Me tooMathaeus wrote:actually I couldn't stop to play for whole one weekend...
They seemed to have really gained some momentum.
Me tooMathaeus wrote:actually I couldn't stop to play for whole one weekend...
Just playing with Blender where you can easily switch between CPU and GPU and GPU is drastically faster for previewing. You're right it takes time to get rid of the noise which reduces it's usefulness for final renders but wow, is it nice when you're setting up a scene which to me is most useful. I don't care if it takes all night after that but just not while I'm sitting there!Kzin wrote:and i dont think gpu rendering is much faster. i am playing aroung with octane render, its great and fast for what is does, but 1080p noisefree renders also take 8-20 hours on my gtx580 for more complex lighting situations.
True. But couldn't that concept be implemented in one render engine (MR)? Weta just happens to use Renderman but Nvidia helped develop PantaRay so they have the code and they own MR so...put the two together?wetas pantaray solution is complete different. weta renders all the arealights with pantaray, bake it and using this as lookup in renderman. so they using 2 renderer, with renderman a custom solution with all their stuff. i think that only works in a bigger pipeline.
Could this not be done internally/automatically as one pass though? Since there is no shader evaluation, why would this interfere with custom shaders?gustavoeb wrote:When you talk about mimicing the pantaray workflow, that goes in the complete oposite way of workig interactivly since there are many passes and all. The only actual reason for them to work in such a way is to use raytracing on really huge datasets... there is no reason for such a workflow on less demanding projects (read gazillion polygons).
how many lights do you have in your scene? did you use falloffs? how many samples per light you use? are you using the physical light node with the treshold option? it accelerates the rendering alot in scenes with more lights. not as fast as with MIS but this will come in the next version.ActionArt wrote:gustavoeb wrote: All I know, is that calculating area lights eats up a LOT of time for me so it would be significant I think.
I was talking more in general over a number of different projects but typically I use only 2 or 3 area lights, sometimes only 1. For the aviation projects I don't want any grain at all so I have to use fairly high samples per light, usually 5 or 6.how many lights do you have in your scene? did you use falloffs? how many samples per light you use? are you using the physical light node with the treshold option? it accelerates the rendering alot in scenes with more lights. not as fast as with MIS but this will come in the next version.
wont help, as it still slow. the ONLY reason why they do it is because they have insane ammount of geometryActionArt wrote:Could this not be done internally/automatically as one pass though?
you mixed both of my answers:ActionArt wrote:Since there is no shader evaluation, why would this interfere with custom shaders?
Reading Luceric comments I understood AD make plan for the next five years or more. For the next five years Maya is AD focus (with the mysterious maya FX project). What can buying now AD on the market? the only software they can buy is Cinema 4d and/or Lightwave, houdini is not for sale like Modo (either are private company). Anyone would like to leave Softimage for Cinema 4d or Lightwave under AD "development"? I trully think no...With every development and support going to Maya and every other third party support not going into XSI, droppping from XSI or half implemeted in XSI, it is tempting for someone to finally move away from XSI. And the obvious next step is moving to Maya.
Thinking of this better though it might not be a good solution as well. Autodesk might buy a new software next year and move all the good stuff in their new baby and suddently Maya becomes another XSI in terms of development lagging back, just like Max is slowly doing. Then what? Oh well..move again I guess?
the current max version is xbr. 2014 will be the end of xbr developement then the max core is rewritten/overwritten/whatever or lets say its the final step of xbr developement (which does not mean the developement stops). and yes, its a bit lame compared to the xbr idea video presentation some years ago. i think max is missing the studios input that maya has.Nizar wrote: also AD has the Excalibur project for 3dsm (exist more?)
cinema is not ready for high end work. as soon as you start to work with alot of data, textures are geometry, cinema is slow down alot. that slow that you switch back to max, maya or xsi. alot of deformer? forget the speed, its unusable not because it will be slow, also the ram usage is exploding. but cinema is not done for these kind of work. their customers dont need this, so its good placed on the market.Maximus wrote: I am always quite amused on how many people underestimate Modo or Cinema 4D, main because of their lazyness to try them out.
Actually no, Maya heavily used by the artists in gamedev industry for modelling and animation, custom engines are built for real-time rendering and custom game logics. Some VFX companies, for some unknown and weird reasons, still use Maya also. I guess they wrote a tons of their shit a long time ago and now can't change the pipelineNizar wrote:(videogame field? No one product in AD portfolio in this field (I mean something like Unreal Engine or Crisis)
Customize maya like sort of realtime engine ala crisis?iamVFX wrote:Actually no, Maya heavily used by the artists in gamedev industry for modelling and animation, custom engines are built for real-time rendering and custom game logics. Some VFX companies, for some unknown and weird reasons, still use Maya also. I guess they wrote a tons of their shit a long time ago and now can't change the pipelineNizar wrote:(videogame field? No one product in AD portfolio in this field (I mean something like Unreal Engine or Crisis)
So this is excalibur? Poor 3dsm...the current max version is xbr. 2014 will be the end of xbr developement then the max core is rewritten/overwritten/whatever or lets say its the final step of xbr developement (which does not mean the developement stops). and yes, its a bit lame compared to the xbr idea video presentation some years ago. i think max is missing the studios input that maya has.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 35 guests