PDA

View Full Version : Any one know Arsenal?


the3dgm
May 12th, 2008, 11:35 AM
Does anyone here know New Tek's Arsenal? Does it come with a Full version of LW 7.5 or a lite version? Can LW 7.5 run on a newer machine, that is PCI not AGP graphics?

etwtewtew
May 12th, 2008, 04:37 PM
7.5 runs fine on a modern machine

the3dgm
May 12th, 2008, 04:58 PM
Thanks for that!! Still haven't been able to find out if it's a full version of LW or a partial or lite Version and New Tek isn't talking. . .

evil_genius_180
May 12th, 2008, 09:31 PM
I'm looking at the NewTek Arsenal page and it just says LW 7.5. If it was a version that's limited or a demo, I think they'd have to say so. But you're right; there's not a whole lot of information there. Not even system requirements. That's a stupid way to sell software, IMO.

the3dgm
May 12th, 2008, 09:43 PM
Thanks evil_genius_180 I was able to track down the system requirements, nothing more than you'd expect, other than the AGP Graphics card required, but, I would think maybe they only had AGP when 7.5 came out. etwtewtew says 7.5 runs well on a new machine so I'll take his word for it, however, I've been told by the person who wants to sell it that it is the full version and by two other people that they believe it is a lite version and New Tek dosen't answer e-mails. The price the guy is offering is good if it is the Full version, but, not good enough if it's not. So I'll pass since I simply can not find out.

Thanks for the help guys!!!

evil_genius_180
May 12th, 2008, 10:42 PM
PCI Graphics cards have been out way longer than AGP cards. There has just been a resurgence in their popularity the last few years because you can and have always been able to do more with your PCI slots. It's just that when AGP came out everyone jumped on the bandwagon because they thought it was better because, at the time, it required a higher processor to run an AGP card. Then they started to come out with even better PCI slots and cards. It's a vicious cycle. ;)

the3dgm
May 12th, 2008, 10:51 PM
I know, AGP can flow more graphics info the a PCI, what I'm talking about is my system doesn't even have an AGP port, it has the PCI x16 graphics port, which has a far larger flow of graphics data than the AGP port did. Even though I think graphics are getting a little out of control when they require their own power source and cost more than a low end computer. . .but that's me!

My question should have read does LW 7.5 look for an AGP slot and what happens when it doesn't find one?

etwtewtew
May 13th, 2008, 04:07 AM
My question should have read does LW 7.5 look for an AGP slot and what happens when it doesn't find one?

It just installs normally. I've never had any trouble myself, and I know of people who are running versions as old as 5.6 without any problems.

etwtewtew
May 13th, 2008, 04:21 AM
LW doesn't have any difficulties with PCI, as EG suggested the description is probably just a holdover from when AGP was more popular, but doesn't have any bearing on the actual installation process.

evil_genius_180
May 13th, 2008, 10:11 PM
Usually the graphics card requirement is only important in a few operations 3D and has no bearing on installation or general use of the program. Now, if you want to animate, you're talking about a whole different animal. But system requirements are also the minimum. It wants at least an AGP card and you have a PCI Express X 16 which, as you say, is more advanced, so you're good to go. :D

As for PCI vs. AGP, one advantage that AGP always had over PCI and still has over PCI Express ports is that, if you use all the built-in RAM from your AGP card, it can draw extra RAM from your system RAM, giving it a maximum that's much higher than what comes on the card. Even PCI Express X 16 can't do that. ;)

the3dgm
May 14th, 2008, 08:38 AM
THANK GOODNESS FOR THAT!!! LOL The only reason I put a graphics card in my machines, OK there are other reasons, is so I have max ram for my programs. About 3.5 gigs out of my 4 gigs is available. I'm not a gamer and not into animation, I just wanted Arsenal as a way to final get Lightwave, but, some guy with more money than brains bought it. . .

Thanks guys!!!

evil_genius_180
May 14th, 2008, 10:18 AM
So,what's drawing the other .5 gigs of RAM from your system? The only thing I can think of that would do that is a graphics card. Though it could also be that, if you're using Windows, it's just not showing your whole RAM amount.

the3dgm
May 14th, 2008, 11:34 AM
Windows XP Professional and thats is what takes up the other .5 gig it is used by the operating system, without a graphics card, just using the built in graphics chip, would remove another .25 to .5 of the available ram. Leaving 3.25 or just 3 gigs left for the programs.

Are you saying MACs don't use any ram or do they have separate ram for the system or does it simply not show how much ram is being used by the system? I has to use something.

Many Windows programs do not show what is being used by the system but XP, and some of my diagnostic programs do show exactly what is using how much.

the3dgm
May 14th, 2008, 11:37 AM
A point of interest if someone is using Vista on a windows machine the max available ram on a 32 bit system is 3 gigs even if you have 4 gigs in the machine and requires 2 gigs to run really effectively. What a waste!

evil_genius_180
May 14th, 2008, 10:48 PM
Windows XP Professional and thats is what takes up the other .5 gig it is used by the operating system, without a graphics card, just using the built in graphics chip, would remove another .25 to .5 of the available ram. Leaving 3.25 or just 3 gigs left for the programs.

Are you saying MACs don't use any ram or do they have separate ram for the system or does it simply not show how much ram is being used by the system? I has to use something.

Many Windows programs do not show what is being used by the system but XP, and some of my diagnostic programs do show exactly what is using how much.

I don't know what MACs do, I don't have one. I have an old PC running Windows XP Home Edition Basic with SP2. It shows me my total RAM, minus the bit used by my old graphics processor in the system properties. That's what I thought you were talking about. As for RAM usage by Windows itself, it doesn't use that much. You really only need 64 MB of ram to run the OS, according to the system requirements on the box, though they recommend you have at least 128 MB. So, I don't see why the OS would take that much RAM to run, especially in idle mode.

Darrell Lawrence
May 14th, 2008, 11:26 PM
Vista requires 1GB of RAM.

the3dgm
May 15th, 2008, 09:31 AM
@e_g_180 here is something for you to try, press Ctrl-Alt-Del (at the same time of course) Select 'Processes' at the bottom of the little box on the right hand side there are two numbers write down the first one, the smaller of the two, and subtract that from your Physcial Ram. This will give you an idea of what you have for ram to run additional programs. If you don't have a virus program or firewall or Quicktime, etc. You may have a very small number of processes running and a good amount of ram available to your programs. Most systems I've seen, when people bring me their systems for repair, etc., have between 30 and 50 processes running at idle. You may have more or less on somewhere in between. I looked at my laptop and it has WinHome on it also and it reports Physcial Ram not Useable ram also.

@Warrior NO! However, it does need 2 gigs to run well and will only address a max of just over 3 gigs.

I'm sure you don't believe me so you may want to check a few articles on Vista, I've hardly read one that doesn't recommend a minimum of two gigs if you have anything other than Vista Basic. Also, you might notice that more and more systems are coming out with 2 or 3 gigs of ram if the operating system is Vista. They are not doing this because they like you! LOL

evil_genius_180
May 15th, 2008, 11:03 AM
Vista requires 1GB of RAM.

Then how are they selling "new" PCs with only 512 MB of RAM and the Windows Vista operating system? Though most you can buy have at least 1024 MB, there are still a few on sale that have 512 and they have the Vista OS.

And, while I was sitting here, I found the answer. According to the product details at Office Depot for Vista, the memory requirement of Vista is 512 MB, not 1 gig. And that's the recommended RAM, not the minimum. 'Cause it shows 128 as the requirement for XP and I know from looking at the XP box sitting on my desk that the recommended RAM is 128, the minimum is 64. I think I heard when it came out that the minimum for Vista is 256.

Now, that's not to say it doesn't run a hell of a lot better with 1 gig or greater. ;)

@e_g_180 here is something for you to try, press Ctrl-Alt-Del (at the same time of course) Select 'Processes' at the bottom of the little box on the right hand side there are two numbers write down the first one, the smaller of the two, and subtract that from your Physcial Ram. This will give you an idea of what you have for ram to run additional programs. If you don't have a virus program or firewall or Quicktime, etc. You may have a very small number of processes running and a good amount of ram available to your programs. Most systems I've seen, when people bring me their systems for repair, etc., have between 30 and 50 processes running at idle. You may have more or less on somewhere in between. I looked at my laptop and it has WinHome on it also and it reports Physcial Ram not Useable ram also.

You can also bring that up by right-clicking on the taskbar and clicking on "task manager" on the pop-up menu. ;) I know about all the processes, I was just confused about how you were figuring your RAM. I'd thought you were talking about your total RAM listed in the system properties, I didn't realize at the time that you were subtracting the usage of your system processes.

the3dgm
May 15th, 2008, 11:43 AM
A trick about what Office Depot is telling you there is, one; for the most part if the computer has only 512 of ram, you'll probably not get Vista Home Premium, it will be basic. Two; with only 512 ram you may have problems turning on lightbox, or what ever they call the advanced graphics in Vista, and if it does work, then you start running into problems running your programs.

A friend of mine got a Vista machine a short time ago, after playing with it for a few days, he e-mailed me and said it 'It looks pretty, but work for (beep)', I asked him how much ram it came with, 1 gig, and advised him to add a second, his machine will only hold two {STUPID}.

He, finally, got the second gig of ram, and is a very happy puppy now, also, he does not work with graphics.

Here's something else to confuse you more, maybe I should change my name to evil_the3DGM, lol, on a 32-bit system, 64-bit systems are a whole new ballgame, running XP, most systems will report only 3.25 or 3.5 gigs of ram, if it's less then the 3.25 gigs, like 2.5, get another computer. This is because of the system BIOS, not windows. Some BIOS will show less ram when adding graphics cards, sound cards, etc.

Getting into computers is fun, Huh!!!

Darrell Lawrence
May 15th, 2008, 06:46 PM
I just bought a new PC late last year, and the Vista it came with requires at *least* 1GB to run it.

the3dgm
May 15th, 2008, 08:08 PM
The Business and Premium versions of Vista require 1 gig to run, the Basic and Home Premium version can, supposedly, run on a 512 system.

Microsoft has now admitted telling manufactures, HP, Gateway, Dell, etc. that machines they said were 'Windows Vista Capable', remember all those quit little stickers, were not before Vista came out. This is one of the main reasons Vista has done so badly, coupled with business that can not afford the heavy cost of upgrading all of their hardware to use Vista. I know of one company, a major biggie in the paint/chemical industry, that is still using Win 98 on all their corporate systems.

Maybe it's time to finally look at a MAC?

Darrell Lawrence
May 15th, 2008, 08:19 PM
Mine is the Home version of Vista, and came on a Compaq/HP PC. Lemme see if I can dig up the old link for it.

the3dgm
May 15th, 2008, 08:22 PM
It could be a later computer where the manufactures had learned the 'true' requirements or it may have had to do with them having 'lightbox', whatever, turned on and the software it shipped with.

Darrell Lawrence
May 15th, 2008, 08:27 PM
http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/product?product=3436821&lc=en&cc=us&dlc=en&lang=en&cc=us

That's my PC.

the3dgm
May 15th, 2008, 08:42 PM
Nice little machine Warrior! A couple of things, that perhaps HP/Compaq can explain better than I've been able to:

NOTE: Important! You may find that your HP or Compaq computer is able to support a physical installation of 4 GB or more memory. However, this maximum memory may be further limited by the operating system not being able to address the full range of physical memory. For 32-bit operating systems, Windows Vista and XP 32-bit editions can address approximately 3.3 GB. This limitation is present on all 32-bit hardware and 32-bit operating systems and is not limited to HP and Compaq systems.

From my experience XP upto 3.5 Vista up 3.0!

and

Windows Vista comes in a variety of editions. All versions of Vista have a minimum memory requirement of 512 MB (1 GB to take advantage of certain premium features, such as Aero graphics). The maximum amount of memory depends on the edition used:

Darrell Lawrence
May 15th, 2008, 08:55 PM
(1 GB to take advantage of certain premium features, such as Aero graphics)This is what I was talking about above.
Sure, Vista will load up on 512, but to RUN anything worthwhile, you need the gig, hence, Vista requires 1G of RAM ;)

Now... I can't really explain anything about the ol PC, because I bought it for its price and it seeming to be able to do what I basically need and the old PC was dying!

the3dgm
May 15th, 2008, 08:59 PM
Actually, since you have or should have 2 gigs is why your system is running well. (That's according to the spec sheet you showed me) 2 gigs is what I and nearly every computer magazine recommends anyway.

Darrell Lawrence
May 15th, 2008, 09:07 PM
Who says it runs well? :D It's Vista, and Vista sucks! If I had a choice, I'd have gotten the PC with XP (and Win98 was perhaps the BEST of any of them. I ran it and 2000 on the old PC, but they can't handle super large HD's)

the3dgm
May 15th, 2008, 09:11 PM
Define a super large HD or are you talking about HD video and not hard drives?

Darrell Lawrence
May 15th, 2008, 09:17 PM
Hard drives. Win2K can't handle over ...what was it... Damn! I forget what it was, but it couldn't handle my new 500GB drive I bought. I had two 40GB drives in it.

Darrell Lawrence
May 15th, 2008, 09:33 PM
BTW, I added a poll because this thread is the one I am viewing while working on the newer vB templates :D

the3dgm
May 15th, 2008, 09:56 PM
Your Win2K may have been actually set up for networking, since that is what is was for, you may have had it set up for SCSI drives? I have twin 500 gb Drives in my XP and my XP Home has a 250 gb HD as it's external drive.

the3dgm
May 15th, 2008, 10:01 PM
I had to go out and come back in to get the Poll to show up, but, I voted!

evil_genius_180
May 15th, 2008, 10:01 PM
A trick about what Office Depot is telling you there is, one; for the most part if the computer has only 512 of ram, you'll probably not get Vista Home Premium, it will be basic.

Actually, I was looking at the system requirements on the OS itself, the crap Microsoft stamped on the side of the box, and that was what it said. But Microsoft does stupid crap like that to get people to buy their stuff. They probably figured if they stamped 1 gig minimum RAM on the side of the box they'd not get anybody to buy the thing that has1 gig or less. By putting 512 on the box they can sucker more people in.

Anywho, I read through some of the other posts and know more about Vista than I did yesterday. Thanks for the info guys. The reason I'm asking so many questions is because I've had no experience with Vista and I am saving up money for a new PC (finally replacing my dinosaur. ;)) It will probably be a while and I won't be able to afford anything state-of-the-art but I know now to get at least 1 gig (though I was thinking of doing that anyway) of RAM.

Incidentally, this is what I got twice when I tried to vote on the poll. Is this maybe an issue because of my admin status or are others getting this? (see attached)

the3dgm
May 15th, 2008, 10:05 PM
It worked fine for me, did you say anything to make it mad? LOL!

evil_genius_180
May 15th, 2008, 10:10 PM
Not until after it didn't work. :evil:

the3dgm
May 15th, 2008, 10:15 PM
evil_genius_180, here is a couple of options to consider:

Get a factory refurbished machine, usually for less than half the price of the original at places like e-bay or u-bid. I picked up a Gateway Machine that came with 1 gig of ram, WinXP Pro, a 500 gig hd and all the usual stuff, 15 in 1 card reader, etc, added a graphics card and loaded it with ram, etc and I'm still under $325 including all shipping and taxes.

Or try a New machine from places like that or even the manufactures that are bare boned and simply add what you need. You'll save money either way in the long run.

Darrell Lawrence
May 15th, 2008, 10:22 PM
eg, go to the bottom of the forums and switch to the 3.7 style.

the3dgm
May 15th, 2008, 10:31 PM
OH, I see how you guys are, you get 3.7, I get stuck with 3.6. . .Elders!!! lol

Darrell Lawrence
May 15th, 2008, 10:41 PM
Admins can see all :D

3.7 will be the default after I get the thread view worked out.

the3dgm
May 15th, 2008, 10:43 PM
I've really got to start hanging out here more, even If I don't have lw or 3ds or maya or tS. sigh!

You guys are fun!

evil_genius_180
May 15th, 2008, 10:44 PM
Thanks, Warrior. That works a lot better. :D

@the3dgm: Thanks for the tip on refurbished. I was thinking of going that route. I bought a nice refurbished 80 GB replacement HD for my computer from Buy.com last year and it works quite nicely. (was really cheap, too. :)) I was looking at a nice factory refurbished Acer system at Buy.com earlier and drooling. It has a nice dual core Intel processor, at least a gig of RAM, a nice big HD and a bunch of other stuff I'm looking for. If I'd had the money to spare right now, it would be on its way to my house right now. ;)

the3dgm
May 15th, 2008, 10:48 PM
Oh ya, when I don't have the money to build my own from scratch that's the way to go! I forgot to mention I got mine at U-bid, actually got lucky, I really didn't believe my bid would make it. It's also a 2.2 gig AMD Dual Core.

Well, past this old man's bed time talk to you guys tomorrow.

Darrell Lawrence
May 15th, 2008, 11:14 PM
Have a good night, old man :D

etwtewtew
May 16th, 2008, 05:20 AM
at least a gig of RAM
If you're going to be running a graphics package off of it (which we can pretty much assume you are:cool-sm:)then I'd find a way to manage at least 2 gigs of RAM, that extra gig really makes a difference on a Vista machine (unless you're planning on reformatting and installing XP over it, then the extra gig has almost no effect as XP is perfectly happy with 1 gig:tongue2:)

evil_genius_180
May 16th, 2008, 09:58 PM
Well, if I get a good deal on a refurbished machine with only 1 gig of RAM, I can always spend some of the money I saved on another gig card. They're not that expensive. (usually around $20 at newegg.com)

the3dgm
May 17th, 2008, 07:16 AM
Yep, I got 4 gigs of ram for my machine from Newegg for about 70 dollars with shipping, it's hard to beat Newegg for the price, service and speed! Buying, 2 matched sticks at a time, they actually cost less than $15 each with $4 shipping for each pair. Of course, I waited until Corsair had them on sale!!! I'm a cheap s.o.b.!

Darrell Lawrence
May 17th, 2008, 08:09 AM
So is the design working ok for ya?

the3dgm
May 17th, 2008, 08:17 AM
Yep, if you mean 3.7, the only problem is my typing keeps being sucked into that ring!?! LOL

the3dgm
May 17th, 2008, 08:20 AM
Also, on the odd post, I get a message that says . . . 'This message is a duplicate to one you've posted in the past'. Or words to that effect, but, then it posts correctly.

Darrell Lawrence
May 17th, 2008, 08:24 AM
That may come up when you reply to a thread that you happen to be the last one that replied already. Lemme know if that's the case. And if possible, snag a screen grab of the message/error.

As for the sucking into the ring... not sure what you mean by that?

the3dgm
May 17th, 2008, 08:29 AM
It was a joke Warrior, ha ha, notice the Star Gate in the Quick Reply background.

You posted before I did, perhaps it has something to do with your status as boss?

the3dgm
May 17th, 2008, 08:33 AM
I didn't get it that time and the only difference was I had not left the site, I was checking out some other forums, I'll see if it comes up now.

the3dgm
May 17th, 2008, 08:33 AM
Nope, not even while posting two in a row.

Darrell Lawrence
May 17th, 2008, 09:07 AM
Was it happening with the 3.7, or yesterday/lastnight before I switched it over?

the3dgm
May 17th, 2008, 09:10 AM
Only since 3.7 and only a couple of times, I haven't been able to do it since post #49

Darrell Lawrence
May 17th, 2008, 09:12 AM
...hmm Weird. If it does happen again though, please do snag a screen grab.

the3dgm
May 17th, 2008, 09:23 AM
Will do! By the way, the gallery ever going to go back up, I'd rather not tell my friends how to back door it to see the images here.

Darrell Lawrence
May 17th, 2008, 09:44 AM
It will eventually... after I figure out how to get it to work right.

I don't care if people check it out. It's the meshes/models that I have restrictions on.

evil_genius_180
May 17th, 2008, 10:31 AM
I like the new look. And everything seems to be working fine for me. I really like those new buttons you have for the forum lists. The old ones were cool but it's nice to see small changes like that from time to time. :)