How rendering should be

General discussion about 3D DCC and other topics
luceric
Posts: 1251
Joined: 22 Jun 2009, 00:08

Re: How rendering should be

Post by luceric » 03 Sep 2012, 11:06

Kzin wrote:i think thats the problem. the users and ad talks about different thing then they talk about realtime viewport. the users i talk about when it comes to realtime viewport (mostly lighting/shading) always, ALWAYS thinks about a fast realtime feedback of the rendered scene and NOT a new opengl thing which is completly disconnected from the offline renderer. why not implement progressive rendering in the viewport, when you say iray will not be available. why ad is coding a completely new thing and not integrating current tech, short time wise? i think it would be good that ad states in which direction they want with it. what users they want to adress.
Whether because they do animation, previz, game, or use another renderer, a huge chunk of Autodesk customers don't use mental ray and will never use it, so providing better mental ray preview is not a super obvious thing to do. nVidia's commitment to mental ray is very cloudy, this is definitely not obvious to start adding more dependency on mental ray in more product and turn users into using that.

a great real time viewport architecture needs to be done by autodesk, a third party cannot implement that in the app. but third parties can implement plug-in offline renders. mental image should take up the work to work on the integration, just like every other third party does.

The demo Maximus posted above is a great third party preview tech in Maya. did you also see the OpenSudDiv demo from pixar in the maya viewport? To me this shows that autodesk is doing the right thing; these third party were able to implement these amazing things and get great performance with the viewport 2.0 API. IMHO That's effort better spent then just chasing the stuff from mental image, trying to get it to work, and then then disappointing because it rarely does what people think, or they won't use it. Everyone however uses the opengl viewport!

SreckoM
Posts: 187
Joined: 25 Jul 2010, 00:18
Skype: srecko.micic

Re: How rendering should be

Post by SreckoM » 03 Sep 2012, 11:17

This is exactly what I am talking about all the time. Better integration of MentalRay is not top priority from AD standpoint. For Maya this might not be problem, as Nvidia can easily create their own integration. Not sure how this can be done within SI, what are they ways of doing that, geoshader? Not to talk about that they will probably prioritize apps, and how things are now I am afraid that SI is not on their top list either.
- H -

Kzin
Posts: 432
Joined: 09 Jun 2009, 11:36

Re: How rendering should be

Post by Kzin » 03 Sep 2012, 13:25

luceric wrote:
Kzin wrote: a great real time viewport architecture needs to be done by autodesk, a third party cannot implement that in the app. but third parties can implement plug-in offline renders. mental image should take up the work to work on the integration, just like every other third party does.
so can we expect that ad gives up the mi plugin development, and open source it so we can expect mr plugins from third partys? actual ad has control over the mr plugin, but great to hear that this will change. we are waiting for things like this to improve the whole situation. string option for xsi would be a start so it should be possible to code new ui's for mr.

User avatar
Maximus
Posts: 1105
Joined: 09 Jun 2009, 15:45

Re: How rendering should be

Post by Maximus » 03 Sep 2012, 14:26

Well its quite clear since a while that Mental Ray is not followed by AD neither their own developers.
Mental Images always blamed Autodesk for poor implementation in the softwares and thats fine, then AD decided to strip out Mental Ray from Maya and put it as an external plugin with loaded dll. Now that was done to make possible for Mental Images to work on it.

Did you see any new features/upgrade/implementation/work from Mental Images into Maya mental ray? None. How many months passed?
So again i dont see much difference into having mental ray developed or implemented by Mental Images or AD, they are both the same, they dont care.
Can perfectly understand AD wanting to move away from a dead product, what i cant understand is the poor effort almost unexistant from Mental Images.

Just move on to another render engine, MR will not catch up anymore and even if it will you will always be fucked up into a limbo of non getting updates/features/bugfixes in human timeframe.
Its just dead.

Kzin
Posts: 432
Joined: 09 Jun 2009, 11:36

Re: How rendering should be

Post by Kzin » 03 Sep 2012, 14:35

Maximus wrote:Well its quite clear since a while that Mental Ray is not followed by AD neither their own developers.
Mental Images always blamed Autodesk for poor implementation in the softwares and thats fine, then AD decided to strip out Mental Ray from Maya and put it as an external plugin with loaded dll. Now that was done to make possible for Mental Images to work on it.

Did you see any new features/upgrade/implementation/work from Mental Images into Maya mental ray? None. How many months passed?
So again i dont see much difference into having mental ray developed or implemented by Mental Images or AD, they are both the same, they dont care.
Can perfectly understand AD wanting to move away from a dead product, what i cant understand is the poor effort almost unexistant from Mental Images.

Just move on to another render engine, MR will not catch up anymore and even if it will you will always be fucked up into a limbo of non getting updates/features/bugfixes in human timeframe.
Its just dead.
i am really tired to awnser to people which does not know how things are going and writing comments like this. its success of ad's marketing that mi is responsible for all the problems. also see lucerics last comment which contains things which are not true. but because its "hip" and "cool" to bash mr so ad MUST say the thruth here, they cant be wrong, ridicilous.

luceric
Posts: 1251
Joined: 22 Jun 2009, 00:08

Re: How rendering should be

Post by luceric » 03 Sep 2012, 15:13

I did not blame anything on mental images, read the post again, just replayed to your question about why focusing on the viewport rather than doing mental ray preview

btw here is a line from the iRay FAQ from mental image
"iray is not intended as an interactive preview-mode for mental ray and it is not a real time ray tracer (RTRT). "

there is already a third party mental ray plugin for Maya, it's called mentalCore
http://core-cg.com/

there are enough third party renderers for XSI, maya and max to prove that no one is waiting for anything from autodesk to write a renderer plugin for mental ray or anything else
Maximus wrote: Did you see any new features/upgrade/implementation/work from Mental Images into Maya mental ray? None. How many months passed
only about five month since the release I think? there is still more changes in maya required to allow not installing mental with maya in the first place.

Kzin
Posts: 432
Joined: 09 Jun 2009, 11:36

Re: How rendering should be

Post by Kzin » 03 Sep 2012, 15:24

luceric wrote:
there are enough third party renderers for XSI, maya and max to prove that no one is waiting for anything from autodesk to write a renderer plugin for mental ray or anything else

so you say its ok for mi to write a mr plugin for a ad product?
because that would be some interesting news, something that has changed since today?

User avatar
Maximus
Posts: 1105
Joined: 09 Jun 2009, 15:45

Re: How rendering should be

Post by Maximus » 03 Sep 2012, 15:29

Kzin wrote:
Maximus wrote:Well its quite clear since a while that Mental Ray is not followed by AD neither their own developers.
Mental Images always blamed Autodesk for poor implementation in the softwares and thats fine, then AD decided to strip out Mental Ray from Maya and put it as an external plugin with loaded dll. Now that was done to make possible for Mental Images to work on it.

Did you see any new features/upgrade/implementation/work from Mental Images into Maya mental ray? None. How many months passed?
So again i dont see much difference into having mental ray developed or implemented by Mental Images or AD, they are both the same, they dont care.
Can perfectly understand AD wanting to move away from a dead product, what i cant understand is the poor effort almost unexistant from Mental Images.

Just move on to another render engine, MR will not catch up anymore and even if it will you will always be fucked up into a limbo of non getting updates/features/bugfixes in human timeframe.
Its just dead.
i am really tired to awnser to people which does not know how things are going and writing comments like this. its success of ad's marketing that mi is responsible for all the problems. also see lucerics last comment which contains things which are not true. but because its "hip" and "cool" to bash mr so ad MUST say the thruth here, they cant be wrong, ridicilous.
So why dont you enlight us since you know how things are? I speak from what i see, and what you can see with your eyes.
MI always blamed AD for bad implementation, now that they can put their hands on MR on maya they still didnt touch it. This is a fact. 6 months passed.
What did I say wrong? Still there isnt a single sign of getting better regarding Mental Ray, so again I am talking about Facts not whispers.
Again tell us the truth with facts not with promises or words, facts.

AD is not in charge to write a plugin for a renderer, its up to the software house that develops the renderer. And thats why MR was put as external in Maya since Maya 2013 yet again Mental Images didnt touch it. Now you want the same in Softimage? Sure but will Mental Images actually work on it when its external? because they are not in Maya, so i dont see it happening in Softimage. And again this is a Fact.

Fer
Posts: 52
Joined: 03 May 2011, 14:38

Re: How rendering should be

Post by Fer » 03 Sep 2012, 15:38

There is a new MR UI for Maya coming from Nvidia, it's has been initiated quiet some time ago. And I don't think they will
work on integrating MR in any package, mental images always liked there position: creating and optimizing render solution, without the headache of multiple user interaction, Solidangle think a little bit the same way, and there are pretty happy with there choice.

So, we wont see any improvement from AD in the integration department, quiet frankly the opposite, and we will get disappointed more and more in the coming month.

Less people using MR, AD is happy with the outcome. At the end is mental images fault and loss.

Kzin
Posts: 432
Joined: 09 Jun 2009, 11:36

Re: How rendering should be

Post by Kzin » 03 Sep 2012, 16:12

Maximus wrote:
AD is not in charge to write a plugin for a renderer...
and this is false, ad is responsible for the integration, thats a fact. if you have mr problems you have to go to ad first.
i can understand that the frustration over the last couple of years makes people think to be angry about mi.

Moderator edit: I've split two posts concerning the "reddit rumor" into one neat new thread - HB

User avatar
Maximus
Posts: 1105
Joined: 09 Jun 2009, 15:45

Re: How rendering should be

Post by Maximus » 03 Sep 2012, 17:47

Kzin wrote:
Maximus wrote:
AD is not in charge to write a plugin for a renderer...
and this is false, ad is responsible for the integration, thats a fact. if you have mr problems you have to go to ad first.
i can understand that the frustration over the last couple of years makes people think to be angry about mi.

Moderator edit: I've split two posts concerning the "reddit rumor" into one neat new thread - HB
Implementation and plugins are 2 different things. AD is not in charge to write a plugin for MR. Thats why they exposed it in maya 2013 because MI will now take care of it based on what they said on their forum.
It left me stunned after i saw that MI didnt even touch it after all those months when they were the first to point fingers to AD, just that. Now they have it under their hands and what they did? Having to wait 1 year again for updates is ridicolous, no other render engine works like this. Vray has daily updates and bugfixes. So again nothing changed.
Blame whoever you please i dont care, they both failed in the end for us users.

SreckoM
Posts: 187
Joined: 25 Jul 2010, 00:18
Skype: srecko.micic

Re: How rendering should be

Post by SreckoM » 03 Sep 2012, 19:30

Even though I am also tired of that game of blaming each other, must say that plugin integration was/is AD job. Nvidia is not responsible for that, just core of MR. They did good job in last several years, unfortunately most of that was not inside dcc apps, and we all had feeling that nothing has been done for some time.
I had opportunity to beta test Bunkspeed shot and that is, IMHO, one of the best unbiased solutions out there.
Unfortunately or not most of us switched or added new render engine into their arsenal, and experienced much much better and faster support and updates. Which is honestly AD to blame not MR.
- H -

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 42 guests