Title says it all really.

How could any software company justify that price tag?? Ten Grand!

Jeez! For that, I'd want a team of top CG artists to live in my house
for a year and do all my work for me ;-D.

And this is a "special offer", with a saving of 40%!

Un-f****ing believeable!

(Sorry, just had to vent, going back to my trusty & shiny new Lightwave
9.0 again now)

Nicko

no flicker in cloth simulation jitter,  muscle system , fast opengl response 
,list goes on
big studios want to always be one step before the others.

lw has its limits u know...

and for the price of ten grand u probably can just pay the assurance 
accountant taxes rent.... without even hiring one artist...


oh forget what i said ...its a crazy price though

But probably lightwave is a blender compared to it....: /


"Nicko" <genericsubscriptions@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1153090321.460219.218460@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Title says it all really.
>
> How could any software company justify that price tag?? Ten Grand!
>
> Jeez! For that, I'd want a team of top CG artists to live in my house
> for a year and do all my work for me ;-D.
>
> And this is a "special offer", with a saving of 40%!
>
> Un-f****ing believeable!
>
> (Sorry, just had to vent, going back to my trusty & shiny new Lightwave
> 9.0 again now)
>
> Nicko
> 

I used to believe the hype that really expensive software contained
that bit of pixie dust that the less expensive ones didn't, but I don't
these days.

If you can't drive, the car goes nowhere, regardless of whether its a
porsche or a battered old mini cooper.

Nicko




LucVR wrote:
> no flicker in cloth simulation jitter,  muscle system , fast opengl response
> ,list goes on
> big studios want to always be one step before the others.
>
> lw has its limits u know...
>
> and for the price of ten grand u probably can just pay the assurance
> accountant taxes rent.... without even hiring one artist...
>
>
> oh forget what i said ...its a crazy price though
>
> But probably lightwave is a blender compared to it....: /
>
>
> "Nicko" <genericsubscriptions@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1153090321.460219.218460@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Title says it all really.
> >
> > How could any software company justify that price tag?? Ten Grand!
> >
> > Jeez! For that, I'd want a team of top CG artists to live in my house
> > for a year and do all my work for me ;-D.
> >
> > And this is a "special offer", with a saving of 40%!
> >
> > Un-f****ing believeable!
> >
> > (Sorry, just had to vent, going back to my trusty & shiny new Lightwave
> > 9.0 again now)
> >
> > Nicko
> >

Nicko wrote:
> If you can't drive, the car goes nowhere, regardless of whether its a
> porsche or a battered old mini cooper.

But if you can drive, you'll find the Porsche to be quicker,
easier and much more stable than a battered old Mini Cooper.

-- 


  - Zafar Iqbal
  ---------------------------------------
    Remove the very last letter from my e-mail for private reply

But both will get you there :-D

Zafar wrote:
> Nicko wrote:
> > If you can't drive, the car goes nowhere, regardless of whether its a
> > porsche or a battered old mini cooper.
>
> But if you can drive, you'll find the Porsche to be quicker,
> easier and much more stable than a battered old Mini Cooper.
>
> --
>
>
>   - Zafar Iqbal
>   ---------------------------------------
>     Remove the very last letter from my e-mail for private reply

not really not all cars will take u there..

imagine a cheap drill wont drill that hole or overheat etc etc... while 
another might drill it like butter.. what u have now is the kick ass people 
of newtek that are trying to make that same powerful drill instead of 
designing a laser or something...
because customers probably ask it...


"Nicko" <genericsubscriptions@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1153132207.150026.99150@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> But both will get you there :-D

Perhaps I overdid it with the metaphors.

I guess what I meant was that Imagination is the one thing you can't
buy off the shelf. When you see all this kick ass cg, it all starts in
someone's head.

Taron's work is a great example. Perhaps, not to everyone's taste but
you can't argue with the guy's talent...He'd be good whatever he
modelled & rendered with.

Also, the number of features in the past that we've all wished for in
Lightwave, which when they turn up, don't get used anything like as
much as you'd expect. The trend is for pimped up software that can "do
everything".

Everything except come up with great ideas in the first place.

But Newtek do kick ass....I hate all this hassle with getting a
permanent license and dongles though...I hate restrictions!

Nicko






LucVR wrote:
> not really not all cars will take u there..
>
> imagine a cheap drill wont drill that hole or overheat etc etc... while
> another might drill it like butter.. what u have now is the kick ass people
> of newtek that are trying to make that same powerful drill instead of
> designing a laser or something...
> because customers probably ask it...
>
>
> "Nicko" <genericsubscriptions@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1153132207.150026.99150@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> > But both will get you there :-D

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------050003060207040603010607
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Nicko wrote:

>But Newtek do kick ass....I hate all this hassle with getting a
>permanent license and dongles though...I hate restrictions!
>  
>
What restrictions are you refering to?
I got my permanant license plenty easy enough.
No real hassles or anything.

I've heard a few (maybe 5?) people that have had some troubles getting 
their licenses,
and in all of those cases, it seemed to me they didn't follow *exactly* 
the steps that
were layed out, but rather tried to hurry things up and do things their 
own way
and didn't actually follow the instructions as were layed out by NewTek.

Not saying you did that or anything, just from the people so far that I've
read about and their explinations on what they tried to do to get their 
licenses.
Like not completely uninstalling any previous versions of 9, or not 
using the Registration Utillity.
What I mean is, sure we all know how to simply add a number to our 
current License Key,
but if it's not working, then I say follow the NewTek instructions to 
the letter, as I did, and things went perfectly fine.

Can you maybe expand on what hassles you had or went through?
Cuz I totally love the new automated registration thingy.
Worked like a charm!

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

-- 
-- 
Check out my Tutorials:

MD arts
Mark Dunakin
md@md-arts.com
http://www.md-arts.com 


--------------050003060207040603010607
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
  <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
  <title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Nicko wrote:<br>
<blockquote
 cite="mid1153178120.471828.59730@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com"
 type="cite">
  <pre wrap="">But Newtek do kick ass....I hate all this hassle with getting a
permanent license and dongles though...I hate restrictions!
  </pre>
</blockquote>
What restrictions are you refering to?<br>
I got my permanant license plenty easy enough.<br>
No real hassles or anything.<br>
<br>
I've heard a few (maybe 5?) people that have had some troubles getting
their licenses, <br>
and in all of those cases, it seemed to me they didn't follow <b>exactly</b>
the steps that <br>
were layed out, but rather tried to hurry things up and do things their
own way <br>
and didn't actually follow the instructions as were layed out by NewTek.<br>
<br>
Not saying you did that or anything, just from the people so far that
I've <br>
read about and their explinations on what they tried to do to get their
licenses.<br>
Like not completely uninstalling any previous versions of 9, or not
using the Registration Utillity.<br>
What I mean is, sure we all know how to simply add a number to our
current License Key,<br>
but if it's not working, then I say follow the NewTek instructions to
the letter, as I did, and things went perfectly fine.<br>
<br>
Can you maybe expand on what hassles you had or went through?<br>
Cuz I totally love the new automated registration thingy.<br>
Worked like a charm!<br>
<br>
..................md :)<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">-- 
-- 
Check out my Tutorials:

MD arts
Mark Dunakin
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:md@md-arts.com">md@md-arts.com</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.md-arts.com">http://www.md-arts.com</a> </pre>
</body>
</html>

--------------050003060207040603010607--

I guess when u are using vue 5 (i saw in an other post) and poser shit and 
all that crap even than u buy imagination BUT its not ur work someone else 
did it...

and saying a good story is important idea imagination....for sure, no doubt 
but its easy and weak to say

the tool is very important otherwise we would all just use 2D animation or 
clay... or blender

still i dont think u should see to other appz whats good see what good for 
lightwave and whats needed ...  :op


"Nicko" <genericsubscriptions@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1153178120.471828.59730@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> Perhaps I overdid it with the metaphors.
>
> I guess what I meant was that Imagination is the one thing you can't
> buy off the shelf. When you see all this kick ass cg, it all starts in
> someone's head.
>
> Taron's work is a great example. Perhaps, not to everyone's taste but
> you can't argue with the guy's talent...He'd be good whatever he
> modelled & rendered with.
>
> Also, the number of features in the past that we've all wished for in
> Lightwave, which when they turn up, don't get used anything like as
> much as you'd expect. The trend is for pimped up software that can "do
> everything".
>
> Everything except come up with great ideas in the first place.
>
> But Newtek do kick ass....I hate all this hassle with getting a
> permanent license and dongles though...I hate restrictions!
>
> Nicko
>
>
>
>
>
>
> LucVR wrote:
>> not really not all cars will take u there..
>>
>> imagine a cheap drill wont drill that hole or overheat etc etc... while
>> another might drill it like butter.. what u have now is the kick ass 
>> people
>> of newtek that are trying to make that same powerful drill instead of
>> designing a laser or something...
>> because customers probably ask it...
>>
>>
>> "Nicko" <genericsubscriptions@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1153132207.150026.99150@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>> > But both will get you there :-D
> 

"LucVR" <LucAnimeArt@Pandora.Be> wrote in message 
news:kW2vg.543613$yw7.12759092@phobos.telenet-ops.be...

>I guess when u are using vue 5 (i saw in an other post) and poser shit and 
>all that crap even than u buy imagination BUT its not ur work someone else 
>did it...

Obviously an uneducated response.

There are millions of combination in vue to modify plant appearance, so it's 
a unique art form, just like any other one.

There are also millions of poser combinations as well, because of the HUGE 
wealth of meshes, and the huge variety of characters, and morphs for those 
characters. Poser's materila room is outstanding, and also adds a huge 
amount of diversity to the mix.

If you are not familiar with the tools, then you really should not present 
uneducated opinions.

I can't think of any quality Vue or Poser renders that could easily be 
duplicated, and that speaks worlds about both utilites.


-- 
Gareee�
(Gary Tabar Jr.)

Gareee� wrote:

>"LucVR" <LucAnimeArt@Pandora.Be> wrote in message 
>news:kW2vg.543613$yw7.12759092@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
>
>  
>
>>I guess when u are using vue 5 (i saw in an other post) and poser shit and 
>>all that crap even than u buy imagination BUT its not ur work someone else 
>>did it...
>>    
>>
>
>Obviously an uneducated response.
>
>There are millions of combination in vue to modify plant appearance, so it's 
>a unique art form, just like any other one.
>
>There are also millions of poser combinations as well, because of the HUGE 
>wealth of meshes, and the huge variety of characters, and morphs for those 
>characters. Poser's materila room is outstanding, and also adds a huge 
>amount of diversity to the mix.
>
>If you are not familiar with the tools, then you really should not present 
>uneducated opinions.
>
>I can't think of any quality Vue or Poser renders that could easily be 
>duplicated, and that speaks worlds about both utilites.
>  
>
EXACTLY!
You can always claim something was created by someone else using those 
kinds of lame anologies.
Sheesh, you might as well say someone didn't "really" create a painting, 
since they had to buy all
the varieties of "pre-made" paints and what nots, since they didn't go 
out and find the colors and
grind them up themselves and mix in the other ingredients and all to 
make the paints.
Claiming using Vue is using someone else's works, is simply retarded to 
even state.
And really, same with Poser, or any plugins for any program a person uses.
Trying to make out like using premade objects that come with or can be 
bought for, any certain program,
is some how making that person not the artist who creates the visuals 
from said items, doesn't make any sense at all.
The objects themselves, trees, animals, peoples can all be considered 
"tools" and not simply objects in the scene.
What you do with them is what makes the art.

And as far as Houdini is concerned, I really could care less if it cost 
10 grand or not anyway.
If you want it and have the money, then cool, go ahead and buy it.
If not, then buy something else LOL
Houdini obviously does some things that other programs can't do as well, 
or in the eye's of those who buy it,
or no one would be buying it in the first place and the company would 
have no choice but to lower it's pricing.
As long as you have customers who want to buy something at a certain 
price, then that is what's it's worth, really.

Anyway, yes, Garee, is right on target about this.

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


-- 
-- 
Check out my Tutorials:

MD arts
Mark Dunakin
md@md-arts.com
http://www.md-arts.com 

I rather have  a nicely designed metal mouse pad with a lw symbol on it 
....than vue5 

Or a hat or something, or a mouse with a  dongle inside or something...! =) 
no noo  its not a handmade hat these would come out of a factory ...dont get 
confused guys

Looks like I stepped on some toes.  I still totally disagree though.
And most great painters made their own paint, canvas, paper...etc 

LucVR wrote:

>I rather have  a nicely designed metal mouse pad with a lw symbol on it 
>...than vue5 
>
>
>  
>
Enjoy!

LucVR wrote:

>Or a hat or something, or a mouse with a  dongle inside or something...! =) 
>no noo  its not a handmade hat these would come out of a factory ...dont get 
>confused guys
>
>Looks like I stepped on some toes.  I still totally disagree though.
>And most great painters made their own paint, canvas, paper...etc 
>  
>
Ummm... the way "you" are being sooo defensive, it sounds
like "you" were the one getting your toes stepped on, not anyone else's LOL
Yeah, because they couldn't buy them already made in the store at the 
time, is why.
Duh.
And you are making the assumption that ONLY OLD painters were great.
Too funny..........
Modern day great painters don't go around making their own paper.
Sure, they might mix their own paints, but from powders that they
BOUGHT somewhere that some company already made for them.
But, I can see you just are making noise here now, so no point following 
you on this.

-- 
-- 
Check out my Tutorials:

MD arts
Mark Dunakin
md@md-arts.com
http://www.md-arts.com 

"LucVR" <LucAnimeArt@Pandora.Be> wrote in message 
news:ILcvg.544498$4v4.12804205@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
> Or a hat or something, or a mouse with a  dongle inside or something...! 
> =) no noo  its not a handmade hat these would come out of a factory 
> ...dont get confused guys
>
> Looks like I stepped on some toes.  I still totally disagree though.
> And most great painters made their own paint, canvas, paper...etc

Have you used vue? Have you used poser, or even looked at the content and 
options that are available?

If not, then again, I say you are speaking from an uneducated standpoint.

Here's a great example. On poser character has over 700 morphs built in for 
body shape, facial shape, expressions n such.

So how many combinations are there in JUST that one character? Now add the 
unbelievable number of additional morph packages out there, or texture 
packages, and THEN start looking at accessories, props, clothing and the 
like.

If I were to model and texture everything in some poser renders, it'd take 
me 2 years just the model and texture them.

Who has that kind of free time to spend doing just one scene?

-- 
Gareee�
(Gary Tabar Jr.)

"Mark Dunakin" <md@md-arts.com> wrote in message 
news:1Tcvg.111861$TK1.85367@fed1read06...
> LucVR wrote:
>
>>Or a hat or something, or a mouse with a  dongle inside or something...! 
>>=) no noo  its not a handmade hat these would come out of a factory 
>>...dont get confused guys
>>
>>Looks like I stepped on some toes.  I still totally disagree though.
>>And most great painters made their own paint, canvas, paper...etc
> Ummm... the way "you" are being sooo defensive, it sounds
> like "you" were the one getting your toes stepped on, not anyone else's 
> LOL
> Yeah, because they couldn't buy them already made in the store at the 
> time, is why.
> Duh.
> And you are making the assumption that ONLY OLD painters were great.
> Too funny..........
> Modern day great painters don't go around making their own paper.
> Sure, they might mix their own paints, but from powders that they
> BOUGHT somewhere that some company already made for them.
> But, I can see you just are making noise here now, so no point following 
> you on this.
>
The only cheating I would have issue with would be to claim that
something is your work, when it truly is not. I'm not sure I buy
into the paint analogy. Perhaps more like using stock clip art,
or pre-made templates. I think it is fine to use such things as
long as you don't claim that you started from scratch.

An interior designer rarely creates anything from scratch.
They just select existing items, specify color and texture,
and tell you where to put it. Can an interior designer be a
valid artist without going into the woods and selecting the
tree to make the table out of?

Some consider motion picture directors to be artist, but most
of the time they don't even participate in conceiving the actors,
or did,it even help build the set.

When it gets to a program like poser, it can get dicey. If you
just take stock props and characters and arrange them in a
scene is it your art? What if you create a great background
and do some cool lighting? What if you make all of the
clothes from scratch, but use stock characters?

So, is it a matter of purity, or just a mater of dissing each other
for being less pure than you are? Do we have to enter the vectors
into a teletype to be the creator of the "art" on the screen? Perhaps
we each have a different perspective on what you can claim as your
own work.

David 

Hi Mark
The problem I was having was to do with the reg page on the Newtek
Europe site linking through to the Newtek USA site. The USA site in
turn wouldn't let me register my Lightwave as it had to be registered
with Newtek Europe. I got that sorted in the end but I'm still waiting
for my activation code and I filled in the online thingy at the
weekend.

Not just that though. I hate dongles for all the reasons everyone who
hates them does. It feels like all this security is just serving to
p*ss off legit consumers. I'm sure the pirate versions of LW that must
be circulating by now don't have this hassle.

I also live on fear of losing / damaging / having it stolen. I know
newtek are supposed to have a good replacement policy but I'd still not
be able to work for the time it took to get another one. I've said
before how I like modo's licensing model. I'd like my Lightwave to
licensed to *me*. I'd like to have it installed on my Laptop as well
and be able to carry on working while the big machine is rendering. And
there's no way on Earth I'd give out my software if the serial is
registered to me...especially if there was the threat of the license
being cancelled should multiple copies start appearing.

But I love 3d graphics and it's just me blowing off steam...I want Jam
on it, basically.....Ignore me.

Nicko


Mark Dunakin wrote:
> Nicko wrote:
>
> >But Newtek do kick ass....I hate all this hassle with getting a
> >permanent license and dongles though...I hate restrictions!
> >
> >
> What restrictions are you refering to?
> I got my permanant license plenty easy enough.
> No real hassles or anything.
>
> I've heard a few (maybe 5?) people that have had some troubles getting
> their licenses,
> and in all of those cases, it seemed to me they didn't follow *exactly*
> the steps that
> were layed out, but rather tried to hurry things up and do things their
> own way
> and didn't actually follow the instructions as were layed out by NewTek.
>
> Not saying you did that or anything, just from the people so far that I've
> read about and their explinations on what they tried to do to get their
> licenses.
> Like not completely uninstalling any previous versions of 9, or not
> using the Registration Utillity.
> What I mean is, sure we all know how to simply add a number to our
> current License Key,
> but if it's not working, then I say follow the NewTek instructions to
> the letter, as I did, and things went perfectly fine.
>
> Can you maybe expand on what hassles you had or went through?
> Cuz I totally love the new automated registration thingy.
> Worked like a charm!
>
> .................md :)
>
> --
> --
> Check out my Tutorials:
>
> MD arts
> Mark Dunakin
> md@md-arts.com
> http://www.md-arts.com
>
>
> --------------050003060207040603010607
> Content-Type: text/html
> X-Google-AttachSize: 1950
>
> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
> <html>
> <head>
>   <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
>   <title></title>
> </head>
> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
> Nicko wrote:<br>
> <blockquote
>  cite="mid1153178120.471828.59730@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com"
>  type="cite">
>   <pre wrap="">But Newtek do kick ass....I hate all this hassle with getting a
> permanent license and dongles though...I hate restrictions!
>   </pre>
> </blockquote>
> What restrictions are you refering to?<br>
> I got my permanant license plenty easy enough.<br>
> No real hassles or anything.<br>
> <br>
> I've heard a few (maybe 5?) people that have had some troubles getting
> their licenses, <br>
> and in all of those cases, it seemed to me they didn't follow <b>exactly</b>
> the steps that <br>
> were layed out, but rather tried to hurry things up and do things their
> own way <br>
> and didn't actually follow the instructions as were layed out by NewTek.<br>
> <br>
> Not saying you did that or anything, just from the people so far that
> I've <br>
> read about and their explinations on what they tried to do to get their
> licenses.<br>
> Like not completely uninstalling any previous versions of 9, or not
> using the Registration Utillity.<br>
> What I mean is, sure we all know how to simply add a number to our
> current License Key,<br>
> but if it's not working, then I say follow the NewTek instructions to
> the letter, as I did, and things went perfectly fine.<br>
> <br>
> Can you maybe expand on what hassles you had or went through?<br>
> Cuz I totally love the new automated registration thingy.<br>
> Worked like a charm!<br>
> <br>
> .................md :)<br>
> <br>
> <pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
> --
> Check out my Tutorials:
>
> MD arts
> Mark Dunakin
> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:md@md-arts.com">md@md-arts.com</a>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.md-arts.com">http://www.md-arts.com</a> </pre>
> </body>
> </html>
> 
> --------------050003060207040603010607--

David McCall wrote:

>"Mark Dunakin" <md@md-arts.com> wrote in message 
>news:1Tcvg.111861$TK1.85367@fed1read06...
>  
>
>>LucVR wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Or a hat or something, or a mouse with a  dongle inside or something...! 
>>>=) no noo  its not a handmade hat these would come out of a factory 
>>>...dont get confused guys
>>>
>>>Looks like I stepped on some toes.  I still totally disagree though.
>>>And most great painters made their own paint, canvas, paper...etc
>>>      
>>>
>>Ummm... the way "you" are being sooo defensive, it sounds
>>like "you" were the one getting your toes stepped on, not anyone else's 
>>LOL
>>Yeah, because they couldn't buy them already made in the store at the 
>>time, is why.
>>Duh.
>>And you are making the assumption that ONLY OLD painters were great.
>>Too funny..........
>>Modern day great painters don't go around making their own paper.
>>Sure, they might mix their own paints, but from powders that they
>>BOUGHT somewhere that some company already made for them.
>>But, I can see you just are making noise here now, so no point following 
>>you on this.
>>
>>    
>>
>The only cheating I would have issue with would be to claim that
>something is your work, when it truly is not. I'm not sure I buy
>into the paint analogy. Perhaps more like using stock clip art,
>or pre-made templates. I think it is fine to use such things as
>long as you don't claim that you started from scratch.
>
>An interior designer rarely creates anything from scratch.
>They just select existing items, specify color and texture,
>and tell you where to put it. Can an interior designer be a
>valid artist without going into the woods and selecting the
>tree to make the table out of?
>
>Some consider motion picture directors to be artist, but most
>of the time they don't even participate in conceiving the actors,
>or did,it even help build the set.
>
>When it gets to a program like poser, it can get dicey. If you
>just take stock props and characters and arrange them in a
>scene is it your art? What if you create a great background
>and do some cool lighting? What if you make all of the
>clothes from scratch, but use stock characters?
>
>So, is it a matter of purity, or just a mater of dissing each other
>for being less pure than you are? Do we have to enter the vectors
>into a teletype to be the creator of the "art" on the screen? Perhaps
>we each have a different perspective on what you can claim as your
>own work.
>
>David 
>
>
>  
>
Yeah, but David, he's trying to make a blanket statement, not about what 
you are saying here above.
Nothing was mentioned about which stage of the artwork from a program 
gets to be slated as
being created from one's self, only that certain programs are so called 
"cheating" to use.
THIS is where I totally dissagree.
Of course, if the conversation were about people "claiming" that their 
artwork was made all by them,
without mentioning that they used said Poser objects or objects made by 
others, then that might be a different topic.
But that's not what he was implying with his comments.
People always say, look at the scene I made "using" Vue, not I created 
each plant from complete scratch in this scene.
Especially since you don't currently get to, but when we can, then that 
will be completely out of the picture.
But even still, the way you create your Vue scene, can all be created 
completely on your own with your own plants.
Just not Proprietary plants yet from complete scratch, but close to it, 
as you can make a plant and load it into the eco system.
They just won't have the abillity to change form from plant to plant, 
which is what Vue's job is in the first place.

He's making out that using something like Vue, where the plants are 
supplied as part of the software is somehow
cheating and you really didn't create the scene, simply because part of 
what the software does is to provide
plants so you can populate the terrains that you yourself has made, not 
the program, is all cheating.
That's just a load.

So, the way in which I set up the base plant objects, which is really 
the whole point in the software
anyway and what you do with it is truely your own artworks, not the 
software's artworks, is what matters.
Even though the plants themselves were originally created by someone 
else, they are created as proprietary
objects that you can not create from scratch on your own anyway, but 
they still can become your own plants
simply because of all the settings you can use to completely change the 
plants any way that you want.
So this makes them no longer the original creators plants anymore.
And it's ME that is making the changes to the eco systems, via the 
software, so that each plant is it's own unique
object and no longer is like the original object at all, other then some 
basics, which even those you can
modify yourself so that the whole textureings of every aspect of the 
plant is completely different.
I mean, come on, a pine tree is a pine tree!
How many ways can someone create this on their own anyway?
My point being though, that in a situation like this, the plants 
themselves are really part of the "tools"
and not just objects that you are loading into a scene and why the lame 
anology about the painting from scratch.
Which, BTW, was totally meant as joke in reply to his original anologies 
that were designed just to be devisive really.

Had we been talking about claiming that objects that were created, as 
in, see this car, I made it, then that
would of been a different story, but that's not what it was about, it 
was about making out like certain
programs suck because you aren't really creating your OWN artwork 
creations, which is simply not so.
Vue didn't design the Terrains, I did.
It didn't setup the eco system and placements of said eco system, I did.
And, it didn't create the variations on each and every plant, I did.
And in fact, you are allowed to make your own image maps to completely 
change how
the plant looks and to a certain extent, create your own brand and 
species of plants.
Vue didn't do any of that, it just allowed you to be able to accomplish 
these things.
So, I consider that "tools" not just objects that someone else created, 
just like tools in LW.

But let's face it, he is just one of those that wants to get nit picky 
about how far down the
ladder you want to go before you can claim some artwork is truely your 
own, and why I made
the lame grinding up the powders to make the paint bit, because I see 
each plant as the paint
already and "I" control how the paint (plants, eco systems) is applied, 
not the program or anyone else.

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


-- 
-- 
Check out my Tutorials:

MD arts
Mark Dunakin
md@md-arts.com
http://www.md-arts.com 

"Mark Dunakin" <md@md-arts.com> wrote in message 
news:nWgvg.111871$TK1.9825@fed1read06...

Good points Mark.

BTW I though your scene was very nice.

there was a program on TV that showed the design and
construction of a 4 lane highway through a canyon that
looked similar to your canyon. There had been a 2 lane
road that ran through the bottom of the canyon, but it
was old and couldn't really handle enough traffic for the
current load. The locals were outraged, but a new road
was needed. Ultimately 2 architects were hired to design
the new road. One started at one end and the other started
at the other end. They walked the land fro quite some time,
and just looked at the beautiful scenery. When it came to
designing the actual road they tried to capture as many
of the "views" as possible. These views were out the front
window, not just to he side. The end result was that riding
down their new road was like watching a beautiful fly-through
as designed by a top cinematographer. Around each bend
was a new vista. Further, they restored any damage they
had to do to the terrain, and restored the area that had been
the old road. They also watched to see where the animals
traveled going down to the water, and flew the road at those
points to let the animals through. Where possible, the road
was concealed from view, or designed to fit into the landscape.
Anyway, that is what your picture reminded me of.

I drove a stretch of road in upper Pennsylvania that had a well
designed feel. I think it was I-80 west of Scranton. There were
no obvious cuts through the mountains, and the vistas out the
front window were just amazing.

Thanks for sharing

David

>>I mean, come on, a pine tree is a pine tree!<<hmmmmm Disagree again... 
>>U'll never get it u have lotsa bla bla to defend ur noobism.



"Mark Dunakin" <md@md-arts.com> wrote in message 
news:nWgvg.111871$TK1.9825@fed1read06...
> David McCall wrote:
>
>>"Mark Dunakin" <md@md-arts.com> wrote in message 
>>news:1Tcvg.111861$TK1.85367@fed1read06...
>>
>>>LucVR wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Or a hat or something, or a mouse with a  dongle inside or something...! 
>>>>=) no noo  its not a handmade hat these would come out of a factory 
>>>>...dont get confused guys
>>>>
>>>>Looks like I stepped on some toes.  I still totally disagree though.
>>>>And most great painters made their own paint, canvas, paper...etc
>>>>
>>>Ummm... the way "you" are being sooo defensive, it sounds
>>>like "you" were the one getting your toes stepped on, not anyone else's 
>>>LOL
>>>Yeah, because they couldn't buy them already made in the store at the 
>>>time, is why.
>>>Duh.
>>>And you are making the assumption that ONLY OLD painters were great.
>>>Too funny..........
>>>Modern day great painters don't go around making their own paper.
>>>Sure, they might mix their own paints, but from powders that they
>>>BOUGHT somewhere that some company already made for them.
>>>But, I can see you just are making noise here now, so no point following 
>>>you on this.
>>>
>>>
>>The only cheating I would have issue with would be to claim that
>>something is your work, when it truly is not. I'm not sure I buy
>>into the paint analogy. Perhaps more like using stock clip art,
>>or pre-made templates. I think it is fine to use such things as
>>long as you don't claim that you started from scratch.
>>
>>An interior designer rarely creates anything from scratch.
>>They just select existing items, specify color and texture,
>>and tell you where to put it. Can an interior designer be a
>>valid artist without going into the woods and selecting the
>>tree to make the table out of?
>>
>>Some consider motion picture directors to be artist, but most
>>of the time they don't even participate in conceiving the actors,
>>or did,it even help build the set.
>>
>>When it gets to a program like poser, it can get dicey. If you
>>just take stock props and characters and arrange them in a
>>scene is it your art? What if you create a great background
>>and do some cool lighting? What if you make all of the
>>clothes from scratch, but use stock characters?
>>
>>So, is it a matter of purity, or just a mater of dissing each other
>>for being less pure than you are? Do we have to enter the vectors
>>into a teletype to be the creator of the "art" on the screen? Perhaps
>>we each have a different perspective on what you can claim as your
>>own work.
>>
>>David
>>
>>
> Yeah, but David, he's trying to make a blanket statement, not about what 
> you are saying here above.
> Nothing was mentioned about which stage of the artwork from a program gets 
> to be slated as
> being created from one's self, only that certain programs are so called 
> "cheating" to use.
> THIS is where I totally dissagree.
> Of course, if the conversation were about people "claiming" that their 
> artwork was made all by them,
> without mentioning that they used said Poser objects or objects made by 
> others, then that might be a different topic.
> But that's not what he was implying with his comments.
> People always say, look at the scene I made "using" Vue, not I created 
> each plant from complete scratch in this scene.
> Especially since you don't currently get to, but when we can, then that 
> will be completely out of the picture.
> But even still, the way you create your Vue scene, can all be created 
> completely on your own with your own plants.
> Just not Proprietary plants yet from complete scratch, but close to it, as 
> you can make a plant and load it into the eco system.
> They just won't have the abillity to change form from plant to plant, 
> which is what Vue's job is in the first place.
>
> He's making out that using something like Vue, where the plants are 
> supplied as part of the software is somehow
> cheating and you really didn't create the scene, simply because part of 
> what the software does is to provide
> plants so you can populate the terrains that you yourself has made, not 
> the program, is all cheating.
> That's just a load.
>
> So, the way in which I set up the base plant objects, which is really the 
> whole point in the software
> anyway and what you do with it is truely your own artworks, not the 
> software's artworks, is what matters.
> Even though the plants themselves were originally created by someone else, 
> they are created as proprietary
> objects that you can not create from scratch on your own anyway, but they 
> still can become your own plants
> simply because of all the settings you can use to completely change the 
> plants any way that you want.
> So this makes them no longer the original creators plants anymore.
> And it's ME that is making the changes to the eco systems, via the 
> software, so that each plant is it's own unique
> object and no longer is like the original object at all, other then some 
> basics, which even those you can
> modify yourself so that the whole textureings of every aspect of the plant 
> is completely different.
> I mean, come on, a pine tree is a pine tree!
> How many ways can someone create this on their own anyway?
> My point being though, that in a situation like this, the plants 
> themselves are really part of the "tools"
> and not just objects that you are loading into a scene and why the lame 
> anology about the painting from scratch.
> Which, BTW, was totally meant as joke in reply to his original anologies 
> that were designed just to be devisive really.
>
> Had we been talking about claiming that objects that were created, as in, 
> see this car, I made it, then that
> would of been a different story, but that's not what it was about, it was 
> about making out like certain
> programs suck because you aren't really creating your OWN artwork 
> creations, which is simply not so.
> Vue didn't design the Terrains, I did.
> It didn't setup the eco system and placements of said eco system, I did.
> And, it didn't create the variations on each and every plant, I did.
> And in fact, you are allowed to make your own image maps to completely 
> change how
> the plant looks and to a certain extent, create your own brand and species 
> of plants.
> Vue didn't do any of that, it just allowed you to be able to accomplish 
> these things.
> So, I consider that "tools" not just objects that someone else created, 
> just like tools in LW.
>
> But let's face it, he is just one of those that wants to get nit picky 
> about how far down the
> ladder you want to go before you can claim some artwork is truely your 
> own, and why I made
> the lame grinding up the powders to make the paint bit, because I see each 
> plant as the paint
> already and "I" control how the paint (plants, eco systems) is applied, 
> not the program or anyone else.
>
> .........................md :)
>
>
> -- 
> -- 
> Check out my Tutorials:
>
> MD arts
> Mark Dunakin
> md@md-arts.com
> http://www.md-arts.com 

Yes, saw both programs in action.
 

David McCall wrote:

>"Mark Dunakin" <md@md-arts.com> wrote in message 
>news:nWgvg.111871$TK1.9825@fed1read06...
>
>Good points Mark.
>
>BTW I though your scene was very nice.
>
>there was a program on TV that showed the design and
>construction of a 4 lane highway through a canyon that
>looked similar to your canyon. There had been a 2 lane
>road that ran through the bottom of the canyon, but it
>was old and couldn't really handle enough traffic for the
>current load. The locals were outraged, but a new road
>was needed. Ultimately 2 architects were hired to design
>the new road. One started at one end and the other started
>at the other end. They walked the land fro quite some time,
>and just looked at the beautiful scenery. When it came to
>designing the actual road they tried to capture as many
>of the "views" as possible. These views were out the front
>window, not just to he side. The end result was that riding
>down their new road was like watching a beautiful fly-through
>as designed by a top cinematographer. Around each bend
>was a new vista. Further, they restored any damage they
>had to do to the terrain, and restored the area that had been
>the old road. They also watched to see where the animals
>traveled going down to the water, and flew the road at those
>points to let the animals through. Where possible, the road
>was concealed from view, or designed to fit into the landscape.
>Anyway, that is what your picture reminded me of.
>
>I drove a stretch of road in upper Pennsylvania that had a well
>designed feel. I think it was I-80 west of Scranton. There were
>no obvious cuts through the mountains, and the vistas out the
>front window were just amazing.
>
>Thanks for sharing
>
>David
>
>
>  
>
Man, that sounds awesome!
I wished I could of seen that program.
I always like watching shows like that anyway, just because they're cool 
to see how they do the stuff.
And BTW, thanx and you're welcome as well :)
I am actually making the scene from some faded memory of being in a 
place like that,
only I just can't remember where or when I was ever there? LOL

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

-- 
-- 
Check out my Tutorials:

MD arts
Mark Dunakin
md@md-arts.com
http://www.md-arts.com 

LucVR wrote:

>>>I mean, come on, a pine tree is a pine tree!<<hmmmmm Disagree again... 
>>>U'll never get it u have lotsa bla bla to defend ur noobism.
>>>      
>>>
Yeah, sure, whatever............


-- 
Check out my Tutorials:

MD arts
Mark Dunakin
md@md-arts.com
http://www.md-arts.com 

"Mark Dunakin" <md@md-arts.com> wrote in message 
news:SOuvg.111888$TK1.70849@fed1read06...
>
> Man, that sounds awesome!
> I wished I could of seen that program.
> I always like watching shows like that anyway, just because they're cool 
> to see how they do the stuff.
> And BTW, thanx and you're welcome as well :)
> I am actually making the scene from some faded memory of being in a place 
> like that,
> only I just can't remember where or when I was ever there? LOL
>

This may have been the one
http://www.mesalek.com/colo/glenwood/index.html

http://rockymountainscenery.com/glenwood/pan01.html

http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/04mar/04.htm

David McCall wrote:

>"Mark Dunakin" <md@md-arts.com> wrote in message 
>news:SOuvg.111888$TK1.70849@fed1read06...
>  
>
>>Man, that sounds awesome!
>>I wished I could of seen that program.
>>I always like watching shows like that anyway, just because they're cool 
>>to see how they do the stuff.
>>And BTW, thanx and you're welcome as well :)
>>I am actually making the scene from some faded memory of being in a place 
>>like that,
>>only I just can't remember where or when I was ever there? LOL
>>
>>    
>>
>
>This may have been the one
>http://www.mesalek.com/colo/glenwood/index.html
>
>http://rockymountainscenery.com/glenwood/pan01.html
>
>http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/04mar/04.htm
>  
>
Thanx for these links.
I am bookmarking them so I can check them out later this weekend, since 
I am just too swamped at the moment.
But I did take a quick look at the first link, just to see?

Thanx again and I'll be back with comments as soon as I get a second to 
check them out.

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


-- 
-- 
Check out my Tutorials:

MD arts
Mark Dunakin
md@md-arts.com
http://www.md-arts.com 

"Mark Dunakin" <md@md-arts.com> wrote in message 
news:kvTvg.112062$TK1.80478@fed1read06...
> David McCall wrote:
>
>>
>>This may have been the one
>>http://www.mesalek.com/colo/glenwood/index.html
>>
>>http://rockymountainscenery.com/glenwood/pan01.html
>>
>>http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/04mar/04.htm
>>
> Thanx for these links.
> I am bookmarking them so I can check them out later this weekend, since I 
> am just too swamped at the moment.
> But I did take a quick look at the first link, just to see?
>
> Thanx again and I'll be back with comments as soon as I get a second to 
> check them out.
>

The video may well have been
"Glenwood Canyon: Ancient Treasure, Modern Marvel"

I didn't manage find it for sale, but there were places you could borrow a 
copy from.
Perhaps the state of Colorado has copies for sale.

David

Nicko wrote:

>Hi Mark
>The problem I was having was to do with the reg page on the Newtek
>Europe site linking through to the Newtek USA site. The USA site in
>turn wouldn't let me register my Lightwave as it had to be registered
>with Newtek Europe. I got that sorted in the end but I'm still waiting
>for my activation code and I filled in the online thingy at the
>weekend.
>  
>
Hmmm... well, hopefully, you can get ahold of someone from NewTek and 
maybe they can help you out here?

>Not just that though. I hate dongles for all the reasons everyone who
>hates them does.
>
Same here LOL

>It feels like all this security is just serving to
>p*ss off legit consumers.
>
My setiments exactly.
I've been an out spoken anti-dingle person ever since I first got LW4.0 
and my dongle fried on me right after I got it.
 From that day on I despised the things and for the reasons you mention, 
namely, legit customers are the ONLU people
being locked out from the software THEY paid for, as the pirates get 
crack these softwares with no problems.
I know, because I always keep a cracked backup available just in case 
something bad ever happens to my dongle again.
I've been doing that ever since that first time and will continue to do so.
Sure, some things might now run, like third party plugins, but for the most
part you can at least finish using LW while you wait on getting a 
replacement.

>I'm sure the pirate versions of LW that must
>be circulating by now don't have this hassle.
>  
>
LOL

>I also live on fear of losing / damaging / having it stolen. I know
>newtek are supposed to have a good replacement policy but I'd still not
>be able to work for the time it took to get another one.
>
That's why I keep a backup cracked version as soon as they become available.
And you can see, I have no problems stating this in public either.
I'm not the criminal here, the dongles are.
It's sort of like when my brother went to Spain and asked for
a non-smoking section on the trains out there and they gave him one.
HE couldn't smoke, but everyone around him in that crounded train 
"could" smoke! LOL
Halarious!

>I've said before how I like modo's licensing model. I'd like my Lightwave to
>licensed to *me*. I'd like to have it installed on my Laptop as well
>and be able to carry on working while the big machine is rendering. And
>there's no way on Earth I'd give out my software if the serial is
>registered to me...especially if there was the threat of the license
>being cancelled should multiple copies start appearing.
>  
>
As for this part, I can't say I can totally agree, but it's only because 
I don't really have any better answers for this sort of thing,
meaning, that I can understand the purpose of the dongle in that, what 
you just suggested means that technically, you could
then have LW installed on lots of systems and be using all of them at 
the same time, which also technically would mean
that you "could" have a fleat of other people working on all those other 
computers with LW on each one.
So, I'm not sure how this could be worked out, without using a dongle?
Sadly.

>But I love 3d graphics and it's just me blowing off steam...I want Jam
>on it, basically.....Ignore me.
>  
>
No, that's all cool and I think most people can understand where you're 
coming from.

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


-- 
-- 
Check out my Tutorials:

MD arts
Mark Dunakin
md@md-arts.com
http://www.md-arts.com 

David McCall wrote:

>"Mark Dunakin" <md@md-arts.com> wrote in message 
>news:kvTvg.112062$TK1.80478@fed1read06...
>  
>
>>David McCall wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>This may have been the one
>>>http://www.mesalek.com/colo/glenwood/index.html
>>>
>>>http://rockymountainscenery.com/glenwood/pan01.html
>>>
>>>http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/04mar/04.htm
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>Thanx for these links.
>>I am bookmarking them so I can check them out later this weekend, since I 
>>am just too swamped at the moment.
>>But I did take a quick look at the first link, just to see?
>>
>>Thanx again and I'll be back with comments as soon as I get a second to 
>>check them out.
>>
>>    
>>
>
>The video may well have been
>"Glenwood Canyon: Ancient Treasure, Modern Marvel"
>
>I didn't manage find it for sale, but there were places you could borrow a 
>copy from.
>Perhaps the state of Colorado has copies for sale.
>
>David
>
>
>  
>
I forgot to get back to this, but I did want to say, they did do a 
pretty nice job with that road and all.
I mean it runs through everything so pleasantly and stuff, that it 
almost blends in with nature!
I can't wait to get back to my own Maountain project, but since last 
friday,
I have been working at getting my new web site built.
Funny part is (or actually sad part) is that so far, nothing has 
actually been created for my new site!
But that's OK, as I've been spending my time experimenting on just 
exactly which look I want
to go with and the style of things and the functionality of it all, so 
that all is going well :)

back to it to day....................md :)

-- 
-- 
Check out my Tutorials:

MD arts
Mark Dunakin
md@md-arts.com
http://www.md-arts.com