HOW TO IMPROVE LIGHTWAVE (Tell us your ideas)

#101

LW overall is good, but I wish Vray for Lightwave…

I guess that could recover lot of old LW users back… like me lol

#102

Doubtful. It would be far too expensive for most LW’vers since the vast majority are probably hobbyists.

I would prefer Arnold anyway. :slight_smile:

#103

I don’t think is about budged, I found Blender (wich is free) have already a very good integrated port runing through the Vray standalone version (wich cost less than $600 vray standalone), and Google sketchup (wich has free version) also have it, and lately C4D wich is just a bit more expensive than LW and have it…

So how about Vray for LW? :lightbulb

#104

@Gitch, if the models done in Maya were full of holes, that’s the modelers fault. DSW nailed it in saying it’s the artist not the software. There could be a number of reasons why they may have used LW. Just seeing the previews I knew it was done in LW.

#105 
 $600 is ALLOT for a hobbyist and I sincerely doubt that people would "come back" to LW just because of a Vray port. As I said, I couldn't care less about Vray - I prefer Arnold and would MUCH prefer that to be ported to LW.

 Agreed. Currently I'm a LW guy, but because I now no longer respect Newtek (management) I so much would rather learn Blender and XSI - I just don't have enough time at the moment. However, if I were to start a show right now, it would HAVE to be LW since that is what I am familiar with. I COULD do it in XSI, Max, Maya, C4D or Blender, but it would take forever and not look great since I don't really know those programs. Also...  if you are a specialist rather than a generalist, it's much more difficult working on a small production (relatively speaking) since most vfx artists are required to do FAR more than those in a large production.

It may not be the rule, but “my view” of Maya artists are that they are not “generally” generalists. Maya artists (IMO) are FAR more often to be specialists as opposed to generalists - which (again, IMO) are what most LW artists are - generalists. I may be completely off here - this is only my perception from viewing the various forums (including Newtek) over the years, but LW people tend to be generalists and work in smaller shops where Maya people tend to work in larger productions and specialize. So regarding Iron Sky… using the logic above it would tend to favor LW as opposed to Maya - where the artist is concerned.

#106

well we have MAXWELL already and it is $995 which is more expensive…

http://www.maxwellrender.com/index.php/maxwell_render_suite/buy

… so Why not Vray for LV? :lightbulb

By the way lets vote in newtek site, cant beleive people is afraid of Vray
http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?t=125936&page=5

#107

Yeah? So? I would bet that there are not a great many LW users who have Maxwell. I do - as well as Kray - and the user forum at Next Limit is VERY slow regarding LW. There are probably more users that purchased Kray as opposed to Maxwell. I sincerely doubt that having Maxwell for LW (or Kray or Vray) will entice users to come BACK to LW. It will just give current users another option.

I’m sure the same would go for Arnold if it was ported to LW. It will just add the option to LW but more than likely NOT add more LW users.

#108

the reason is cuz Vray > Maxwell > Kray , so many freelancers and studios (like me) have to jump to other app to render in Vray instead of using Kray or Maxwell for LW… There is a “quality/time/real physics parameters” that makes Vray still in front and growing.

The new beta Maxwell is amazing (http://vimeo.com/33776370 rendered in beta Maxwell)but is still a litle behind and still slow render problem, I try already that, and Kray has just good intentions but needs to develop more.

So if Vray becomes available for LW opposite to Octane, I could tell people from other similar packages in price and tools which already have Vray (Rhino, C4D, and maybe sketchup for archiviz… I don’t include Blender cuz is free app ) could upgrade to LW or at least its community wont go smaller next year.

SI is another nice option but we are talking already a $4500+ not including Vray… However even if price we are having a meeting next month at office to decide if we switch to SI due to Vray and Ice.

#109

But that’s the point - you already HAVE LW. It’s not going to bring any more users TO LW since Vray is already available for most other apps.

There will STILL be limitations for certain plugins in LW that Vray (like Maxwell) won’t be able to render. When CORE was still on the drawing table, users of other apps FINALLY took notice of LW. When Newtek management dropped CORE, those people lost interest in LW again. The odss are highly against LW getting users from the high-end apps to switch to LW - fewer studios use LW than Maya. And since LW has increased its price from $1k to $1.5k… it’s now only half as expensive as SI with FAR less functionality. How many people here have already listed the number of plugins LW needed to be on par with SI? Lots. I used to be a LW zealot myself - until Newtek management screwed us over.

Here SI costs just about $3k - slightly less if you can find a good dealer to negotiate with. :slight_smile:

#110

yeap you right I have LW 10, but looks like wont upgrade to 11… thats my point.

So your points is you “think” it wont be fully integrated? enough reason to say NO to Vray+LW?

as a matter of fact, Chaos Group already show how well integrated Vray is to different apps like Maya, Max, Rhino, sketchup, softimage… at the other hand Not even FPrime can render sasquatch or volumetric lights… hmm?

So Why not Vray for LW?

#111

I HAD 10, but returned it. I was part of CORE and was angry that they dropped it. I got over that disappointment but when they gave us the crappy 10.1 release and THEN announced a super LW11 with MUCH of the stuff that was already in CORE - AND… we had to pay for it? Much of what’s in 11 shjould have been in 10.5, period. No, greedy Newtek management, They suck.

If something like FPrime can’t render some things, I doubt that Vray will be either. And while the LW sdk is improving, it’s still NOT anywhere near as open as other applications.

As I said in the other thread - Arnold. Faster and simpler to use. I’ll buy SI and Arnold before I’d buy Vray and LW. :slight_smile:

#112

I prefer something more solid, Vray its been there since LW 8 and growing with an active community, tutorial everywhere, proven results/quality/support… Arnold feels more like Arion/Fry render, with an almost deserted community, like investing blind in some alternative… doesn’t mean i wont give it a chance.

#113

That’s not my understanding. Arnold has been progressing well - and has been around for a LONG time and has been used in features like Sony’s Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs and other films. It’s probably going to cost more than Vray and initially we’ll be required to buy at least five licenses for a studio. I don’t mind (well, when I can afford it) since the ease of use - from what I’ve learned on the various forums - is easier than Vray and looks better. We shall see.

But, to each his/her own.

#114

Please Please Please Please Newtek Give Lightwave The Option To Sort Presets Alphabetically And Not Just Chronologically :cry: :bounce:
My hands feel super tied without this function

#115

An UNDO function that works in Layout would be nice. As in, I hit undo and it takes me back to how the scene or object was before the last operation, whatever it was.

Currently, for example if I move something in a scene and hit undo it moves it back, but creates a new keyframe, meaning the scene has now gone to a new, third state, instead of back to the original state. Other parts of the program don’t have undo at all, it’s basically a mess. Undo should always take your object or scene to the state it was in before the last user action. But Newtek just don’t seem to understand how an undo should work.

The idea of an “Undo” function has been around in software since the late 1970s (forty years ago in 1976 it was proposed by people at Xerox PARC). Feeling a bit like they’re dragging their feet on this one.

#116

I wish Lightwave renderer would work with GPUs, it’s gone too long without that capability.

#117

LW still exists ?

#118

Yep. it does! :slight_smile: Development seems to be rather silent these days - well, for a few months would be more accurate, I guess… :-
But LW3DG appears to be working as hard as the ressources seem to allow on a new version with a completely new underyling architecture.

For now I and still a good number of others have 2015.x plus a number of external plugins in their arsenal. And I for one am happy about having it around… :slight_smile:

#119

As a longtime supporter of LightWave, I really hope whatever they are working on restores their status to what it use to be 17+ years ago. They even have Blender’s source code available to use as a reference or inspiration if they are struggling with the design-to-development phase.

#120

Octane for Lightwave is a great GPU Render fr it.
Go to Facebook - LIGHTWAVE WIKI group

Tons of Lightwave Octane renders and techniques

Yes it should be built-in but seeing how Maya’s never had a good native GPU
And ran off thwe backs of Renderman, mental ray and V-ray, the oldie LW engine is a beast.