process data at 64 bits per second,
| compared with the current standard of 32 bits per second."
|
The next step is to prioritize which 64 bits to process in any given second.

I say one's should go first, but zeroes should be given ... say ... 5 seconds 
out of every minute.

(And with that, pre-emptive multitasking was born ;-)

-- 
CWC
============================
It's not that nice guys finish last,
They have a whole different notion
where the finish line is.
============================


0
CWCunningham
4/27/2005 5:41:03 AM
Mike Tripoli wrote:
>>Clearly there will not be a thing that I can say that will make a 
>>difference - as you say, you want to "set me up" with your questions and 
>>knock me down with your points and so there really seems to me to be no 
>>point in trying to argue with straw men.
> 
> 
> First, let's be clear; I do not "want to set you up". I simply felt
> like that was what I was doing by asking the question in the way that
> I did. Nor do I want to "knock you down". I think perhaps you're being
> a little sensitive, nothing was meant as a personal attack.
> 
> Secondly, you never answered the question. Your response was in fact
> nice mis-direction - "Clearly there will not be a thing that I can say
> that will make a difference" (maybe I'm being sensitive?). So the
> question stands; will a 64 bit system open up the "items" that I have
> deemed "unworkable", or, after investing in a 64 bit "monster" system
> cure all? I would like you to understand something else as well;
> believe it or not, I am one of LW's biggest fans. Since the day I
> bought two seats back at ver.5, I have been hooked (like many people).
> I have even gone the route of maintaining "LW" only machines that have
> ONLY LW on them, fully optimized for running just this app. I also
> have no problem purchasing any plugin that will a.) do something that
> LW natively cannot or, b.) do it better. This has added literally
> thousands of dollars to my initial investment. I do not do this for
> fun, or lightly. 
> 
> 
>>The fact about a lot of features is that we had them first, they were 
>>not "me, toos".
> 
> 
> OK, I'll take your word for it. I'm not a historian of features and
> packages (frankly, I don't know much about any of the others, LW has
> always been my first chioce, and I've never felt the need to look
> elsewhere).
> 
> 
>> A lot of the items that you dismiss as unworkable are 
>>being used by others every day. 
> 
> 
> Not to nit-pick one thing, but I would love to hear of ONE person that
> is using LW's native radiosity to produce anything of print quality.
> If I was rendering 320x240 images, I wouldn't care. But render
> something for a print target of 150-300 DPI. Even low-poly models take
> forever. Hell, I don't even have to turn on radiosity for these to
> become 14-18 hour jobs (I'm going to get al sorts of flack about how
> things don't take this long, and all the "cheats" that can speed
> things up...  an area light is still an area light). It's no accident
> that people are turning to FPrime.  
> 
> 
> 
>>And yes, we are working on improving 
>>and advancing these tools and their workflow, and making them far easier 
>>and more practical to use, as well as enhancing the performance radically.
> 
> 
> That's great news. Can't wait...
> 
>>Your assumptions about some of the products you discuss are startlingly 
>>incorrect, by the way.
> 
> 
> Such as? I am more than willing, no, sitting at rapt attention to know
> just which products I am "startlingly incorrect" about. Ok, said with
> extreme sarcasm.  Please don't feel like I am goading you, but I
> really would like to know why you feel this way and about what
> product(s) I mentioned.
> 
> Lastly, please, don't think that I am attacking you, or Newtek for
> that matter. Like I said, I enjoy using LW (not something that can be
> said about lot's of software). Also, I know what it means to run a
> business that needs to respond to industry changes and continuely
> improve year after year (I started my career designing scanning
> electron microscopes 25+ years ago, then moved to toy design), so I
> understand the frustration of updating and improving things. Going
> back to what set me off in the first place - 64 bits. If moving to a
> 64 bit system, with all of the nauseating headaches that will be
> included (no driver support, "beta" code, etc) will make a substantial
> improvement in the way LW works, I'm there; I'll order a machine this
> minute (try and get that past the accounting dept!). But, if after
> doing this, one finds themselves with the same problems in a different
> wrapper, I'll pass.
> 
> Mike Tripoli




Hi, Mike!

Let's just start with acknowledging that some days I'm just full of 
beans, or there's a very good reason why my eyes are brown, etc.; you 
have my apologies for that and I'll try to be more productive in my 
answer today.  :)

First, I think it is pretty plain that there are a set of issues that 
64-bit capability addresses, those are pretty easy to figure out, and, 
rhetorical questions aside, clearly everything else is something that we 
have to work on in the code as a separate issue that has nothing to do 
with 64-bit - it does not affect those issues.  Yes, we are working on 
those other issues of increased performance, improved workflow and bug 
fixes, and you should see some major changes in all of the issues that 
you've expressed concerns about as we issue future updates in the 8.x 
cycle.

Not all customers need 64-bit capability, but a significant set of our 
customers do and it would be inappropriate not to invest some amount of 
time in their needs.  If we are to serve a broad range of users, then 
not all of our work is going to be of a nature that benefits everyone 
across the board, and some may just benefit one group.  We do the best 
balancing we can in these efforts, and we've worked on improving that by 
increasing the market research that we do.

Thanks for taking the time to express your concerns!

Chuck

-- 

=========================================
Chuck Baker -- NewTek, Inc.
Senior Director  of Corporate Communications
http://www.newtek.com/
=========================================
0
Chuck
4/27/2005 6:01:29 PM
Mike Tripoli wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 10:05:36 -0500, Chuck Baker
> <chuck_baker@newtek.com> wrote:
> 
> Ok, here's the "real" question: is LW 64 any better? I'm not being
> facetious. Is this a case of "old code - new faster hardware" or has
> Newtek gone in and re-wrote the app substantially for 64 bits?

The fact of the matter is that NewTek is revising the core of 
application substantially for the 8.x cycle.  Recoding the application 
to take advantage of 64-bit systems has certainly taken some amount of 
effort, but the overwhelming majority of work is devoted to code that is 
independent of these issues and you can expect performance improvements 
and fixes whether you are using the 32-bit or the 64-bit version of 
LightWave.  By the time that LightWave 64 releases, both 64-bit and 
32-bit will be better.


-- 

=========================================
Chuck Baker -- NewTek, Inc.
Senior Director  of Corporate Communications
http://www.newtek.com/
=========================================
0
Chuck
4/27/2005 6:10:40 PM
"Ernie Wright" <erniew@comcast.net> wrote in message 
news:u4WdnR3ru5A3R_PfRVn-uQ@comcast.com...
>
> It's the same in some sense, but there are also important differences,
> and I don't see 32-bit extinction happening that soon.

I guess what I was trying to say is that 32bit CPU based PCs are facing 
extinction within the next couple years since AMD now only makes 64bit CPUs 
(with the exception of their mobile chips, which will be 64bit by the end of 
the year).  But 32bit software will probably linger on for many years, just 
as 16bit software did.


0
DarkScience
4/27/2005 7:01:38 PM

Chuck Baker wrote:

> By the time that LightWave 64 releases, both 64-bit and 32-bit will be 
> better.

So Chuck, do I need to start saving up for the next major upgrade,
or will that be some time before that one comes out?
I know about the 8.3 update coming out, but I'm refering to the next 
pay-for update.
See, I need a new TV pretty soon and that'll eat up most of my savings, 
but if LW is going to
be coming out sooner then my current TV croaks, then I'll just hold onto 
the cash instead :)

Anyway, I do want to say, that I "am" pleased that there
is a .3 update coming, so never get me wrong on that one, ok?  :)

anyway, thanx....................md :)

>
>

-- 
-- 
Check out my Tutorials:

MD arts
Mark Dunakin
md@md-arts.com
http://www.md-arts.com 
0
Mark
4/27/2005 11:03:35 PM
DarkScience wrote:

> I guess what I was trying to say is that 32bit CPU based PCs are
> facing extinction within the next couple years

And you're probably right about that.

> But 32bit software will probably linger on for many years, just 
> as 16bit software did.

The 80386 was introduced in 1985.

- Ernie                                  http://home.comcast.net/~erniew

0
Ernie
4/28/2005 2:34:05 AM
Reply: