Walter (Jay) Turberville (III) (wturber@primenet.com) wrote:
: >I agree. I haven't been able to use my QuickCam for over 2 mos. because of
: my LW dongle. It is >NOT trasparant like they say. I had to make a decision
: of what was more valuable to me, LW or the >QC. So my QC is sitting on the
: self in its box. It really sucks that I had to make that >decision. I REALLY
: shoudn't have to. Some people will say "buy another parallel port card".
: >That would work, but that's more $$ out of my pocket that I shouldn't be
: expected to spend. >Dongles suck! Their ineffectiveness is demonstrated
: everyday with every "need lightwave crack" >message posted. I'd rather LW
: just go w/ serial numbers instead. The fucking pirates will get >their
: cracked copies of LW regardless. Let's focus on the USER not the stinkin'
: pirates.>--
:
: >Bryant Reif
: >mailto:reifbrya@pilot.msu.edu
: >http://www.aiesec.org/~bryant
:
: The dongle makes pirating more difficult. It slows the process some.
Ohh yes .. very slow.. As I've heard.. Lw 5.0 was released out about a week or so ago.. and lets see.. My little neighbor pirate boy already has the cracked version.. it makes me sick, and also proves the fact that dongles suck and are a pain in the ass..
: I don't like the dongle, but when I factor the cost of LW against the "cost"
: of the dongle, I still buy LW. I think similar packages (3DS, MAX) also use
: dongles and share in passing this "cost" on to the end user. When I look at
: what a Pentium system with LightWave and RAM costs, it baffles me why people
: get significantly bothered about the expense of adding a second parallel port.
: I DO understand if the issue is that they are running out of IRQs though.
:
: I understand that the dongle causes (at times) very significant problems. But
: I don't understand how so many people can consider the protection of LW by
: NewTek to be such a minor problem. The real solution is for NewTek to get
: Sentinel to provide them a dongle that is RELIABLE! Better yet, how about
: reliable AND actually able to act as a passthru.
:
:
: Walter (Jay) Turberville |wturber@primenet.com wturber@aol.com
: Studio 522 Productions |http://www.primenet.com/~wturber
What constitues a user to be able to upgrade? Would the usage of another 3D rendering program allow one to purchase an upgrade for LW? I know that's how it works for word processors..
Thanks,
Craig
: Where is a good price for the upgrade? Newtek is $495 what is street
Organization: The University of California at San Diego
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <4ms2da$6rg@news1.ucsd.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: waynesworld.ucsd.edu
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
got my version of 5.0 in the mail the other day, and was pleased as pie with
the product overall. however, and I want this to be taken in the context
of a devoted user voicing concern, it falls short on some fundamentals.
1) lightwave still does not have a flexable way of hierarchichly(sp?) representing models and surfaces. we need a window like in softimage or alias, (preferably softimage) showing parenting and links etc. we need to be able to rearange
the object list... see asociated surfaces, etc.
and please, as good as bones are, we still need a way to localize their effect in relation to the initial state of the model, so that bones wont inter
act just because they happen to stray to near...
and more importantly, the ik should be kicked up a knotch to allow
for associations that are more fluid. I wanna grab the arm, not a target...
ok I got that out of my system... Lest anyone read this that was
responsible for lightwave 5.0, don't take this the wrong way. I love the
product. I've used alot of them, and lightwave is my sentamental favorite.
the basic interface is so nice and uncluttered...It keeps getting better and better... thanks
oh, one more key feature... we need to be able to reorient the plane that
textures are applied on ... a core need.....should be there... sorely missed
On 5/8/96 10:11PM, in message <4mrupq$tr2@ns3-1.CC.Lehigh.EDU>, gms2@Lehigh.EDU
wrote:
> rickmay@cinenet.net (Rick May) writes:
> >->Your comparing old SGI technology (You mean Indigo2 I assume, since there
> >->is no such thing as Iris2) to new PC technology - Apples and Oranges. You
>
> >then it isnt even close to be realtime. And, if you are talking about
> >hardware redraw speeds- you better check your facts. The Open GL boards on
> >these Pentium Pro machines are as fast if not faster than the Indigo 2
> >Extremes redraw..
>
> This is exactly what the guy was talking about: The I2Extreme is two years
> old! The Impact series are the current models, and yes, they are quite
> superior to any PC. All the ads from Intergraph, Deskstation,
> CoreMicro...they
> all make comparisons to the *Extreme* series, not the Impact. Check out last
> months CGW (April); they have an article that explains all this.
>
> =======
Yes, they all make comparisons to the Extreme--and they're all superior.
--
-=Fred=-
Article: 19164
Path: news2.cais.com!news
From: B Hayes <bjhayes@pacificnet.net>
Newsgroups: comp.graphics.apps.lightwave
Subject: Re: 5.0 hits and misses
Date: Thu, 09 May 1996 01:27:34 -0400
Organization: Capital Area Internet Service, Inc.
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <31918246.5C62@pacificnet.net>
References: <4ms2da$6rg@news1.ucsd.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pm4-27.pacificnet.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0b3 (WinNT; I)
To: Jonathan Gerber <jlgerber@waynesworld.ucsd.edu>
Jonathan Gerber wrote:
>
> got my version of 5.0 in the mail the other day, and was pleased as pie with
> the product overall. however, and I want this to be taken in the context
> of a devoted user voicing concern, it falls short on some fundamentals.
>
> 1) lightwave still does not have a flexable way of hierarchichly(sp?) representing models and surfaces. we need a window like in softimage or alias, (preferab
> the object list... see asociated surfaces, etc.
> and please, as good as bones are, we still need a way to localize their effect in relation to the initial state of the model, so that bones wont inter
> act just because they happen to stray to near...
> and more importantly, the ik should be kicked up a knotch to allow
> for associations that are more fluid. I wanna grab the arm, not a target...
>
> ok I got that out of my system... Lest anyone read this that was
> responsible for lightwave 5.0, don't take this the wrong way. I love the
> product. I've used alot of them, and lightwave is my sentamental favorite.
> the basic interface is so nice and uncluttered...It keeps getting better and better... thanks
> oh, one more key feature... we need to be able to reorient the plane that
> textures are applied on ... a core need.....should be there... sorely missed
>
> jonathan gerber
> babbling guy
John:
Your concerns are valid,.. almost as far as a list of the hierarchy of the objects including all parented relation ships, Look at the
scene panel. Have you ever noticed that objects that are parented to other objects are indented one notch? this will give you a quick over view
of the structure of a skeleton or other famly units. I will agree that it is certainly not SI. And as for bones I hven't used any of the new
features yet, but I thought that was exactly what they did.
