What's the Best platform for Lightwave3D?
Brian Kraiss
I would think that which ever one was the fastest would be the best one,
unless versions of the Lightwave software vary from system to system.
Are there versions of Lightwave available on other systems which offer
improved features, or are they all the same?
Thanks!
STATIC ~
David Ingebretsen
: What is the best computer platform for using Lightwave?
For under $5000, the Amiga. It's pre-emptive multitasking OS and other
features more than make up for slightly slower rendering in comparisoin
to a PC.
If you have the cash, go with an NT based Alpha for rendering. I would
still suggest the Amiga for the primary interface for setting up the
scene, then render it on the Alpha.
--
David
David M. Ingebretsen *** Binary Illusions / 3D Physics ***
ding...@xmission.xmission.com *** Animation and more ***
Robert J.C. Kyanko
Brian Kraiss <sta...@amiserv.xnet.com> wrote:
>What is the best computer platform for using Lightwave?
>
>I would think that which ever one was the fastest would be the best one,
>unless versions of the Lightwave software vary from system to system.
I would think a DEC Alpha 275Mhz (running NT 3.5) with a fast PCI based
video card (like a Diamond Stealth VRAM 64) would be pretty decent; these
machines are really fast. You should probably have 64MB or more RAM for
serious modeling, IMHO.
--
Robert J.C. Kyanko (r...@rjck.oau.org)
-> I always speak for myself <-
Stranahan
This is a question with no answer - the best one is the one you own or can
afford, in one sense. The Alphas are QUICK render machines, no doubt, but
you can't run Photoshop on them from what I understand, as well as a
number of other aps. For some people, this is a big problem,
Some people need the software that the SGI, PC, or Amiga offer. Some
people need compatiblility with other systems. Some people want a cool
looking machine to impress clients (one of the SGI's big features!), some
people want the flexibility of the video options available for the Amiga -
some people like to play Doom.
Quck is quantifiable. Best ain't.
Lee Stranahan
NewTek, Inc
Brian Dupras
> Quck is quantifiable. Best ain't.
^^^^
For the benefit of others, could you please define "Quck" for us? I'm
not sure I've ever had that one on a vocabulary test... :)
> Lee Stranahan
> NewTek, Inc
John Foust
>
>What is the best computer platform for using Lightwave?
>
>I would think that which ever one was the fastest would be the best one,
>unless versions of the Lightwave software vary from system to system.
Just to make this a horse-race, I'll vote for Intel-based PCs.
I think they're a much more "safe bet" for wallet-conscious
hobbyists. A loaded PC will always have easily quantifiable
re-sale value in any burg on the planet. You'll have a tough
time selling a used Alpha in Podunk. Of course, you can always
try to sell it to another 3D-head, but they'll know what it's
actually worth, and expect to pay a lot less. :-)
And there's the wonderful economy of scale for buying PC-stuff
at your local CompUSA or via mail order to CDW.
What's that, you say they haven't shipped LW for PC yet? :-)
Bill Leonard
I think they're a much more "safe bet" for wallet-conscious
hobbyists.<<<
That pretty much says it all...
If you are a wallet-conscious hobbyist, LW is the way to go.
If you want more powerful professional tools though, you gotta pay to play!!
Bill Leonard
CyberLab
Stephen J Gaudet
: In article <3ctkj4$r...@flood.xnet.com>,
: Brian Kraiss <sta...@amiserv.xnet.com> wrote:
: >What is the best computer platform for using Lightwave?
: >
: >I would think that which ever one was the fastest would be the best one,
: >unless versions of the Lightwave software vary from system to system.
: I would think a DEC Alpha 275Mhz (running NT 3.5) with a fast PCI based
: video card (like a Diamond Stealth VRAM 64) would be pretty decent; these
: machines are really fast. You should probably have 64MB or more RAM for
: serious modeling, IMHO.
Hello
We had a customer that used a 60 frame solid demo from Visual Technology
for a bench mark. On a 486DX2-66 it took over four hours, SGI over 1
hour, on our 289MHz system, with 64mb ram and a 32bit PCI card it took
"7min". Now we have faster graphics cards that will help and there coming
to market every day. However, its the processor that makes the
biggest difference and Intel dosen't cut it.
Cheers
Steve
________________________________________________________________
| Stephen Gaudet | Manufacture of Digital Alpha based |
| NekoTech / Inco | systems w/ PCI running NT & NTAS at |
| 102 Tide Mill Rd Suite 6 | 289MHz, 170 SPECint92, 240 SPECfp92 |
| Hampton, NH 03842-2705 |-------------------------------------|
| ph:800-635-6895 fax:603-926-0301 e-mail:s...@world.std.com |
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen J Gaudet
: : What is the best computer platform for using Lightwave?
: : I would think that which ever one was the fastest would be the best one,
: : unless versions of the Lightwave software vary from system to system.
: : Are there versions of Lightwave available on other systems which offer
: : improved features, or are they all the same?
: For under $5000, the Amiga. It's pre-emptive multitasking OS and other
: features more than make up for slightly slower rendering in comparisoin
: to a PC.
We have two Alpha systems a 180 and 245MHz systems UNDER $5000.00 complete.
Teyi N Lei
>: I would think a DEC Alpha 275Mhz (running NT 3.5) with a fast PCI based
>: video card (like a Diamond Stealth VRAM 64) would be pretty decent; these
>: machines are really fast. You should probably have 64MB or more RAM for
>: serious modeling, IMHO.
>
>Hello
>
>We had a customer that used a 60 frame solid demo from Visual Technology
>for a bench mark. On a 486DX2-66 it took over four hours, SGI over 1
>hour, on our 289MHz system, with 64mb ram and a 32bit PCI card it took
>"7min". Now we have faster graphics cards that will help and there coming
>to market every day. However, its the processor that makes the
>biggest difference and Intel dosen't cut it.
>
>Cheers
>
>Steve
frames also. My main question right now isn't so much how well LW runs
on the NT network or future NT version of LW, but rather on support for
the Alpha chip in general. Specifically,
(1) How much would a setup like the one above ( 64 meg RAM, PCI card,
SCSI-II ) cost altogether?
(2) What gfx boards are out there for the Alpha or NT on Alpha? Any of
them have 3D functions ( e.g. Z-buffer, gouraud shading ) in h/w and
support OpenGL?
(3) What NT or other s/w exists for DEC chips? It would suck to be only
able to run LW on such a nice chip. Photoshop? Excel? Games? 2D
animation programs? Do they cost much more than the same s/w on Macs/PCs?
(4) How much faster is the Alpha than the new MIPS T5?
Any reply via this group or email is greatly appreciated.
Stranahan
If you are a wallet-conscious hobbyist, LW is the way to go.
If you want more powerful professional tools though, you gotta pay to
play!!
Bill Leonard
CyberLab
------------------
I guess you're -trying- to be flame-bait.
Lee Stranahan
NewTek, Inc
John Foust
>I guess you're -trying- to be flame-bait.
Come now, Lee, I've found that people who spend $20K a year on
Wavefront tend to be very confident of the wisdom of their
decision. When they lose confidence, they start to cry.
Bill Leonard
> If you want more powerful professional tools though, you gotta pay to
> play!!
>
>
>
>
>
> Lee Stranahan
> NewTek, Inc
Sheesh, I guess I was. ;-)
Sorry bout that.. it didn't come out right. Obviously LW is used professionally
probably more so than some SGI packages.
Anyhow...
Bill Leonard
CyberLab
Dan J. Rockwell
: >What is the best computer platform for using Lightwave?
[munch]
: Some people need the software that the SGI, PC, or Amiga offer. Some
: people need compatiblility with other systems. Some people want a cool
: looking machine to impress clients (one of the SGI's big features!), some
: people want the flexibility of the video options available for the Amiga -
: some people like to play Doom.
^^^^
\
Yes! It gets those creative juices
flowing as well as reduces stress, boosts
morale and creates a better teamwork related
enviroment. (deathmatch may be required...)
: Quck is quantifiable. Best ain't.
: Lee Stranahan
: NewTek, Inc
Dan Rockwell
Lance Ladic
>From: s...@world.std.com (Stephen J Gaudet)
>Subject: Re: What's the Best platform for Lightwave3D?
>Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1994 03:08:25 GMT
>Hello David
>: : What is the best computer platform for using Lightwave?
>: : I would think that which ever one was the fastest would be the best one,
>: : unless versions of the Lightwave software vary from system to system.
>: : Are there versions of Lightwave available on other systems which offer
>: : improved features, or are they all the same?
>: For under $5000, the Amiga. It's pre-emptive multitasking OS and other
>: features more than make up for slightly slower rendering in comparisoin
>: to a PC.
>We have two Alpha systems a 180 and 245MHz systems UNDER $5000.00 complete.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Cheers
>Steve
Steve,
Would you like to clarify *exactly* what is included in your DEC Alpha systems
(especially the 245MHz version) for "under $5000 complete." I'm sure that
we'd all like to know...
Thanks,
--Lance.
la...@cs.ubc.ca
CamCollect
least 3 deathmathes a week, it relieves stress and helps us perform to the
max.
Stephen J Gaudet
: [stuff deleted]
: >: I would think a DEC Alpha 275Mhz (running NT 3.5) with a fast PCI based
: >: video card (like a Diamond Stealth VRAM 64) would be pretty decent; these
: >: machines are really fast. You should probably have 64MB or more RAM for
: >: serious modeling, IMHO.
Subject: What's the Best platform for Lightwave3D?
Date: 17 Dec 1994 03:06:12 GMT
From: tey...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Teyi N Lei)
Subject: Re: What's the Best platform for Lightwave3D?
>: I would think a DEC Alpha 275Mhz (running NT 3.5) with a fast PCI based
>: video card (like a Diamond Stealth VRAM 64) would be pretty decent; these
>: machines are really fast. You should probably have 64MB or more RAM for
>: serious modeling, IMHO.
>
>I've been looking at the possibility of getting a "Cobra" for rendering LW
>frames also. My main question right now isn't so much how well LW runs
>on the NT network or future NT version of LW, but rather on support for
>the Alpha chip in general. Specifically,
Hello Teyi
>(1) How much would a setup like the one above ( 64 meg RAM, PCI card,
> SCSI-II ) cost altogether?
Mach II-289, 6 drive tower, 300 watt ps
64mb ram
500mb disk
Diamond Stealth 964-2mb vram
CD-Rom
1.44 flop
14" CTX monitor
keyboard and mouse
Price:$10,670.00
The mother bd has embedded Fast SCSI II, ethernet, 2 serial, 1 parallel,
floppy, 2 PCI and 3 ISA slots.
Also a complete price list is available via e-mail.
>(2) What gfx boards are out there for the Alpha or NT on Alpha? Any of
> them have 3D functions ( e.g. Z-buffer, gouraud shading ) in h/w and
> support OpenGL?
Any S3 based card
Digital's TGA
Matrox MGA 64
Diamond Stealth 964
ATI
(Working on something now with Z-Buffer)
>(3) What NT or other s/w exists for DEC chips? It would suck to be only
> able to run LW on such a nice chip. Photoshop? Excel? Games? 2D
> animation programs? Do they cost much more than the same s/w on Macs/PCs?
E-mail me for a 22 page list and I'll send it along, it includes
phone numbers.
>(4) How much faster is the Alpha than the new MIPS T5?
Don't know? Do you know anyone with a T5?
If you have any questions I can be reached at 800-635-6895 or
e-mail:s...@world.std.com.
Cheers
Steve
________________________________________________________________
| Stephen Gaudet | Manufacture of Digital Alpha based |
| NekoTech / Inco | systems w/ PCI running NT & NTAS at |
| 102 Tide Mill Rd Suite 6 | 289MHz, 170 SPECint92, 240 SPECfp92 |
| Hampton, NH 03842-2705 |-------------------------------------|
| ph:603-926-0300 fax:603-926-0301 e-mail:s...@world.std.com |
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Foust
>>>>>>>Come now, Lee, I've found that people who spend $20K a year on
>Wavefront tend to be very confident of the wisdom of their
>decision. When they lose confidence, they start to cry.<<<<<<<<<
>People who aren't succesful enough to spend $20k a year on Wavefront (or
>any good SGI stuff) start to cry if you put down their home computer.
>
>I have my own CGI studio and we use Macs and SGIs for 3D work. I also get
>about 50 magazines a month with no platform bias. One of these is Video
I've got an SGI on my desk, too, along with three other platforms.
My point about Wavefront (quoted above) is about price, not platform.
I didn't say anything about talent, either... I'm the first to
remind anyone that tools do not equal talent.
Back to price... certainly the price of the high-end systems have
been coming down, due to pressure from the price and power of
lower-end systems. Where are the $20K programs for the PC?
As for the rest of your message, I disagree with several points...
SGI users certainly do scream "Terminator, Abyss, etc." Right or
wrong? I'd say it's back to talent, not platform. If anything,
many people are using SGIs for the sheer raw horsepower of the
CPUs, not the graphics engines. Are the talented attracted to
speed, or did the speed make them talented?
As for success, do you mean working 80 hours a week as a sweatshop
modeler/animator for a company founded by some famous animator who cut
their teeth on a VAX?
Philip D. Thorn
you can't get a good game of Network DOOM goin'!
-Phil
CamCollect (camco...@aol.com) wrote:
: The abilty of the platform to play Doom is very important, we schedule at
: least 3 deathmathes a week, it relieves stress and helps us perform to the
: max.
--
* Phil Thorn * " How can I change the world when *
* Artist/Animator * I can't change my socks?" *
* Thorn Grafx * seen scrolling on a message board *
* pth...@erinet.com * at the TR-I No World Order concert. *
Mark Thompson
Or the one thats available. Keep in mind that although the 275MHz Alpha
makes a screamer of a rendering machine, there has been no formal announcement
of a full LW port to it. I'm sure there will be one, but not till after
the PC NT version is taken care of. For more near future use, a P90 with
a Diamond Stealth makes a pretty nice little cost effective box. For use
today, there is only one platform, the Amiga.
|> Some people want a cool looking machine to impress clients
I'm embarrassed to admit that is one of our criteria. The shame of it all.
Perhaps we'll just build a giant black monolithic enclosure with lots of
random blinking lights on it and stuff the ugly Alpha machines inside it :-)
|> Quck is quantifiable.
Hey Lee, would you quantify "Quck" for me :-)
,---. |o | |
|---',---.,---|.,---.,---.|--- |,-.-.,---.,---.,---. Mark Thompson
| \ ,---|| ||,---|| || || | |,---|| ||---' ma...@westford.ccur.com
` ``---^`---'``---^` '`---' `` ' '`---^`---|`---' (508)392-2480
,---. | | o `---' (603)424-1829
|---',---.,---.,---|. .,---.|--- .,---.,---.,---.
| | | || || || | || || |`---. Fusion Films
` ` `---'`---'`---'`---'`---'``---'` '`---' Director of Animation
DSD MMEDIA
Wavefront tend to be very confident of the wisdom of their
decision. When they lose confidence, they start to cry.<<<<<<<<<
It should be more like this...
People who aren't succesful enough to spend $20k a year on Wavefront (or
any good SGI stuff) start to cry if you put down their home computer.
I have my own CGI studio and we use Macs and SGIs for 3D work. I also get
about 50 magazines a month with no platform bias. One of these is Video
Toaster User. I have no problem looking or learning about other platforms.
But when it comes down to the best IMHO it is SGI, possibly LW on an SGI
will be a good program. But it is only going to be sold to people who buy
the most stripped down Indy there is. Where cost is a definate factor. Not
to say that they don't produce good work. Others with the capital are
going to get the big three of SGI, Alias PowerAnimator, SoftImage, or
Wavefront.
I see tons of "defense" from Amiga people who always shout "Babylon 5"
Well who cares? are *you* doing Babylon 5? Not likely for most of you. You
do not see SGI people screaming in defense with replys of "Terminator2,
The Mask, The Abyss..." it goes on and on.
What are you super defensive Amiga guys going to do when Babylon 5 gets
cancelled? And another thing Amiga people always skirt around... They use
(from what I've heard) like 40 Amigas to render the sequeces in B5.
Certinly not the cost effective solution everyone seems to think. For that
you could get a couple of low end SGI's and render. Now everyone keeps
yelling VideoFlyer! or whatever the Screamer turned out to be called. You
don't see many SGI people always screaming about what the newest product
is. It seems that Amiga people have to yell to be heard, or because nobody
really cares to listen... except other Amiga people.
This is not an attempt to start a flame war or anything, It is just maybe
to open up some of your overly focused vision, and quit attacking anybody
who does not share your "vision". Other platforms work too, stop putting
down anything that will not run on an Amiga. Professionals use lots of
tools. All that matters it the quality.
Grow up and stop with the "computer" envy.
Dann M. Stubbs
DSD
P.S. Mojo is probably one of my favorite writers. I would love to see his
opinion of this subject.
Brad Bowman
I have been an Amiga user since '87 and a LW
user for three years. I am amazed at the bias of
Amiga users. I used to be a computer bigot, You
know, "Amigas are God's gift to technology...
blah, blah, blah..." But now am looking to other
platforms because, can you believe it, the Amiga
is toast (pun intended). New Tek kept the platform
alive longer than it should have and are now playing
it smart and moving LW to other Platforms.
By the way, B5 is slick but it is no Jurassic Park.
Brad Bowman
Technical Consultant and 3D Animator - AT&T Global Information Solutions - Dayton, Ohio
The Views Expressed by Me are Not Neccessarily the Views of AT&T
Glenn M. Saunders
: What are you super defensive Amiga guys going to do when Babylon 5 gets
: cancelled? And another thing Amiga people always skirt around... They use
: (from what I've heard) like 40 Amigas to render the sequeces in B5.
: Certinly not the cost effective solution everyone seems to think. For that
: you could get a couple of low end SGI's and render. Now everyone keeps
: yelling VideoFlyer! or whatever the Screamer turned out to be called. You
: don't see many SGI people always screaming about what the newest product
: is. It seems that Amiga people have to yell to be heard, or because nobody
: really cares to listen... except other Amiga people.
This smacks of economic elitism in the worst way.
The glory of lightwave is that as long as you have enough memory, and
enough time, you can render images as complex as those in B5 even if you
only have an Amiga 2000 w/28mhz 68030 sans FPU, or more realistically, an
Amiga 1200 030/50/50 like me. They will take a LONG time to render, but
the output will be just as incredible. And THAT is something to be proud
of.
SGIs have no base implementation like that.
No, you aren't going to make TOO much money having to wait 2 weeks for a
scene to render, but then again, you will be working on maybe a $1,500
machine vs. a $15,000. For the hobbyist working on an independent project
or such, the ability to pull off professional-grade animation is well worth
the wait for the rendering.
The more money you shovel at the hardware the faster things will go
obviously, but the fact is that Lightwave has extremely small
requirements to get started compared to SGI, and there is no reason to
devalue this fact.
If I had to wait until I had enough money for an SGI workstation with the
software and resources to drive it, I'd NEVER break into animation. You
have to start somewhere.
NewTek has made CGI affordable to the consumer. As far as I know, there
is no requirement that this newsgroup be only about 'how to make money in
animation' but is just about the lightwave package and any use you may
have for it at any level. Therefore I take offense with those who want
to go off on Lightwave by virtue of the logic that time is money and
therefore there is no other machine worthy of doing animation on than the
SGI because that is narrow-minded thinking which does not include the
wide range of both professional and amateur animators that Lightwave has
now been able to attract by virtue of its affordability and great value.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
A // RIP Jay Miner ||| | G. M. Saunders | "You are not ready A
A \X/ Amy & Atari/ | \ | kri...@max.tiac.net | for immortality." A
A 1200 6502 series | | -Kosh A
AaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaA
Brian Dupras
> |> Some people want a cool looking machine to impress clients
> I'm embarrassed to admit that is one of our criteria. The shame of it all.
> Perhaps we'll just build a giant black monolithic enclosure with lots of
> random blinking lights on it and stuff the ugly Alpha machines inside it :-)
Really - I often wonder why the heck do computer companies still use only
2 or 3 colors for 99.999% of computers - off white and more off white.
*Most* computer geeks I know - including myself - would prefer a dark
green, maybe a cool shade of purple, and the ever coveted BLACK. You'd
think the marketing people in these companies would get the hint.
COLOR! We are sick of grayscale computers damnit!!
DSD MMEDIA
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Excellent reply. By no means am I putting down Lightwave. It is an
excellent program. Your response is one of intelligence and well spoken.
My only complaint with Lightwave isn't with lightwave. It is with Amiga
Fanatics who put down any other platform other then the Amiga. True
professionals really couldn't care what platform they are using - as long
as it gets the job done. On the same note, in a high production
environment, the SGI is actually cost effective.
I am pro-multi platform. I agree with you completely, there is no need to
bash others for lack or excess of computing hardware.Let me know if there
is anything I can do for you. It is artists like you that we need in this
business.
Seriously, let me know if there is anything I can do to help you.
Dann M. Stubbs
DSD
DSD MMEDIA
user
>>>>>>>
What you are obviously unaware of is the fact that you were responding to
John Foust of Syndesis, makers of Interchange, a cross-platform
object/scene
converter. John has been providing tools for professionals for many years
and is the farthest thing from a "platform snob".
You're welcome to lurk on this group, and you're welcome to try LW for SGI
when it's available, but until then please shut up.
--
Darren Metcalfe I speak for I. I don't think I've violated a NDA,
ime...@teleport.com then again, I never signed one. Do you have the
slightest what I'm on about? What's the <best>
way to skin a cat (in Lightwave)?<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I was unaware of who I was responding to, John Foust. I'm sorry I don't
know who you are, and really that wouldn't have made any difference if it
was the Pope. I have my own opinion and I have the right to voice it if I
want. But I was just responding to your post as I would any other.
It seems that the person who responded to me, Darren Metcalfe; is against
freedom of speech, and if you don't agree with him you are deprived of
your right to talk.
Gee, I guess my ideas of Amiga people being fanatical are totally
unfounded.
To answer John's question "Where are the $20K programs for the PC?"
Quite frankly, I am also very active in policing people who steal software
and due to the sheer amount of hobbyists who use PC platforms they cannot
price programs for what they are worth, for fear of only selling one copy
and then fighting the bootleggers. People who are buying SGI's usually do
not copy software because of the encryption codes required to run it, and
the high prices keep the software in the hands of (usually) ethical
professionals.
This is why programs for PC are so cheap, 1. because of such a large
market they usually make up for it in quantity, 2. If it is even $5 over
what the market percieves it's value, the PC community feels it should
liberate the program from the money grubbing software company and
distrubute it free.
I have many discussions with people who steal software and these are their
exact feelings. Not all PC users are like this, but unfortunatley alot
are. This is kind of a lingering feeling from the "homebrew" computer
clubs back in the early 80's. It is a shame and hopefully shortly people
will be educated enough to pay for what is rightfully due the software
companies. After all if it is too expensive, don't buy it. But don't steal
it either.
I personally have never heard such biased shouting from the SGI community
about SGI movies as I do from 1% of the Amiga population. It is like the
only glimmer of hope left since Commodore went bankrupt.
So as far as your quote "I'd say it's back to talent, not platform. If
anything, many people are using SGIs for the sheer raw horsepower of the
CPUs, not the graphics engines. Are the talented attracted to
speed, or did the speed make them talented?"
Maybe it's because the truly talented have enough work and money from
being succesful to buy a SGI. The sheer horsepower allows more work to be
done. Not alot of hobbyists have SGI's for playing DOOM. As far as quality
of work, IMHO I have seen lots of great work on SGI's and lots of crap
produced by hobbyists on other platforms. SGI are usually 95%
professionals and 5% hobbyists and Amiga/PC are usually 10% professional
and 90% hobbyist.
as far as this question "As for success, do you mean working 80 hours a
week as a sweatshop modeler/animator for a company founded by some famous
animator who cut their teeth on a VAX?"
I have no idea where this came from... I didn't want to work in a
sweatshop or even for another company, so I started my own company and (I
guess due to talent) Being in business five years, I use Mac and SGI to
accomplish my work. I'm really too busy to join a fanatical cult, so I
didn't get an Amiga.
I spend my spare time, reading and laughing at uneducated users who are
too blind to see past any platform they can't afford.
Dann M. Stubbs
DSD
CamCollect
available along with the 1st releases. I hope this is the case because we
purchased our Aspen DEC Alpha 275 mhz system partially based on this news,
screamer net is great but we need a native application bad. Lee, whats the
word?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Greg Milneck The Video Company
504-928-4814 9146 Jefferson Hwy.
CamCollect@ aol.com Baton Rouge, LA 70809
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Alan Kahn
>From: la...@cs.ubc.ca (Lance Ladic)
>Subject: Re: Using DEC Alphas running Win/NT for Lightwave3D
>Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1994 19:18:29 PST
>>Hello David
>>Steve
>Steve,
>Thanks,
>--Lance.
>la...@cs.ubc.ca
Steve,
I work for Aspen Systems. Outside of Digital (the manufacturer of the Alpha
CPU), only two companies manufacture an Alpha computer: CRAY and Aspen. If
you see an Alpha computer being sold, it either has a DEC board in it or an
Aspen board, and might I add that our board is 20% faster then the DEC boards
being OEM'ed.
One of our 275MHz boxes is around $11,000 "complete." So, I am very curious to
see what "245MHz" you have that cost under $5000 and what you consider
"complete."
Alan Kahn
Aspen Systems
Teyi N Lei
>Gee, I guess my ideas of Amiga people being fanatical are totally
>unfounded.
>
>
>To answer John's question "Where are the $20K programs for the PC?"
>
>Quite frankly, I am also very active in policing people who steal software
>and due to the sheer amount of hobbyists who use PC platforms they cannot
>price programs for what they are worth, for fear of only selling one copy
>and then fighting the bootleggers. People who are buying SGI's usually do
>not copy software because of the encryption codes required to run it, and
>the high prices keep the software in the hands of (usually) ethical
>professionals.
>
>This is why programs for PC are so cheap, 1. because of such a large
>market they usually make up for it in quantity, 2. If it is even $5 over
>what the market percieves it's value, the PC community feels it should
>liberate the program from the money grubbing software company and
>distrubute it free.
Hollywood can afford more. ILM probably made a few billion on Jurrassic
Park, wouldn't you say? Why not give them a bargain at $100000 for each
copy of SoftImage and $5000000 for each Indigo?
>I have many discussions with people who steal software and these are their
>exact feelings. Not all PC users are like this, but unfortunatley alot
>are. This is kind of a lingering feeling from the "homebrew" computer
>clubs back in the early 80's. It is a shame and hopefully shortly people
>will be educated enough to pay for what is rightfully due the software
>companies. After all if it is too expensive, don't buy it. But don't steal
>it either.
I don't want to justify piracy, which is of course very wrong, but I don't
undrstand your corrlating pirated copies w/ high costs. If anything, piracy
is what would cause high pricing on a s/w, to "make up" for the lost
sales. Your point about s/w for a niche market is valid, but that still
doesn't justify the >10x cost difference between PC and SGI 3D s/w. By
keeping costs so high, of course you're going to have a niche market, one
that nobody can pirate because nobody can afford to have one at home for
personal use. In the end, the consumer determines the value of s/w, and
if people think s/w is worth $1000, who's the developer to say that
it's really worth $20,000? Are Softimage programmers ten times smarter or
harder working than LW or 3D Studio programmers?
>I personally have never heard such biased shouting from the SGI community
>about SGI movies as I do from 1% of the Amiga population. It is like the
>only glimmer of hope left since Commodore went bankrupt.
Advocacy, even in fanatical, extremist form, is a natural result of liking
something your treasure. This is especially true of a niche computer like
the Amiga. Home computer owners, in general, love their machines because
they can do so many things on it -- 3D animation, image processing,
word processing, spreadsheets, and play games. While SGI users are also
a niche group, the non-gfx s/w are so ffew and expensive that most people
can only use their machines for rendering/video.
>Maybe it's because the truly talented have enough work and money from
>being succesful to buy a SGI. The sheer horsepower allows more work to be
>done. Not alot of hobbyists have SGI's for playing DOOM. As far as quality
>of work, IMHO I have seen lots of great work on SGI's and lots of crap
>produced by hobbyists on other platforms. SGI are usually 95%
>professionals and 5% hobbyists and Amiga/PC are usually 10% professional
>and 90% hobbyist.
Again, these percentages are such BECAUSE SGI AND ITS SUPPORT COMPANIES
CHOOSE TO BE SO. If they lower the price of their h/w and s/w, then of
course there will be more hobbyists and amateurs. SO WHAT IF THE USER BASE
GROWS? SO WHAT IF SOME PEOPLE PRODUCE CRAP? Are the "professionals"
afraid of competition from the "amateurs"? If the present workstation
gfx philosophy isn't economic elitism, it surely is artistic elitism, perhaps
just plain snobbery -- "yes, let's keep the creative tools from the 'average'
guy and leave it for the truly talented individuals like ourselves.'"
>I have no idea where this came from... I didn't want to work in a
>sweatshop or even for another company, so I started my own company and (I
>guess due to talent) Being in business five years, I use Mac and SGI to
>accomplish my work. I'm really too busy to join a fanatical cult, so I
>didn't get an Amiga.
>I spend my spare time, reading and laughing at uneducated users who are
>too blind to see past any platform they can't afford.
First you call the Amiga a fanatical cult, and then you laugh at people who
are uneducated about other platforms...you're an interesting character.
Congratulations that you've been so successful and so well-off because of
your "talent," though despite your low-opinion of Babylon-5 I've never
heard of you or your company. Nobody's criticizing your choice of platform,
but rather SGI's high-pricing philosophy. If you think the pricing should
remain so, then I guess we do have something to argue about.
To end, I don't want to get into any personal flames, as this IS a group for
discussion of LW. I have nothing against propriety h/w and s/w that support
it ( what's an Amiga, after all? ). I don't support fantatical advocacy
of a platform either, though reading them can be quite entertaining. In the
end, if SG/Alias/Wavefront refuse to meet the increasing demand for affordable
3D s/w and h/w, a market already filled by some outstanding products like
LW, ElectricImage, and 3D Studio, then nobody except the "professionals"
will shed a tear when they fall into obscurity.
And remember, everyone, because IML animators have the biggest budget and most
expensive SGI equipment, they're the most talented in the world ( marketing
and other factors have absolutely nothing to do with their success...)
>Dann M. Stubbs
>DSD
Stranahan
First off, LW is used on B5, but has also been used on Star Trek : TNG,
the upcoming Trek series Voyager, seaQuest DSV, Weird Science, Unsolved
Mysteries, Robocop, Action Pack - Hercules, Clive Barker's Lord Of
Illusions, Sci-Fi channel's ...Other Dominion,, plus commercials for
McDonalds, Fanta, and a rental car company who's name escapes me and more.
Plus The Tonight Show and The Rush Limbaugh show. Plus a zillion other
things I'll never see or know about.
Now did any of YOU work on B5? Or any of those other shows?
Maybe not - but you could have, perhaps - because the animators who did
those shows are regular people who learned how to use LightWave. People
like Mojo, John Gross, or my brother Ken Stranahan. (Collective credits
include B5, seaQuest, ST : TNG and more)
There were 'regular humans' - none of them had any 'real' credits. They
just learned LightWave 3D in their spare time - because they could AFFORD
IT.
Alias, Wavefront, and SoftImage weren't giving out free copies. The door
on those programs was closed. So when they fade away (and they WILL fade,
mark my words, unless they develop a RADICAL new stragey - as surely as
mainframes and $50,000 16 track audio decks have faded) - I will not cry.
Goodbye dinosaurs, your time is gone, and your bones will make nice fuel.
This is the way of the world.
I think a lot of people will look at what they get for their money with a
$20,000 license every year and decide to gamble a grand on a fully
professional level program that used to make dozens of TV shows and
movies, today. If it was YOUR money, wouldn't you look? I thought so...
***************************
** Lee Stranahan **
** NewTek, Inc **
** **
** If nobody moves, **
** nobody gets hurt. **
***************************
Stranahan
------------
Hey Lee, would you quantify "Quck" for me :-)
-----------
I will never live this down. (sniff)
Stranahan
I was told that a DEC Alpha version was in the works, and would be
available along with the 1st releases. I hope this is the case because we
purchased our Aspen DEC Alpha 275 mhz system partially based on this news,
screamer net is great but we need a native application bad. Lee, whats the
word?
The word is 'yes'.
LW for Windows NT (Intel, Alpha, and MIPS) will ship 1st Quarter, 1995.
$995. Drive safely.
BFA...@news.delphi.com
>>>Hello David
>>>Steve
>>Steve,
>>Thanks,
>>--Lance.
>>la...@cs.ubc.ca
>Steve,
>Alan Kahn
>Aspen Systems
Alan,
My name is Bruce Faust and I am, well hell, you know I founded Carrera
Computers (Chairman, Chief Technologist, etc. . .) as well as NekoTech.
Carrera has their boards manufactured by Digital. Neko has our boards
manufactured by two bi-coastal ISO9000 factories. Both the Carrera
Cobra and NekoTech M2 are very similar but have slight differences. Both
machines are excellent rendering engines. The Aspen Alpine is also
an excellent engine too. The fact is the neither Neko, NOR Carrera
is really an OEM. Besides who gives a crap who's making it? Digital?
Aspen? Neko?
The fact is, and you know this as well as I do, the Alpha is an excellent
engine. I have personally been involved with x86, Mips R4x00 and Digital
21x6x designs, and I believe the Alpha offers a cool solution for users
on a budget.
I expect great things from Aspen. However, putting the Alpine in the
same league as Cray, is a bit much! (Your enthusiasm is appreciated!)
"I know Seymour Cray; but the Alpine is no Cray!!" :-)
-Bruce Faust
"I make RISC PC's pervasive by starting new companies" &
"Andy Grove won't send me my Pentium X-mas card!"
David Ingebretsen
: The esteemed Mark Thomson wrote...
: ------------
: Hey Lee, would you quantify "Quck" for me :-)
: -----------
: I will never live this down. (sniff)
No, not on the USENET anyway...
--
David
David M. Ingebretsen *** Binary Illusions / 3D Physics ***
ding...@xmission.xmission.com *** Animation and more ***
David Griffiths
>LW for Windows NT (Intel, Alpha, and MIPS) will ship 1st Quarter, 1995.
>$995. Drive safely.
A shame about the price :-), I can afford the software, but not the
hardware. Just try and imagine saying that about Vertigo or Wavefront
:-).
Are there going to be any PC versions for non-NT (ie: Win 95) based
machines?
--
David S. Griffiths: <dgr...@unixg.ubc.ca> (Vancouver, B.C., Canada!)
Q: What do you call a series of FDIV instructions on a Pentium?
A: Successive approximations.
Stephen J Gaudet
{stuff deleted}
: >: : I would think that which ever one was the fastest would be the best one,
: >: : unless versions of the Lightwave software vary from system to system.
: >: For under $5000, the Amiga. It's pre-emptive multitasking OS and other
: >: features more than make up for slightly slower rendering in comparisoin
: >: to a PC.
: >We have two Alpha systems a 180 and 245MHz systems UNDER $5000.00 complete.
: Would you like to clarify *exactly* what is included in your DEC Alpha systems
: (especially the 245MHz version) for "under $5000 complete." I'm sure that
: we'd all like to know...
Hello Lance
Here's what you get.
MI-180-xx-16-500-CD-DS864-CTX14 $4,595
MI-245-xx-16-500-CD-DS864-CTX14 $4,995 (Shipping 12/27/94)
M1 System @ 180Mhz or 245MHz (** New Product **)
Desktop or Mini Tower Configuration
16MB of RAM
500MB of SCSI-2 Disk
CD-ROM Dual Speed
Diamond Stealth 864 PCI Video
14" CTX Monitor
PCI SCSI
PCI Ethernet
If you would like a complete price list send me a fax number or e-mail me
and I'll forward it along.
We now offer North America on-site technical support if needed. Please
call 800-635-6895 if you have any questions concerning pricing or
configurations.
Thank you
Glenn M. Saunders
: It's nice to get some good intelligent replies to my message.
: As you can see, by reading my very first post at the bottom of the page it
: says that I could care less about what tools artists are using. I am
: pro-multi platform.
Two wrongs don't make a right my friend. Just because you say "I am
pro-multiplatform" doesn't mean you don't anger Amiga users by saying
things which are inflammatory to them, which you did.
You implied that the unique hardware that Foundation Imaging has at its
disposal these days in some way means that those with only a single Amiga
can not produce B5-level visuals, hence, for Amigans to boast of B5 is
bullshit because the RISC boxes and the huge network is responsible for
the output. This is patently false. You should realize that the original
effects for the B5 pilot started off on a network of 2 Amiga 2000s,
nothing more, and the fact that they could produce such nice initial
animation on those 2 modest machines was a huge reason why the producers
went with the Toaster instead of SGI. So extolling the virtues of brute
force isn't always a good thing especially when you are trying to coax
yourself into a low budget show. (and I still feel weird calling B5 low
budget).
If you would like me to prove this thesis I'll work on rendering something
similar. It might take me 6 months to model everything and painstakingly
render it on my single machine, but it's not like it can't be done. If
you want to render-race an A4000 side by side with an SGI the SGI will win
but no Amigoid is trying to prove otherwise. That's not the point, but
if all you think is worth boasting about is rendering time, you might not
respect the real point here.
I think Amigans get off on how cheaply something can be done compared to
SGI's (YES YES sacrificing rendering time), and given the state of C=, I
think the best thing you can do is let Amigans have their fun and not
throw salt in their wounds.
DSD MMEDIA
I think a lot of people will look at what they get for their money with a
$20,000 license every year and decide to gamble a grand on a fully
professional level program that used to make dozens of TV shows and
movies, today. If it was YOUR money, wouldn't you look? I thought so...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Lee,
Believe me I looked at it closely. I spent 9 months deciding on what
platform to help keep up with the broadcast market. Yes, Lightwave is
remarkably powerful for it's price, and it runs on a easy to afford
computer. But you always seem to overlook other facts in your posts.
To get Lightwave to equal the speed of the SGI, I would have spent the
same amount on Amigas as the SGI. There is no cost savings in that.
I can render 5 seconds of broadcast quality animation on our SGI in less
than 24 hours. Usually far less depending on complexity. Can 5 seconds be
rendered on your "cost effective platform" in less than 24 hours or does
it take a Screamer and all the other goodies that push the cost into the
low-end SGI range? This is more to the equation than just the software
cost.
Yes, the software is less expensive, but there are also other benefits to
that for the professional who *needs* special care. With the extra money
spent on the software, Alias can afford the best in Tech support. I have
Alias PowerAnimator and their tech support is the best.
I have never been on hold for more than 1 to 3 minutes before getting
through to a great tech who answers my question, they are willing to do
anything to solve the problem. I have had them call me back three days in
a row just checking on the problem to make sure it was not causing
problems. THAT is service. I will gladly pay extra for that. In a
professional environment time=money. If you are just a hobbyist time is
not so valuable. But that is not the argument here. You are talking about
LW for the Professional market against SGI stuff.
Your comments on LW being what somone can afford. We started five years
ago on Macs using Strata. Pretty much anyone who can afford LW can (now)
get a PowerMac 6100 and Strata for the same price. Probably faster that an
cheap PC or Amiga too. Great upgrade path to the faster PPC coming out.
Learning the tools and environment is negligible. I switched to
PowerAnimator's tool set in less than two weeks. In fact I found it easier
than the Mac. Once an artist has the knowledge and understands the
concepts of 3D; the platform or really software doesn't matter.
And for the cost of the High end programs there are extras, does LW
support true particles and all the "cutting edge" stuff. IK is kind of old
news, Metaballs are old too. But simulating snow, fire, rain all in a 3D
space it what is hot. v5.1.1 of Alias just supports 2D of particles in
OptiFX but 6.0 is due out next week with 3D support like Wavefront. Again,
sometimes the cost of producing these tools in higher, copying what
another has already developed is much cheaper. Kind of like Apple and
Microsoft.
Dann M. Stubbs
DSD
John Foust
>I was unaware of who I was responding to, John Foust. I'm sorry I don't
>know who you are, and really that wouldn't have made any difference if it
>was the Pope. I have my own opinion and I have the right to voice it if I
>want. But I was just responding to your post as I would any other.
>It seems that the person who responded to me, Darren Metcalfe; is against
>freedom of speech, and if you don't agree with him you are deprived of
>your right to talk.
Nobody said you shouldn't have the opportunity to express yourself.
And of course, I'm not the Pope, and even if I was, I'd encourage you
to take my statements at face value, determine the amount of truth in
them, and question them to your heart's content.
>To answer John's question "Where are the $20K programs for the PC?"
>Quite frankly, I am also very active in policing people who steal software
>and due to the sheer amount of hobbyists who use PC platforms they cannot
>price programs for what they are worth, for fear of only selling one copy
>and then fighting the bootleggers. People who are buying SGI's usually do
>not copy software because of the encryption codes required to run it, and
>the high prices keep the software in the hands of (usually) ethical
>professionals.
>
>This is why programs for PC are so cheap, 1. because of such a large
>market they usually make up for it in quantity, 2. If it is even $5 over
>what the market percieves it's value, the PC community feels it should
>liberate the program from the money grubbing software company and
>distrubute it free.
Oh, great, turn a platform debate into a piracy debate. :-) My point about
the price of 3D programs? Once upon a time, programs like Digital Arts and
Topas did cost $10K+ in 1985 dollars. They're dead or in trouble, respectively
and respectfully.
>I personally have never heard such biased shouting from the SGI community
>about SGI movies as I do from 1% of the Amiga population. It is like the
I think you've got a prejudice about all Amiga owners, based on the flaming,
irrational few who have nothing better to do than post to the Internet.
>Maybe it's because the truly talented have enough work and money from
>being succesful to buy a SGI. The sheer horsepower allows more work to be
Correlation does not imply causation, of course. Owning an SGI doesn't
mean you're talented.
>done. Not alot of hobbyists have SGI's for playing DOOM. As far as quality
>of work, IMHO I have seen lots of great work on SGI's and lots of crap
>produced by hobbyists on other platforms. SGI are usually 95%
>professionals and 5% hobbyists and Amiga/PC are usually 10% professional
>and 90% hobbyist.
I shudder at the number of past and present SGIs within educational institutions
that are used as nothing more than X terminals.
>as far as this question "As for success, do you mean working 80 hours a
>week as a sweatshop modeler/animator for a company founded by some famous
>animator who cut their teeth on a VAX?"
My point? That a lot of "successful" SGI modelers and animators didn't
pay for their machine themselves, while a many more (proportionally)
owners of Macs, PCs and Amigas were able to afford their own machines.
Stephen J Gaudet
: >>: For under $5000, the Amiga. It's pre-emptive multitasking OS and other
: >>: to a PC.
: >>We have two Alpha systems a 180 and 245MHz systems UNDER $5000.00 complete.
: > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: >Would you like to clarify *exactly* what is included in your DEC Alpha systems
: >(especially the 245MHz version) for "under $5000 complete." I'm sure that
: >we'd all like to know...
: I work for Aspen Systems. Outside of Digital (the manufacturer of the Alpha
: CPU), only two companies manufacture an Alpha computer: CRAY and Aspen. If
: you see an Alpha computer being sold, it either has a DEC board in it or an
: Aspen board, and might I add that our board is 20% faster then the DEC boards
: being OEM'ed.
: One of our 275MHz boxes is around $11,000 "complete." So, I am very curious to
: see what "245MHz" you have that cost under $5000 and what you consider
: "complete."
Hello Alan
Don't want to start a pissing contest--but do your homework. We ALSO
manufacture TWO different Alpha based products. We DO NOT purchase our
boards through Digital, like Carrera. If we didn't, how would you explain
the name Nekotech etched into our mother boards?
As far as pricing for under $5,000. here you go.
MI-180-xx-16-500-CD-DS864-CTX14 $4,595
MI-245-xx-16-500-CD-DS864-CTX14 $4,995 (Shipping 12/27/94)
M1 System @ 180Mhz or 245MHz(21066) (** New Product **)
Desktop or Mini Tower Configuration
16MB of RAM
500MB of SCSI-2 Disk
CD-ROM Dual Speed
Diamond Stealth 864 PCI Video
14" CTX Monitor
PCI SCSI
PCI Ethernet
We now offer North America on-site technical support if needed. Please
Brian Dupras
> >LW for Windows NT (Intel, Alpha, and MIPS) will ship 1st Quarter, 1995.
> >$995. Drive safely.
> A shame about the price :-), I can afford the software, but not the
> hardware. Just try and imagine saying that about Vertigo or Wavefront
> :-).
> Are there going to be any PC versions for non-NT (ie: Win 95) based
> machines?
Of course! Yes - the release of 4.0 will include all of the above plus
Amiga and "regular" windows.
DSD MMEDIA
As you can see, by reading my very first post at the bottom of the page it
says that I could care less about what tools artists are using. I am
pro-multi platform.
It is interesting to see what pieces of my message people use, while
overall disregarding the positive pieces.
My original intent was to just spread a little light about the bigotry of
Amiga users. A friend of mine mentioned he was kind of attacked, in here
earlier for posting non-Amiga views. So I had to check it out.
It is *great* that the Amiga (and other low cost platforms, Mac, PC etc.)
can bring the tools to anybody thus letting them get their foot in the
door. That was not my complaint. That is wonderful. The problem is that
then these people go on to bash any computer they do not own. There are
Mac users, PC users and Amiga users who do this. These are obvioulsy
people who have never (or hardly used) the other platforms but because
they own the one they do, it is the best.
That is closed minded and very unprofessional. I would buy an Amiga if I
needed it, I am even waiting to see what Lightwave may possibly have for
benefits on SGI. But reality says in a high production environment
speed=money. I could have bought 60 Amigas and network rendered or just
one high-end SGI for the same price. Yeah, I hate the cost of SGI, believe
me sometimes it kills me when I write the checks.
But it is what the company needed. So it is what we purchased.
I'm just trying to spread a little light on multiplatforms, no platform is
an island.
Dann M. Stubbs
DSD
klaus schallhorn
>DSD MMEDIA (dsdm...@aol.com) wrote:
>: It's nice to get some good intelligent replies to my message.
>
>: As you can see, by reading my very first post at the bottom of the page it
>: says that I could care less about what tools artists are using. I am
>: pro-multi platform.
>
>Two wrongs don't make a right my friend. Just because you say "I am
>pro-multiplatform" doesn't mean you don't anger Amiga users by saying
>things which are inflammatory to them, which you did.
>
>I think Amigans get off on how cheaply something can be done compared to
>SGI's (YES YES sacrificing rendering time)...
Not trying to pour salt, but isn't this "cheaply/sacrificing time" a
contradiction in terms ?
klaus schallhorn
using neither amiga's nor sgi's but sun's && pc's and waiting for LW.
Alan Kahn
>From: BFA...@news.delphi.com (BFA...@DELPHI.COM)
>Subject: Re: Using DEC Alphas running Win/NT for Lightwave3D
>al...@aspsys.com (Alan Kahn) writes:
>>>>Hello David
>>>>Steve
>>>Steve,
>>>Thanks,
>>>--Lance.
>>>la...@cs.ubc.ca
>>Steve,
>>Alan Kahn
>>Aspen Systems
>Alan,
It's always a pleasure to hear from you! We are in in total agreement (as
usual). The Alpha is an excellent rendering engine. It was a pleasure to see
all the attention our booth received at the Expo. It was gratifying in that
it felt like an Alpha show, sorry you weren't exhibiting. By the way, did I
mention only Aspen Systems' Alphas are Microsoft Hardware NT approved, Offer
DEC World Wide Warrany Service, run VMS...
Alan Kahn
Aspen Systems
Stephen J Gaudet
: Note: This is posted by Eric Case (er...@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu) for Alan,
: because is news server is down. :(
: In article <D17u...@world.std.com> s...@world.std.com (Stephen J Gaudet)
: writes:
: >From: s...@world.std.com (Stephen J Gaudet)
: >Subject: Re: Using DEC Alphas running Win/NT for Lightwave3D
: >Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 14:23:14 GMT
: >{stuff deleted}
: >Don't want to start a pissing contest--but do your homework. We ALSO
: >manufacture TWO different Alpha based products. We DO NOT purchase our
: >boards through Digital, like Carrera. If we didn't, how would you explain
: >the name Nekotech etched into our mother boards?
: Correction noted. You do not purchase boards from Digital. You remanufacture
: an Evaluation & Developement Board (the EB64+, Digital Part # 21A02-02),
: with very few slight differences, built at another facility. A rose by any
: other name...
: Alan Kahn
Hello Alan
If to say that our product is a "remanufactured" Digital Development
include Aspen in the phrase. Because Aspen like Nekoteck purchased a
reference design and Aspen just like Nekotech developed a product. I'm
going to give you a little insight to your product that I guess your not
aware of that we both use from Digital's reference design.
1)same serial rom (Xilnix)
2)same firmware ARC console
3)same HAL
4)same 21064A processor
5)same Digital ASICS (21072, 6 required)
We on the other hand as have a 21066 AXP machine that is low cost with
built in PCI on the processor.
Furthermore, you may want to watch the major magaiznes our Mach II-289
just smoked your top box. Therefore, I guess Digital's reference design
is a good one!
Merry Christmas!!!
Steve
________________________________________________________________
| Stephen Gaudet | Manufacture of Digital Alpha based |
| NekoTech / Inco | systems w/ PCI running NT & NTAS at |
| 102 Tide Mill Rd Suite 6 | 289MHz, 170 SPECint92, 240 SPECfp92 |
| Hampton, NH 03842-2705 |-------------------------------------|
| ph:800-635-6895 fax:603-926-0301 e-mail:s...@world.std.com |
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen J Gaudet
: >>>>: : What is the best computer platform for using Lightwave?
: >My name is Bruce Faust and I am, well hell, you know I founded Carrera
: Alan Kahn
: Aspen Systems
Hello Alan
Are you the only one that knows about you Digital World Wide Warranty
Service? Because if you check with Digital field service they don't seem
to know anything about it. I will once again enlighten you, when and if
Digital offers field service support it will be for all 3 vendors,
Carrera, NekoTech and Aspen.
Furthermore, watch the magazines we just smoke your 275MHz box!!
Cheers
Ernie Wright
Dann Stubbs (dsdm...@aol.com) wrote:
> It is interesting to see what pieces of my message people use,
> while overall disregarding the positive pieces.
You've consistently failed to make any distinction between the small
number of "fanatical" Amiga owners and the rest of us. You insult
everyone. Under those circumstances, your audience isn't obligated
to search for the positive parts of your messages. It's up to you
to make yourself clear.
> I didn't ask for the guy to take away my right to freedom of speech.
> Who does he think he is anyway. I thought if he has the nuts to say
> that privately, that others should "hear" what he is saying.
You didn't think at all. The author of the suggestion that you "shut
up" doesn't have the power to take away your freedom of speech. The
issue is the publication of private correspondence without the consent
of the author. In any venue other than the electronic wonderland,
that's a crime. Here, it is merely in bad taste.
> My original intent was to just spread a little light about the
> bigotry of Amiga users.
My bigotry? Everyone's? Am I part of a "fanatical cult"? How much
light did you think you would spread by telling your audience they
were a bunch of amateurs because they don't own SGIs?
It seems clear that your original intent was to offer a strident
defense of your own large investment in SGI by knocking down the straw
man of Amiga chauvanism. You entered this thread by shouting down a
joke John Foust threw out about Wavefront owners crying when they lose
confidence in the wisdom of their investment. The incoherent bluster
of your reply gave John's quip a biting irony it couldn't have achieved
on its own.
No reasonable person would deny that SGI hardware and Wavefront are
capable tools, nor that attachment to any one platform or application
to the exclusion of all others is counterproductive and irrational.
By the same token, and as I've said before, there's no reason to take
seriously anyone who measures his prowess or his success by the size
or the power of his equipment.
- Ernie
DSD MMEDIA
I think you've got a prejudice about all Amiga owners, based on the
flaming,
irrational few who have nothing better to do than post to the Internet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
owners do this but it does seem to be in the 3D world most of them are
Amiga owners. IMHO.
John says,
Correlation does not imply causation, of course. Owning an SGI doesn't
mean you're talented.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I agree completely, hardware is just a piece of plastic and metal. And to
add a comment from someone else about rendering time (previous post)
I stated in a production environment, (where I am at) Rendering time is a
very important topic. Yes, Amiga and LW lets amatures or hobbysist get in
the door, which is great. But as they would soon learn in a tight
production schedule that MIPS are something to consider.
Talent<>cash.
John says
I shudder at the number of past and present SGIs within educational
institutions
that are used as nothing more than X terminals.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
oops, yeah I didn't consider that in my post either, That is a supreme
waste of power, but I was referring to people doing 3D stuff.
John says
My point? That a lot of "successful" SGI modelers and animators didn't
pay for their machine themselves, while a many more (proportionally)
owners of Macs, PCs and Amigas were able to afford their own machines.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I started on Macs for four years doing Print design, and then Interactive
programming and finally going total CGI and 3D two years ago, I started
with $10,000 in equipment five years ago and have worked my way up to
where I am now. I wish I could have worked at a place on *their* SGI's but
it just wasn't possible for me. I guess if I moved to CA I could of, but I
like the East Coast. So with talent and perserverance comes the jobs and
money to get whatever platform you wish to buy. I wish nothing but the
best of luck to artists just getting started, but when they get really
busy they too will have to consider a faster machine or network of
machines.
Dann M. Stubbs
DSD
Eric Case
Note: This is posted by Eric Case (er...@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu) for Alan,
because is news server is down. :(
In article <D17u...@world.std.com> s...@world.std.com (Stephen J Gaudet)
writes:
>From: s...@world.std.com (Stephen J Gaudet)
>Subject: Re: Using DEC Alphas running Win/NT for Lightwave3D
>Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 14:23:14 GMT
>{stuff deleted}
>Hello Alan
>Thank you
>Steve
Correction noted. You do not purchase boards from Digital. You remanufacture
an Evaluation & Developement Board (the EB64+, Digital Part # 21A02-02),
with very few slight differences, built at another facility. A rose by any
other name...
Alan Kahn
Note: This is posted by Eric Case (er...@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu) for Alan,
because is news server is down. :(
--
--
Eric Case INTERNET: er...@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu
I speak only for myself, and other if they let me. ;)
Dwight Gruber
I'm on this newsgroup because I'm interested in, and a user of,
Lightwave. My time is valuable, and I'm tired of having to wade through
the pointless discussion which your original question engendered, and
which you insist on pursuing an infinitum/ad nauseum. Please take it
elsewhere.
Dwight
Michael Todd Wilkinson
I'm sure you are all proud of your computer systems, Aspen and Nekotech.
However if you will check the heading this is comp.graphics.packages.lightwave
not tout your wares comp.fsale.mine.faster.than.yours. Please address your
entire responses to something relative to this news group. Thanks for your
cooperation. Merry XMAS to all!
CamCollect
>>entire responses to something relative to this news group
Yes, but isn't your system and its speed relative to Lightwaves
performance, which is usefull information to a Lightwave user??
BFA...@news.delphi.com
>>al...@aspsys.com (Alan Kahn) writes:
>>>>>Hello David
>>>>>Steve
>>>>Steve,
>>>>Thanks,
>>>>--Lance.
>>>>la...@cs.ubc.ca
>>>Steve,
>>>Alan Kahn
>>>Aspen Systems
>>Alan,
>Alan Kahn
>Aspen Systems
Alan. . .Alan. . .Alan. . .!
Yes, we were at the VT Expo exhibiting with an OEM. Secondly, congratu-
lations on being hardware approved at Microsoft. We expect to be on the
next release too. Thirdly, isn't this "lightwave?"; not VMS?
:-)
Bruce Faust,
formerly Carrera Computers,
now NekoTech
Glenn M. Saunders
: Not trying to pour salt, but isn't this "cheaply/sacrificing time" a
: contradiction in terms ?
As far as I know, computer animators are paid by the duration of the
final product, and there isn't some clock running on the machine like
hourly rates for lawyers or plumbers.
Obviously you might get paid a premium for being able to do something
fast, but not all projects will be ultra time-critical, and some projects
will originate from the animator himself and not be for others.
Besides, I'd expect someone with only one or two Amigas for rendering, if
these machines can not provide them with enough livelihood to support
himself by animation alone to have another job to go to while the
machines hum back at home unattended. That's certainly what _I_ intend
to do. So it's not as though the fact that it will take a long while to
render something is going to leave someone on poverty row.
Frank Aalbers
BB> By the way, B5 is slick but it is no Jurassic Park.
And can what you make be called "slick" ? :-)
________________________________________________________________
| | |
| Frank Aalbers | -PIXION- computeranimations |
| fr...@nbre.nfe.be / 2:292/603.27 | FAX + VOICE 03/326-30-85 |
| | Deurne Belgium |
|__________________________________|_____________________________|
Johan Van Houtven
SJG> Mach II-289, 6 drive tower, 300 watt ps
At the Comdex I talked to all the third party DEC Alphabased systems providers
that were present there. I wondered why only Nekotech had a 289 Mhz system.
All the others had a maximum of 275Mhz...
I asked a DEC engineer. He assured me that there was *no* 289Mhz versie of the
DEC Alpha 21064A chip. I asked him if it could be an overclocked chip. He said
'definitely'. I then went back to the Nekotech representative and asked him if
the chip was overclocked. He said 'Yes, but it has been running stable for
several days/weeks now. We think it is save.'
Please correct me if I am wrong.
SJG> 64mb ram
SJG> 500mb disk
SJG> Diamond Stealth 964-2mb vram
SJG> CD-Rom
SJG> 1.44 flop
SJG> 14" CTX monitor
SJG> keyboard and mouse
SJG> Price:$10,670.00
SJG> The mother bd has embedded Fast SCSI II, ethernet, 2 serial, 1
SJG> parallel,
SJG> floppy, 2 PCI and 3 ISA slots.
And I might add an ugly case. At least, the tower system that Nekotech had at
the Comdex was an ugly run-of-the-mill PC case. But one could argue that that
is a matter of taste. ;-)
I like Aspen's cases best, they look very nice and professional (I fact I like
everything about Aspen's systems best. Bit that is besides the point now.).
Carrera's cases are also quite nice (see their ad in the DEC/JAN VTU).
SJG> Steve
SJG> ________________________________________________________________
SJG> | Stephen Gaudet | Manufacture of Digital Alpha based |
SJG> | NekoTech / Inco | systems w/ PCI running NT & NTAS at |
SJG> | 102 Tide Mill Rd Suite 6 | 289MHz, 170 SPECint92, 240 SPECfp92 |
SJG> | Hampton, NH 03842-2705 |-------------------------------------|
SJG> | ph:603-926-0300 fax:603-926-0301 e-mail:s...@world.std.com |
SJG> ----------------------------------------------------------------
SJG> ---
SJG> * Origin: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA (2:292/603.666)
I am sharing this information / my opinion so others can hopefully benefit from
it. I do not want to be flamed. If you prove me wrong, I will gladly admit
it.
-- Johan Van Houtven / CLICK! N.V. / Wilrijk, Belgium.
TEL: + 32 (0)3 828.18.15 | FAX + 32 (0)3 828.67.36
E-mail: vanh...@nbre.nfe.be | FIDO: 2:292/603.9
Brad Bowman
is
very stylaized (or however you spell it). But it could never be mistaken for
reality. JP might as well have been real. LW is incredible, but I wouldn't
call it true photorealistic yet. Maybe in 4.0
Brad Bowman
Technical Consultant and 3D Animator - AT&T Global Information Solutions - Dayton, Ohio
The Views Expressed by Me are Not Neccessarily the Views of AT&T
Philip D. Thorn
style of 3D you see on B5! There is a ton of stuff floating around done
on Lightwave that I would put up against any I've ever seen.
Have you seen some of Allen's stuff? (Whiskey glass) The amount of
photorealism is up to the amount of effort or the "desire" to achieve
that look by the artist. Some packages like 3DStudio (just as an example)
do not have complete ray-tracing engines so it is harder but not impossible
to create a realistic look. Lightwave has a very robust RT engine and is
as capable as any software out there of photorealistic renders.
Ron Thornton has a particular look and feel to his B5 stuff because that's
his style or a look he was trying to achieve and not because he was some
how crippled by LW. Quite the opposite is true.
-Phil
.
Brad Bowman (Brad....@daytonoh.ncr.com) wrote:
: I am not yet to B5 quality. I meant slick by the way the whole thing looks. It
--
* Phil Thorn * " How can I change the world when *
* Artist/Animator * I can't change my socks?" *
* Thorn Grafx * seen scrolling on a message board *
* pth...@erinet.com * at the TR-I No World Order concert. *
Stranahan
Send the picture into NewTek...
NewTek, Inc
1200 Executive Dr
Topeka, KS 66614
***************************
** Lee Stranahan **
** NewTek, Inc **
** **
** If nobody moves, **
** nobody gets hurt. **
***************************
Techs Avery
While I notice your "complete" system is indeed a bargain as far as
Alphas go, what is the minimum amount of RAM needed to use Lightwave
productively. Windows NT uses up 12MB right off the bat. How much more is
a 32 or 64 MB system?
I'm actually considering the Alpha along with other RISC systems, and I'm
not being antagonistic. I learned my lessons with SGI, and NT
requirements seem to be similar to SGI's.
Also, have any of you guys tested an Alpha with a hardware rendering
engine like those based on the GLiNT chips? Will Lightwave support those
engines?
Techs
: : >We have two Alpha systems a 180 and 245MHz systems UNDER $5000.00 complete.
: Hello Lance
: Thank you
--
Techs Avery
tksa...@netcom.com
Glenn M. Saunders
: Hey Phil, don't get me wrong. I've been using LW for two
: years know and would love to stay with the package. Its
: powerful, easy and its renderings are of very high quality.
: But, there are some limitations. I don't think I would want
: to even try JP in LW. (Yes, i know LW helped ILM convence
: Steven and all of that) But when it came down to it, ILM
: switched to SGI and SoftImage.
Lightwave has never been nor is it likely to be the 1st choice for film
projects because SGI has it beat for getting a faster platform to render
on out of the box. That doesn't mean it can't do JP-like effects. The
Hydra scene in Hercules is the best example yet to prove this. It was a
long scene by most estimates, and was doable because we are talking video
resolutions here. It was also done by a JP alumnus.
Brad Bowman
years know and would love to stay with the package. Its
powerful, easy and its renderings are of very high quality.
But, there are some limitations. I don't think I would want
to even try JP in LW. (Yes, i know LW helped ILM convence
Steven and all of that) But when it came down to it, ILM
switched to SGI and SoftImage.
Brad Bowman
Stranahan
LightWave is absolutely photo-realistic - B5 has its look, other programs
have their own. Star Trek's models don't look 'real' either - they look
like models. B5 looks like 3D. However, I've seen LW images (a shot my
brother did for Viper springs to mind) that were 110% realistic.
JP didn't use 3D nearly as much as you think they did, probably...there
was a lot of hype about it, but the reality is they got photorealism in
the same basic way LightWave would - by compositing.
Walter J. Turberville (III)
Lightwave can make very realistic renderings. I rendered a "Snapple"
bottle that looked VERY realistic. I converted it to an optimized pallette
256 color bitmap and show it on my PC with my screen saver. Everybody is
fooled into thinking it is a photograph. The bottle is not raytraced and is
empty. I used shadowcasting instead instead of tracing shadows. The "trick"
was a good model so polygon edges didn't show, a good use of texture and
color mapping, careful selection of reflection/transparency/color
characteristics of the glass and appropriate lighting.
One of the keys to realism in JP was the MOTION. My understanding was that
they did extensive analysis of live animals to see how skin moved etc. I also
understand that they wrote custom software to solve particular problems. They
were not running stuff "off the shelf".
BTW - while I am no expert in the field, I understand that raytracing is in
itself a pretty crude representation of reality. There are a number of
affects it does not account for. Radiosity stands out as one of them.
Someone who understands what this is and how to "fake" it can induce even more
realism out of a rendering.
Of course, realism isn't even my main focus anyway. Eventually, I put bones
in my "Snapple" bottle and made him walk like a penguin. The result wasn't
exactly realistic, but was effective.
Jay
Walter J. Turberville (III)
>From: camco...@aol.com (CamCollect)
>Subject: Re: Using DEC Alphas running Win/NT for Lightwave3D
Sure, but I would like some real world info. The conversation degraded.
It started with a claim of a $5000 Alpha system complete. Eventually the
details came out, but 500mb disk and 16MB Ram doesn't sound complete (which
isn't to say that it represents a bad deal). In the PC world Windows NT
requires about 12MB Ram. 16mb doesn't leave much room for Lightwave. So are
these systems complete for Lightwave.
Wanna keep me from buying Pentium? Give me some real world systems and prices
complete with OS, LightWave software etc.
I know about Amigas and PCs, but Alphas and Windows NT are new to me. I want
info. If you folks want to play oneupsmanship - which I actually find
somewhat entertaining - at least title the thread as such.
Thanks
Jay
J Eric Chard
>empty. I used shadowcasting instead instead of tracing shadows. The "trick"
>was a good model so polygon edges didn't show, a good use of texture and
>color mapping, careful selection of reflection/transparency/color
>characteristics of the glass and appropriate lighting.
Oh, you mean "work".
>
>One of the keys to realism in JP was the MOTION. My understanding was that
>they did extensive analysis of live animals to see how skin moved etc. I also
>understand that they wrote custom software to solve particular problems. They
>were not running stuff "off the shelf".
Indeed. Also, the ability to >paint< the dinos' skin in 3d, not simply
project an image map onto it. Also, reverse kinematics. Also, highly
paid, highly skilled, experienced professional animators with the time
to do it right.
I'm sure Allen knows all the limitations of Lightwave regarding
photo-realism, surely far more than 98% of the animators on this list,
myself included. The beauty thing is, given enough time, I'm sure
he'll address them all too.
>Of course, realism isn't even my main focus anyway. Eventually, I put bones
>in my "Snapple" bottle and made him walk like a penguin. The result wasn't
>exactly realistic, but was effective.
That's where we get paid, bro'!
>
>Jay
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
BTW, 3d painting is moving down to the desktop world, although packages
seem to start around $8K. Check out last months CGW for a fascinating
article.
***********************************************************************
* (OOOOO) Je...@cup.portal.com | Synergy Graphix & Animation *
* (OOOOOOO) Welcome to Seattle! | Film and Video Productions *
* /////// "All I know is what I see on the monitors." *
***********************************************************************
Stranahan
Lightwave has never been nor is it likely to be the 1st choice for film
projects because SGI has it beat for getting a faster platform to render
on out of the box.
Well, LightWave for the SGI ($995, shipping 1st Quarter) may change much
of this. The SGI advantage becomes LW's advantage, too.
Hehehehehehehehehhehehehehehehe.
By the way, is everyone aware of the money spent on JP's effects? You
could buy a small town....
Brian Dupras
> Sure, but I would like some real world info. The conversation degraded.
> It started with a claim of a $5000 Alpha system complete. Eventually the
> details came out, but 500mb disk and 16MB Ram doesn't sound complete (which
> isn't to say that it represents a bad deal). In the PC world Windows NT
> requires about 12MB Ram. 16mb doesn't leave much room for Lightwave. So are
> these systems complete for Lightwave.
> Wanna keep me from buying Pentium? Give me some real world systems and prices
> complete with OS, LightWave software etc.
> I know about Amigas and PCs, but Alphas and Windows NT are new to me. I want
> info. If you folks want to play oneupsmanship - which I actually find
> somewhat entertaining - at least title the thread as such.
> Thanks
> Jay
Good way to put it, Jay. :) Look - I read this group 3 times a day just
to make each session less than 15 minutes (and that's pushing it). If I
want to know about systems that run Lightwave, I'll read this group and
others. If I want to watch two Alpha kids fighting like cats I'll read
my.f*****g.computer.is.bigger.than.yours.so.there. Until then, let's
remember that this is a public resource that isn't the battle ground for
unwanted arguments or the selling ground for 2bit salesmen in a hissy
fit. Not only is it unprofessional, but it's pretty damn rude.
Enough. Most of us (and more each day) are sick of it.
Brian
bdu...@bert.eecs.uic.edu
Walter J. Turberville (III)
>From: dsdm...@aol.com (DSD MMEDIA)
>Subject: Re: Re: What's the Best platform for Lightwave3D?
>Date: 28 Dec 1994 10:35:04 -0500
>Brad writes
>Oh yeah, I forgot about the Viper probe
>shots. Those were done in LW right?
>Those did look extremely well done.
>I am not trying to slam LW. Geesh.
>I am just saying that there are alternatives
>(albeit, expensive ones) that may put
>out a more realistic render without alot
>more work.
>Brad Bowman
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>Brad, It's Dann here, I gave up too. Nobody here seems to notice the good
>things you say about Amiga and LW. The pick up on the smallest thing and
>totally blow it up. It sure would be a good case for a psychology class to
>study.
>I have stated over and over that LW and Amiga has it's place and does good
>work, but nobody seems to notice, they see SGI and go crazy. Mad-Raving
>about how SGI is the elitest platform etc, etc.
>Sometimes it's nice to converse with other platform owners and it enables
>me to know more and learn new things about LW but here all you can get is
>defensive counter attacks.
>Dann M. Stubbs
>DSD
Wait - Hold it - Time out!
First of all, I reread this thread and nobody is going raving mad and
self-qualifying themselves for student psychological examinations.
Brad wrote:
[snip] "But it could never be mistaken for
reality. JP might as well have been real. LW is incredible, but I wouldn't
call it true photorealistic yet. Maybe in 4.0" [snip]
I haven't missed that Brad compliments LW and the previous posts don't seem to
either. But he did say that it couldn't produce "true photorealistic yet" and
he used B5 as a reference standard. That is really all I responded to and all
the others responded to. Lee probably gets a little more enthusiastic than
others, but I expect that. After all, he is a NewTek employee - Right?
Yes, I am sure that many of the LW loyal get defensive. There is good reason.
Because LW's home platform was the AMIGA, it got far less respect than it
deserved. Amiga's are often viewed as toys. LW users often get looked down
on from those running more expensive hardware and software. Understandably,
they get touchy at times.
If you will notice, I mentioned that the "realistic" renderings of raytracing
are limited as well. Depending on how picky you get, I doubt if any package
really puts out a truly photorealistic rendering.
Additionally, while I consider JP a landmark film and some of its stuff
borderline magic, some of it just did not quite make the grade. This is NOT a
slam. But some of the stuff is clearly (though not grossly) artificial. I
still maintain that the key to their success has as much to do with realistic
motion as realistic renderings.
I wouldn't want to duplicate the effort on LW either. However, making LW
available on other platforms will put more complex projects within reach.
BTW - I am actually a PC/Windows guy who tinkers with Imagine 3.1 on the PC
when I cannot get to LW. I hold no allegiences to software or hardware. They
are only tools. The image is the thing. LW just happens to be a very good
and affordable tool.
Jay
Brad Bowman
Brad Bowman
LW has a certain "Look" to it. I have seen some incredible stuff come from this
package though. That may be why I use it so much.
Brad Bowman
course Amigas in my everyday business. LW is an extremely powerful tool, but if
I can use an Electric Image and get incredibly fast renders on a PowerPC I might
have to look into it. Seeing 2K resolution frames generated in 6 minutes is a
bit impressive. LW is not all that is out there, but for Price / Performance, it
can't be beat.
Brad Bowman
Okay, case in point. One my business
associates and I were watching Gate to the Minds Eye
on video trying to pick what software did what anims.
The Human Walking Anim that was done on LW was
immediately visible. We both looked at each other
at the same time and said, "Lightwave".
Brad Bowman
and software did they do motion testing on?
An Amiga 2000 running Lightwave 3.0. The
motion was so realistic that Phil Tippet (the Go-Motion
guy) declared himself extinct.
Brad Bowman
shots. Those were done in LW right?
Those did look extremely well done.
I am not trying to slam LW. Geesh.
I am just saying that there are alternatives
(albeit, expensive ones) that may put
out a more realistic render without alot
more work.
Brad Bowman
DSD MMEDIA
Oh yeah, I forgot about the Viper probe
shots. Those were done in LW right?
Those did look extremely well done.
I am not trying to slam LW. Geesh.
I am just saying that there are alternatives
(albeit, expensive ones) that may put
out a more realistic render without alot
more work.
Brad Bowman
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Brad, It's Dann here, I gave up too. Nobody here seems to notice the good
Philip D. Thorn
Gee! What was the give-away. The humanoid objects or the over-use
of lens flares. Once again...this wasn't a good example but you are
right it was recognizable as LW. I'll bet there is a larger amount
of LWgraphics on T.V. commericals etc. that you see on a daily
basis andhave no idea that it was LW.
Tools are tools and you can use the default settings and routines or
experiment with new techniques. It still boils down to the artist not
the medium. Unfortunately not all decent artists have corporate backing
or school/government grants so it's great that a package like LW gives
a legitiment alternative to the budget draining SGI/UNIX tools.
Brad Bowman (Brad....@daytonoh.ncr.com) wrote:
: Whoa! I love LW. I keep saying that.
: Okay, case in point. One my business
: associates and I were watching Gate to the Minds Eye
: on video trying to pick what software did what anims.
: The Human Walking Anim that was done on LW was
: immediately visible. We both looked at each other
: at the same time and said, "Lightwave".
: Brad Bowman
: Technical Consultant and 3D Animator - AT&T Global Information Solutions
Walter J. Turberville (III)
>From: Brad Bowman <Brad....@daytonoh.ncr.com>
>Subject: Re: Re: What's the Best platform for Lightwave3D?
>Why can't we all just get along? :)
Hey - I thought we were. I was was just trying to give my point of view
about LightWave's "realisticness". (Is that a word?) Maybe the number of
posts gave you the feeling of getting ganged up on. Sorry.
I was at a recent local animator's meeting and some of the people there
claimed to be able to recognize the "look" of certain software packages. I
think that some packages do have characteristics that are easy to spot (LW
lens flares as an example), but there is a lot of stuff that could have been
done on any package. Some of the differences are very subtle too. Still
others are only because the artist didn't go much beyond "default" or typical
settings.
When you start adding lights and textures all sorts of "looks" become
possible. My personal background is in photography. The most important thing
I learned was to be able to observe the lighting and predict how it would
affect the final picture. The source of light - spot, umbrella, sky, cloudy
sky etc. have a tremendous influence. Same thing is true in 3D packages.
What kind of refmap you use and how you light is VERY important to how the
final image looks. I think this type of stuff is what leads to a certain
style.
There is a guy named Miller who does a lot of stuff using POV-Ray. I can
usually recognize his stuff immediately. Is it his style, or is it POV-Ray
that makes that possible? Maybe both?
Jay
Dwight Gruber
the making of JP, check out the thorough (read exhaustive ;^) ) report in
"CineFex" magaxzine, #55, August 1993. Computer graphics/rendering was
only one part (tho an important one) of a much larger whole; it was
considerably custom programming work (tho not completely); and one could
power a small country for its cost, let alone a small town (apologies to
Lee %) ). Yes, Lightwave is great, and in the hands of a skilled operator
can, I believe, approach photo-realism. It would be interesting to know
how much computer animation we see is *unrecognized* LW. I suspect that
if you threw the same time, money, and talent at a JP-style LW project,
you could come up with similarly spectacular results.
--Dwight
Stephen J Gaudet
Techs Avery (tksa...@netcom.com) wrote:
: Stephen J Gaudet (s...@world.std.com) wrote:
: : Lance Ladic (la...@cs.ubc.ca) wrote:
: : {stuff deleted}
: While I notice your "complete" system is indeed a bargain as far as
: Alphas go, what is the minimum amount of RAM needed to use Lightwave
: productively. Windows NT uses up 12MB right off the bat. How much more is
: a 32 or 64 MB system?
16mb upgrade to get to 32mb is $835.00
32mb upgrade is $1675
64mb upgrade is $2950
{stuff deleted}
: Also, have any of you guys tested an Alpha with a hardware rendering
: engine like those based on the GLiNT chips? Will Lightwave support those
: engines?
I will be going to a local customer running LW, who will benchmark both my
Mach I-245 and the Mach II-289. Once I get the results I'll keep you
informed.
Regards
Steve
________________________________________________________________
| Stephen Gaudet | Manufacture of Digital Alpha based |
| NekoTech / Inco | systems w/ PCI running NT & NTAS at |
| 102 Tide Mill Rd Suite 6 | 289MHz, 170 SPECint92, 240 SPECfp92 |
| Hampton, NH 03842-2705 |-------------------------------------|
| ph:800-635-6895 fax:603-926-0301 e-mail:s...@world.std.com |
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brad Bowman
is immediately recognizable. For along time I thought he just used Corel Draw
until I read an article on him in Computer Artist. Come to find out he uses a
bazillion different packages on the Mac and PC to achieve his "look".
Frank Aalbers
Hi Dann !
DM> Sometimes it's nice to converse with other platform owners and it
DM> enables
DM> me to know more and learn new things about LW but here all you can get
DM> is
DM> defensive counter attacks.
Maybe a few , but shurely not ALL of them . It's just like comparing a
Rolls Royce with a Lada . A Lada will finally also get to where he's going
but it'll need more time and effort for it .
Everybody would like to have a SGI platform with state of the art software
, but it's just not possible . That's why some are a little jalous . :-))
So as most of us use Low End Platforms and make VERY good use of it I can
say that LightWave is one of the best (if not the best :-) for the majority
of us Low End users .
Something else . I would like to know how many of those that are talking
about RISC or other fast platforms actually use them ? :-)))
I'm surely not one of them ! But I'm making the best of it .
________________________________________________________________
| | |
| Frank Aalbers | -PIXION- computeranimations |
| fr...@nbre.nfe.be / 2:292/603.27 | FAX + VOICE 03/326-30-85 |
| | Deurne Belgium |
|__________________________________|_____________________________|
Frank Aalbers
Hi Brad !
BB> reality. JP might as well have been real. LW is incredible, but I
BB> wouldn't
BB> call it true photorealistic yet. Maybe in 4.0
Wel ... LW has the tools to make it fotorealistic . It all just depends on
how good you are with textures and lightning .
Maxwell Daymon
: Whoa! I love LW. I keep saying that.
: The Human Walking Anim that was done on LW was
: immediately visible. We both looked at each other
: at the same time and said, "Lightwave".
I see this as a DISadvantage. It means the program is probably
restrictive and hence all animations and renderings look "the same" (to
the point where you could pick them out of a video such as Gate)
Speaking of which, is there a list of all the animations in The Gate with
equipment and software used to produce it? I watched ALL the credits and
not one mention of platform or configuration. :-(
------------------
Maxwell Daymon One man's "magic" is another man's engineering.
mda...@rmii.com "Supernatural" is a null word.
------------------ - Robert Heinlein (AUISG Page 9)
Stranahan
(lighting, surfaces) that some people, particularly inexperienced or less
ambitious animators never change. I can often pick out LW anims becuase I
recognize an object or they use fractal patterns in an obvious way or the
dreaded tell-tale lens flare.
LightWave is capable of giving you any sort of look you want, if you work
a little. If you don't work much, you'll get great looking anims that look
like LW defaults. By the way, LW 4.0's new plug-in system should blow the
roof off of this issue by allowing many many more textures, etc...
***************************
** Lee Stranahan **
** NewTek, Inc **
** **
** One of us! **
** One of us! **
***************************
Teyi N Lei
>
>Maybe a few , but shurely not ALL of them . It's just like comparing a
>Rolls Royce with a Lada . A Lada will finally also get to where he's going
>but it'll need more time and effort for it .
>
>Everybody would like to have a SGI platform with state of the art software
>, but it's just not possible . That's why some are a little jalous . :-))
>
>So as most of us use Low End Platforms and make VERY good use of it I can
>say that LightWave is one of the best (if not the best :-) for the majority
>of us Low End users .
>
as possible, but just to throw in some final thoughts on the whole Amiga
vs. SGI debate...
The whole issue ( at least for me ) was that the gap between the "high-end"
and "low-end" is closing, yet the price gap hasn't. OT one hand, it is
jealousy; OTOH, as Frank mentioned, it's just not possible for some to
cross from the low to high, esp. initially. The original guy ( Dann? )
who caused the mass negative reactions to his comments said that he
thinks there does exist a place for lo-end machines like the Amiga. The
problem, I see, is that there should NOT be a place for machines like the
present SGI's and their s/w, not because of the technology but because of
their price range. No matter how you explain it, they charge this much
ONLY because there ARE certain people willing to pay for it. That's how
free enterprise works, I guess, though it seems the customers should get
together to express their rights also, instead of taking whatever they
give you.
To take the car analogy ( Sorry, I don't know what a Lada is ), I would say
the difference between SGI's and Amigas is more like that between Ferraris
and Camaros -- the latter is slower but more fuel (price ) efficient. People
buy the former for prestige -- is this what we want to use our machines of
creativity/expression for?
Regards.
Per Jacobsen
> Have you seen some of Allen's stuff? (Whiskey glass) The amount of
> photorealism is up to the amount of effort or the "desire" to achieve
> that look by the artist.
Where can we see this?
Is there some sort of FTP place where people could upload a picture or
two of some of their best work, for the rest of us to ogle at? :)
I noticed an SGI Page, shame if Lightwave didn't have one.
J Eric Chard
>Brad Bowman (Brad....@daytonoh.ncr.com) wrote:
>: Whoa! I love LW. I keep saying that.
>
>: The Human Walking Anim that was done on LW was
>: immediately visible. We both looked at each other
>: at the same time and said, "Lightwave".
>
>I see this as a DISadvantage. It means the program is probably
>restrictive and hence all animations and renderings look "the same" (to
>the point where you could pick them out of a video such as Gate)
This is purely the responsibility of the artist. If you don't
twiddle the default settings, every renderer has a "look", not just
our favorite. 3DS jumps out at you.
It's style, boys. First thing, turn off the ambient light.
> Maxwell Daymon One man's "magic" is another man's engineering.
> mda...@rmii.com "Supernatural" is a null word.
^^^^^^^^^^^
<sigh>
J Eric Chard
>The problem, I see, is that there should NOT be a place for machines like the
>present SGI's and their s/w, not because of the technology but because of
>their price range. No matter how you explain it, they charge this much
>ONLY because there ARE certain people willing to pay for it. That's how
>free enterprise works, I guess, though it seems the customers should get
>together to express their rights also, instead of taking whatever they
Boy, Ayn Rand would have a field day with this.
They have the right not to buy the product. Everything else comes
"cavet emptor" and truth in advertising laws.
Maxwell Daymon
: Maxwell Daymon writes:
: >I see this as a DISadvantage. It means the program is probably
: This is purely the responsibility of the artist. If you don't
: twiddle the default settings, every renderer has a "look", not just
: our favorite. 3DS jumps out at you.
Simple fact of the matter is that some programs are more restrictive than
others. It is not "purely" the responsibility of the artist. Programs
render, map, and light in certain ways and until recently many of these
things were not CHANGABLE by the artist.
: It's style, boys. First thing, turn off the ambient light.
Perhaps Lightwave allows more flexibility, perhaps not. With a paint
program, you are very free to do what you want. With a rendering program,
there are very specific engines that can't be changed, and limit the
flexibility of the program.
------------------
Maxwell Daymon One man's "magic" is another man's engineering.
mda...@rmii.com "Supernatural" is a null word.
Philip D. Thorn
Actually you just made J.Eric's point for him. The paint program analogy
falls squarely into the same category. The default tools in Painter,
PhotoShop, etc., make it immediately apparent which piece of software
was used simply because most people don't use anything but the defaults.
Almost every instance I can remember saying "Oh, that was done in..."
was due to a default look or an overused effect particular to a program.
I can also find many examples where I knew what package was used and
wondered how the hell did they do THAT!
Lee made a good point when he said that with plug-ins this will be
less of a factor. I expect that the "LW Look" will soon become as
ambiguous as the artists and animators that use it.
-Phil
Maxwell Daymon (mda...@rmii.com) wrote:
Stranahan
Is comp.graphics.packages.lightwave morphing into
alt.philosophy.objectivism??
I hope not. I REALLY get flamed there!!!
Ernie Wright
> There's a real 'member's only' feeling with some people in the 3D
> world - it used to be a SMALL club, too - and the sooner it goes
> away, the better....
----------
> Just a side note to those who will get this...
>
> Is comp.graphics.packages.lightwave morphing into
> alt.philosophy.objectivism??
Let's see,
Unacceptable: "members only"
Acceptable: "those who will get this"
Just a friendly jab. Honest.
Concerning LWPro, I guess I'd vote for a larger format with ads and
product coverage. This would widen the magazine's scope and make room
for more information. With only 16 pages, every article has to hit a
predetermined level of sophistication that may end up satisfying very
few readers. More pages would mean that some articles could be aimed
at topics or material not everyone is going to get or care about.
Example: A column called "Programming for LightWave" featuring home-
grown plug-ins, scene file format details, algorithmically generated
objects...
Let's review.
"to those who will get this": valuable specialized material
"members only": 16 pages written by 4 people
As for this becoming alt.philosophy.objectivism, I'd hate to think we
could be reduced to debating the proposition "Selfishness is a virtue."
But at least we wouldn't be expected to contribute copy protection
ideas.
- Ernie
John Foust
>Example: A column called "Programming for LightWave" featuring home-
>grown plug-ins, scene file format details, algorithmically generated
>objects...
That's pretty obscure stuff for the masses... not only does it
require 3D knowledge, but it requires a C compiler and programming
knowledge.
Stranahan
-------
> There's a real 'member's only' feeling with some people in the 3D
> world - it used to be a SMALL club, too - and the sooner it goes
> away, the better....
----------
> Just a side note to those who will get this...
>
> Is comp.graphics.packages.lightwave morphing into
> alt.philosophy.objectivism??
Let's see,
Unacceptable: "members only"
Acceptable: "those who will get this"
Just a friendly jab. Honest.
---------
Well, let me explain - I'm a fan of Ayn Rand's and suddenly I've noticed a
bunch of other people making Ayn Rand references. Struck me kinda funny,
that's all.
And as a fan of AR's, let me say 'Power to people!'. Right on. Peace.
Ernie Wright
> Example: A column called "Programming for LightWave" featuring home-
> grown plug-ins, scene file format details, algorithmically generated
> objects...
John Foust replied:
> That's pretty obscure stuff for the masses... not only does it
> require 3D knowledge, but it requires a C compiler and programming
> knowledge.
That's probably one of the many reasons I'm not editing LWPro. I'm not
sure I'd defend that particular example, but the point is precisely
that, with more space, not all of it has to appeal to the so-called
masses, kinda like cable.
Okay, maybe I will defend my example. I think there are plenty of SGI
users in government and academia who have been writing their own code
rather than pay for commercial software. They have the background and
the compiler, and they may soon have LightWave. With a few LW-specific
programming hints, they'll be able to do visualizations that they
thought they needed AVS for, and they'll be way ahead when everybody
realizes it's a lot easier to mail out videotapes than it is to fly
folks in and gather them around the monitor.
I mean, I HOPE I'm not the only one who's both qualified and interested.
(Sniffle.)
- Ernie
Ernie Wright
> And as a fan of AR's [Ayn Rand's], let me say 'Power to people!'.
> Right on. Peace.
Hehehehehe.
- Ernie
Eric Case
Masses? Masses may not use LW or even read about it, but I think may of
the people that do "high end" LW work may write there own the plug-ins
(people do write there own AREXX programs for LW), and I believe Ernie
was talking about LWPro. So even if programming and C compilers are not
for the masses, I think it would be a good addition to LWPro.
-Eric
--
Eric Case INTERNET: er...@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu
Dwight Gruber
I hope not, too. I know I'm trying (sometimes not successfully) to stop
;^)
Todd Browning rules!
--Dwight
Dwight Gruber
the Amiga is a "high-end" machine, in its capabilities. I am tirred of
having to live with the prejudices of potential clients and other
"knowledgable" people who think less of my work or capabilities simply
because I use an Amiga.
As far as the two discriminations are concerned, why not just deal with
the real issues, and call them "expensive" and "less expensive"
or "expensive" and "more cost-effective" solutions and platforms.
Just a thought.
--Dwight