PDA

View Full Version : NewTek Webcast: Lightwave 9.6 Demo & Core Sneak Peek


RobertoOrtiz
07-30-2009, 03:18 PM
Newtek just posted this...
This is a cool hour+ webcast on Lightwave 9.6, studio spotlight & a sneak peek at CORE.


http://demo.newtek.com/archive.php?recordID=4

Cheesestraws
07-30-2009, 03:58 PM
I am a bit disappointed, I was expecting to see something more interesting than instancing, and the interface seems to be wasting a lot of space.

ambient-whisper
07-30-2009, 05:38 PM
doesnt really matter if they are wasting space at this point. the final interface could be entirely different.

what is important at this point is that these technologies that they are building are fast, flexible, and stable. thats it. everything else is secondary.

Titus
07-30-2009, 05:51 PM
I am a bit disappointed, I was expecting to see something more interesting than instancing, and the interface seems to be wasting a lot of space.

The interface will be fully customized by the users.

Nemoid
07-31-2009, 10:27 AM
interface will use QT tools for customization.
I do agree with ambient-whisper about technology, and hope Nt will be able to do well in this field. :)
So far, we've seen that Core can model geometry, handle lots of polys and that has modifier stack and history. Not bad considering what Lw can do now, but will have to be competitive with other apps...

runejw
07-31-2009, 11:32 AM
The interface will be fully customized by the users.

The question is not if it will be customizable, but to what extent and with what ease it will be customizable. E.g. Dropdown list to match LW GUI to App X ? (App X = any one of competing 3D apps, including layouts and mouse controls)

ambient-whisper
07-31-2009, 11:56 AM
matching other apps layouts makes little sense as well. for example. modo has no modifier stack.. maya has their channel box and max has a modifier stack.

if lightwave has a stack and you try to recreate a "modo" layout, where do you put it? you wont be able to recreate every single type of layout due to the way the application is designed. the best layout should ideally be done by the developer and you should learn to use it, or make your own. using a maya layout in modo is a bad idea for example because there are functions in modo that you would entirely miss if you used the maya setup. so if you plan on missing out on functions, go ahead :) i just think its a horrible idea.

Titus
07-31-2009, 12:08 PM
I doubt the customization is intended to morph Core to other existing apps, if this is the case what's the point of buying Core instead of the other app?

liquidik
07-31-2009, 12:12 PM
To be honest I don't quite understand all this urge to mimic other interfaces. I can understand the importance of customizing keyboard shortcuts as they are the essence of a fast workflow, but appearance ? Every application is similar in the tools and yet extremely different in the way they are implemented, so...just learn it!

My 2c

Gian

Titus
07-31-2009, 12:17 PM
Just look at blender. UI customization helps the workflow, you want to animate? there's a setup for this, you want to edit? there's another setup for this purpose. Customization gives you flexibility and don't know why everybody thinks customization is only to mimic other programs look and feel.

Nemoid
07-31-2009, 06:29 PM
Just googled a bit and found this.
Core UI seems to be quite customizable at least in colors and overall aspect:)

http://www.pixsim.co.uk/core/

it seems to me also pretty well organized as it is for now that many features are missing yet.

hope there's no prob into sharing this link.

ambient-whisper
07-31-2009, 08:09 PM
To be honest I don't quite understand all this urge to mimic other interfaces. I can understand the importance of customizing keyboard shortcuts as they are the essence of a fast workflow, but appearance ? Every application is similar in the tools and yet extremely different in the way they are implemented, so...just learn it!

My 2c

Gian

well, there is a huge benefit to being able to manipulate your interface to your task. my interface of modo is a mish mash of a few different layouts, and my hotkeys and pie menu is entirely redone. it works out great for me, but if you sat someone else on my modo they would be lost with hotkeys and stuff.

however, i used modo for a while, learned the way it works and then i manipulated it to work the way i want.



comming into an app and expecting it to look, feel and work exactly like app X or Y is just wrong. you might as well just use app X or Y.

sk3d
07-31-2009, 09:00 PM
Interesting... although I love Lw, modeller in particular is feeling rather jurrassic the few times I hop back onto it. Any progress is good, as long as they dont break it! :hmm:

arctor
07-31-2009, 09:22 PM
interesting vid, thanks


but....
"no other 3d software package is so complete right out of the box"
not starting anyting here but...what?
I understand the needs of marketing but this is just silly.

leuey
07-31-2009, 10:29 PM
That's totally true. Screen navigation helps and basic hotkeys (like transforms) - a lot of people who use modo use Maya screen nav.

However, when modo first came out they had the UI thing where people would change the colors, look and layout to match Maya or Lightwave and it wasn't a success. The problem was, even though it looked like those apps, it works completely differently. What happened is people kept saying....but LW works like this and Maya works like this...can't it just...

They weren't able to immerse themselves in modo's workflow because they were hindered by trying to make it look and act like Maya or LW.

So that idea was dropped and for good reason.

I like how you can move the UI windows around, inserting them into the layout...that's pretty cool. Wish modo and Maya could do that.

-Greg



comming into an app and expecting it to look, feel and work exactly like app X or Y is just wrong. you might as well just use app X or Y.

runejw
08-02-2009, 09:18 AM
To some degree I agree. There are unique features and workflows in every application. But from that to not doing efforts to simplify learning curves, simplify workflow habits etc is again a mistake in my book.

The "match App X GUI" approach (as good as one can) does at least three good things:
1) Forces developers to think if they really need to call their primitives and functions etc something totally unique or if they should rather choose to standardize.
2) Makes the deveolpers do most of the hard work needed to customize the layout/functions. My idea of customization is not to use a lot of hours/scripts to adapt the UI to my liking, but rather have a simpler menu/preset approach that gives instant productivity.
3) Evolves the UI design and makes the application more intuitive (in contrast to "steep learning curve" & "once you get used to it..." )

As for arguments about dissimilarities in functionality - sure, but adding unique product functions to a specific layout should be fairly easy. Likewise implementing greyed out functions, perhaps with automatic "Help" info telling if the functionality is really missing or if it can be accomplished via another menu or combination of functions would be nice.

But again just some ideas I have for evolving the pretty static landscape of UI design we see today. It's not the "final answer" in the field of user interfacing - after all ideas from SciFi books about what is now coined "Brain Computer Interface" (BCI) have seen some practical results lately. Lot of refinement and development still missing before it's useable in a 3D app, but will get there eventually I'm sure.

Will we think about menus and layouts, when we get to that point? Don't think so. More likely we will be thinking about direct manipulation of 3D objects, modifiers and functions.

BookMansBlues
08-02-2009, 08:50 PM
interesting vid, thanks


but....
"no other 3d software package is so complete right out of the box"
not starting anyting here but...what?
I understand the needs of marketing but this is just silly.

I think when they say that it boils down to the renderer, almost all other apps really want you to use a 3rd party renderer. you really would not want to use Maya or Max's software renderer if you could help it. instead you would want to use Mental ray or vray, or renderman. though mental ray ships with a lot of these apps now, but it's still 3rd party. LWs native renderer is still a great quality renderer that you get 999 free render nodes with out of the box.

Mike Pauza
08-03-2009, 02:12 AM
IMO this is a much better reveal than last time.
Much more professionally done, and more honest about LW's strengths.

Having said that, a real-time rendering announcement and a commitment to more playing with others would have me more excited.

-Mike

Nemoid
08-03-2009, 09:15 AM
I sometimes happen to think that the best UI would be actually no UI at all, in the sense that he most you can focus onto the actual object you're manipulating or dealing with within the viewport, the better it is.

So for example i am quite a big fan of keyboard shortcuts, just because they're the only solution to actually speed up your work.
I'm also a big fan of RMB popup menus with tools depending onto what is selected, and head up displays within the viewports.

The approach in many things should be visual. It is the best for artists.

Especially the ones coming from traditional arts, because they're used to stay on the board or piece of art they make, manipulate that directly, with hands or tools.

so things like real time interactive tools, drag and drop, non destructive modifications, and straightforwarness of the toolset and workflow are highly welcome.

BTW, 3D is actually complex because is acually both, technical/precise and artistic so, editors to edit numeric inputs, curves and more, will be always there, i think, and they serve well.

I think the concepts to apply to a great UI and workflow, should be something like a layered structure, in the sense that common task the artist happens to have to do every day , over and over and over should be very easy to do, even with presets or wizards, while the more complex and stratified the work has to be, the more technical the user could have to be.

But, since a great percentage is made by common operations the workflow will be speady for the most part. it will get slower, when tasks get more complex.

the concept is also having the app working towards you and not you working against the app.

small example of those concepts:

if I can start setting up a rig with an autorigging feature, and then i have the features and tools to easily adapt t and fix to my exact needs into a non destructive way i will take less time do do a rig and animate,, because i'll have:

a good base to start with
possibility to take this base and adapt it to my object/needs
possibility to change things in the rig on the fly even while animating

so less time struggling with the app, and more time to focus on creating.

richcz3
08-03-2009, 05:44 PM
....but....
"no other 3d software package is so complete right out of the box"
not starting anyting here but...what?
I understand the needs of marketing but this is just silly.
That's also an indirect nod to Lightwave's generalist history. One person could learn most if not all aspects of Lightwave and deliver a finished production - "out of the box". Anyone who has used LW for commercial work (historically version 4.0 through 7 days) can testify to this.

Other applications tend to have specialists to get their heads around specific parts of the application and then work in teams to get a production rolling.

That being said, one of NewTeks biggest challenges with Core will be to maintain that historical ease of use. To keep the work flow intuitive and practical. Allowing one individual to grasp many aspects of its functions to make a final production.

CGTalk Moderation
08-03-2009, 05:44 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.