PDA

View Full Version : A FIRST for 3ds Max


dnashj33
08-20-2009, 08:59 AM
Video of Interactive Volumetric FX updates
http://www.cebasusa.com/interactiverender/ir_andvol.wmv

FinalRender R3 page:
http://cebas.com/news/read.php?UD=10-7888-33-788&NID=342

instinct-vfx
08-20-2009, 10:42 AM
Bobo was a tad quicker in 2004:

http://www.scriptspot.com/bobo/mxs6/VolumePreview/

:P


j/k. Am not really an fR fan but this definately looks interesting.

Regards,
Thorsten

Magnus3D
08-20-2009, 11:19 AM
I think it looks real nice and promising, the featurelist is tempting even for me who would not normally touch this type of 'biased' renderengine. :)

/ Magnus

dnashj33
08-20-2009, 02:01 PM
Bobo was a tad quicker in 2004:

http://www.scriptspot.com/bobo/mxs6/VolumePreview/

:P


j/k. Am not really an fR fan but this definately looks interesting.

Regards,
ThorstenThat's a pretty nifty script...never saw that before. It looks like an OpenGL preview in the viewport. Not sure how accurate it will look, but it's nice for viewport setup of atmospherics. Having an IPR built-in, not a separate plugin, that supports volumetrics in a true production renderer is still a first. FR is nicer than many give it credit for, and I'm glad there is such tough competition going on.

FR's AQMC engine is extremely fast and the animation mode does wonders for flicker removal...so, it's worth a look-see, if they'll offer a demo of some sort.

instinct-vfx
08-20-2009, 02:02 PM
As said i was partly kidding...and volumetric IPR is definately interesting. But other Mother's have fast QMC-Engines too (not to start an appwar, to each his own :) )

Looking definately cool. Wonder if it really works with all atmospheric effects or just a bunch of them.

Regards,
Thorsten

dnashj33
08-20-2009, 02:19 PM
As said i was partly kidding...and volumetric IPR is definately interesting. But other Mother's have fast QMC-Engines too (not to start an appwar, to each his own :) )

Looking definately cool. Wonder if it really works with all atmospheric effects or just a bunch of them.

Regards,
ThorstenSure. I wasn't trying to start a flame session, just that many times some VRay users will assume it's superiority when they've never even used FR. I was just mentioning that it's quite capable as well. The reason I bought a seat was largely it's early ACAP certification/working with just about any Max plugin...unlike Mental Ray. I'm sure VRay is also solid in that regard as well. Ed said in that video that it works with ANY render effect, so I assume FumeFx falls within that as well. That would also include Realtime Hair and Fur updates, too.
Don't know if VRay RT supports the Pixel Shader effect (most common method for hair). I think it has to be geometry. Maybe a VRay RT user can chime in on this.

instinct-vfx
08-20-2009, 02:35 PM
been using fR here and there and on every new major release i usually play with the demo a while. VRay is the perfect match for us, wich doesnt mean it has to be for everyone.

RT currently only supports a limited subset of max's core features. The reason beeing it is essentially a standalone application. This brings disadvantages (said limited support for plugins and max native features) but also opens a lot of possibilities (beeing cross platform, beeing available on a lot of different platforms whilst still using and sharing the same DR slaves or standalone renderslaves). That beeing said i'd like to stress that i most definately will play with the volumetric RT stuff if it is available as a demo (is it already maybe ? ). We're not doing too many atmospheric things, but even if it wouldnt match the final render it would still be a great help during setup of sims/files.

Regards,
Thorsten

dnashj33
08-20-2009, 03:28 PM
been using fR here and there and on every new major release i usually play with the demo a while. VRay is the perfect match for us, wich doesnt mean it has to be for everyone.

RT currently only supports a limited subset of max's core features. The reason beeing it is essentially a standalone application. This brings disadvantages (said limited support for plugins and max native features) but also opens a lot of possibilities (beeing cross platform, beeing available on a lot of different platforms whilst still using and sharing the same DR slaves or standalone renderslaves). That beeing said i'd like to stress that i most definately will play with the volumetric RT stuff if it is available as a demo (is it already maybe ? ). We're not doing too many atmospheric things, but even if it wouldnt match the final render it would still be a great help during setup of sims/files.

Regards,
ThorstenThey were supposed to release it shortly after Siggraph. How soon that is, I don't know, but I would have to believe that they would have a demo version available. If it works as advertised, I can see alot of Max artists loving this. Many of us are pushing and prodding the Cebas team to develop a GPU rendering option (based on the new open standard adopted by both major Graphic Card Manufacturers). They already have a hardware acceleration option similar to Caustic (who approached Cebas at Siggraph about supporting them).
I was VERY tempted to switch to VRay + RT, but I knew this would be a much more integrated solution...not to mention that the IPR is a core part of R3...saving me hundreds of $$$
I'm just really excited that Max finally has some real Interactive Rendering options, and I don't have to bounce around between renderers to get what I want. ActiveShade was just way too limited.
By the way, Ed (Cebas owner) was very firm about ensuring that the IPR would provide the final rendering solution, so you didn't have to re-render once you're happy with the look. What you see is what you get.

willshep
08-23-2009, 03:46 AM
I dont speak for all of UT during 2012..
But considering what the lighters struggled with, we were lucky they pulled it off with FR... A preview of atmos sounds great, but core elements of FR -- like any renderer, needed the most work. Like, motion blur.

nrgy
08-23-2009, 04:54 AM
I dont speak for all of UT during 2012..
But considering what the lighters struggled with, we were lucky they pulled it off with FR... A preview of atmos sounds great, but core elements of FR -- like any renderer, needed the most work. Like, motion blur.

Couldn't agree more will, it was more then just a struggle to deal with.

While the cebas guys performed brilliantly and helped out alot, at the end of the day the software still just isn't ready for prime time

Airflow
08-23-2009, 04:28 PM
Sure. I wasn't trying to start a flame session, just that many times some VRay users will assume it's superiority when they've never even used FR. I was just mentioning that it's quite capable as well. The reason I bought a seat was largely it's early ACAP certification/working with just about any Max plugin...unlike Mental Ray. I'm sure VRay is also solid in that regard as well. Ed said in that video that it works with ANY render effect, so I assume FumeFx falls within that as well. That would also include Realtime Hair and Fur updates, too.
Don't know if VRay RT supports the Pixel Shader effect (most common method for hair). I think it has to be geometry. Maybe a VRay RT user can chime in on this.

Been a big vray advocate, recently returned to fR for a job. The renderer is blistering, "proxys" setup and rendering really makes vrayscatter take a back seat. The only flaw I see is the speed of the dof vs vrays, but then you got final dof for that. Very happy with finalRender atm.

dnashj33
08-24-2009, 03:46 AM
Couldn't agree more will, it was more then just a struggle to deal with.

While the cebas guys performed brilliantly and helped out alot, at the end of the day the software still just isn't ready for prime timeFWIW, I went ahead and removed the reference to your studio in the original post

I understand that you guys are going to see weaknesses before the rest of us will, but I've found FR substantially better than MR in almost every facet...so, for me, that's enough. There are some of us regular Joes that felt the Cebas's support of your work in that film was a slap in the face to the rest of us (kissing up to the film studio at the expense of pushing the release of R3 back almost a full year). I have to admit, I'm one of those, and to some degree, I'm still a bit angry about that.

If VRay, Brazil, or MR suited your needs more appropriately, you could've served everyone's purposes better...including your own...by having gone that route, instead. You're saying you didn't have a good idea of a product's capability before you started such a massive project? Cebas caught a LOT of grief from many of us for supporting you guys. If you don't believe me, go over to their forums.

The features I wanted most (IPR w/ volumetric support and fR Scatter) had nothing to do with the collaboration between Cebas and UT, AFAIK. Seeing that this collaboration made guys like me have to wait month after month, month after month, month after month, etc., I'm am very surprised to hear complaints from you guys. Nevertheless, the features Cebas is incorporating in this release does seem make up for the wait, somewhat. Other folk's mileage may vary.

Stefan-Morrell
08-24-2009, 05:25 AM
Seeing that this collaboration made guys like me have to wait month after month, month after month, etc., I'm am very surprised to hear complaints from you guys.

yea, same here,all we've heard month after month is fr is nearly ready..just gotta get this 2012 stuff done first.

I'm curious to know why UT stuck with fr if it was such a hassle..why not switch to a different renderer?

duke
08-24-2009, 07:11 AM
I'm definitely looking forward to seeing some comparison benchmarks once this version is released.

nates78
08-26-2009, 05:53 PM
as an actual lighter for 2012 at uncharted territory I can not tell you how much I hate FinalRender... for large pipelines and huge scenes it just doesn't work. It was a bigger pain in the ass then help.

just my 2 cents

BradT
08-26-2009, 06:24 PM
We've done some pretty monsterous scenes in FR over the years. Imax rez stuff. Like any renderer, there are always issues that pop up, but nothing show-stopping for us so far. I'm really curious as to specifically what issues you guys had with it on 2012. I know from the trailers that there's some serious particle work in that film, and finalrender (like any raytracer) is not a good choice for particle rendering. Any chance of hearing more specifically what caused your frustration?

Since specific functionality was written just for the movie, you were using alpha/beta releases. Is it possible that whatever gave you trouble will be cleared up in the retail release, or does the issue run deeper?

TAVO
08-26-2009, 06:39 PM
We've done some pretty monsterous scenes in FR over the years. Imax rez stuff. Like any renderer, there are always issues that pop up, but nothing show-stopping for us so far. I'm really curious as to specifically what issues you guys had with it on 2012. I know from the trailers that there's some serious particle work in that film, and finalrender (like any raytracer) is not a good choice for particle rendering. Any chance of hearing more specifically what caused your frustration?

Since specific functionality was written just for the movie, you were using alpha/beta releases. Is it possible that whatever gave you trouble will be cleared up in the retail release, or does the issue run deeper?


i was thinking the same thing, why instead of just saying it does not work, actuallly tell what are the things that didnīt work, and if it was a nightmare and you hated it so much WHY you stick with it.

2012 is a big budget film, you could tried anyother render and yet you use fR, why was that ?

nates78
08-26-2009, 06:57 PM
I didn't post they reasons I don't like it because the list would be way to long and I don't want to waste everybodies time. Uncharted Territory had a deal with Cebas... that's why we didnt change renderers (or at least thats my impression of why). Some of my files were up to 5 gigs because there was no reasonable way to keep caches outside of the file (proxies) and some of my renders needed 40+ gig of ram to handle a relativly small scene with Thinking Particle meshes in it. It may do Instancing well but you cant offset animation timing without it becoming a new element making it usless for me.

FinalRender may work great for certain applications, but for me it has been nothing but trouble.

MarcoBrunetta
08-26-2009, 07:10 PM
I didn't post they reasons I don't like it because the list would be way to long and I don't want to waste everybodies time.

Well I work daily with FR, and if there are issues with it I'd like to know what they are, so I don't think it would be wasting my time... IMHO at least.

Also, like those above, I've had occasions where I had to so some pretty big scenes, and never had much trouble with it (well, no more than with any other renderer), specially on the lightning department...

BradT
08-26-2009, 08:16 PM
Some of my files were up to 5 gigs because there was no reasonable way to keep caches outside of the file (proxies) and some of my renders needed 40+ gig of ram to handle a relativly small scene with Thinking Particle meshes in it. It may do Instancing well but you cant offset animation timing without it becoming a new element making it usless for me.

This is good info. :thumbsup: Hopefully Cebas is reading this and will add to their to-do list. I used to be a beta tester a few years ago, and I remember external proxies being requested. I think it was put aside in favor of the effortless instancing that's in there now. It's not a substitute though... different purposes.

nrgy
08-27-2009, 02:50 AM
You have to understand its a bit difficult for the guys to go into detail without getting into specifics for a movie which is not yet released.

ACantarel
08-27-2009, 03:41 PM
"I'm curious to know why UT stuck with fr if it was such a hassle..why not switch to a different renderer?"

One reason could be that it would have been way trickier to solve problems between Thinking Particles and Vray (if used) because then two competing companies (on the renderer market) have to work close and well together.

Cheers
Andre

thatoneguy
09-03-2009, 04:45 PM
I would be interested to know how much of your trouble was FR specific and how much was just a result of 'not using renderman'.

Do you encounter the same sorts of problems with MR?

CGTalk Moderation
09-03-2009, 04:45 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.