Renderers?

[svenip]

what do you exactly mean ?

do you mean the difference between IPR and Normal Renderer ? or hardware versus Software Renderer.

i guess you mean IPR and Normal. so the difference is that the IPR is an interactive one. if you render ipr you can draw a region after the first rendering in the render view. everytime you're changing something in the scene that has nothing to do with the surface it will update. so you can change lighting, materials, textures and such stuff and the ipr will give you and interactive update.

[EverettP]

What about hardware and software? Well I know what that means but what are advatages, disadvantages? Im new to all this

[svenip]

hardware software rendering is an issue for particle rendering. some particle types can only be rendered in hardware and some in software. software means that they are rendered within the normal renderer where you render your normal images. hardware rendered particles need a special renderer. you'll find that in rendering editors-hardware render buffer. this one is for that kind of particles. he uses your graphic card to render. so that's the difference between hard and software rendering.

[stunndman]

Originally posted by svenip
hardware software rendering is an issue for particle rendering. some particle types can only be rendered in hardware and some in software. ...

that puzzled me at my first too - in fact hardware rendering is only (that's the case?) useful if you are doing your effects later on in a compositing software that uses the hardware rendered particles layer

in fact you can render everything in software - by instancing your particles to an object of your choice (streaks, spheres, ...) or using sprites

so seen you can ignore hardware rendering at first - at least that's what i'm doin'

maybe someone can give more insight on the uses of hardware rendered particles - i haven't found any use for them so far

[EverettP]

I am just trying to absorb everything, Im 16 and I was just playing with Maya PLE so im a "fetus" when it comes to the life of a CG artist :-)

[stunndman]

i'm 26 and a newbie to CG myself - so let's keep on asking :)

so if you are just confused about what to do - stick with software render

as sevenip said - use your IPR renderer to get interactive - render a scene (by pushing the IPR button) and then select a region in your rendered image - this region will be updated whenever you modify your scene as sevenip outlined (like changing the color of a shader,...)

for your final render use the normal software renderer - take a look at the render globals which configure various aspects of your rendered image - like size, quality, whether things will be raytraced, ...

be sure to work through the Maya Essentials which are part of your PLE documentation - and there should be something like Instant Maya or something - that will take you through the basics

[EverettP]

Yeah i was using those tutorials... :( BUT i wanted to make something then post it but it has that big watermark over it. Im interested in still pictures, i don't care much for animation. I guess im going to have to deal with PLE.

[svenip]

Originally posted by stunndman


in fact you can render everything in software - by instancing your particles to an object of your choice (streaks, spheres, ...) or using sprites



actually that's wrong. ok you can instance them, but for what ? hardware rendered particles can produce effects you never can produce with an instanced surface or whatever. off course they must be compisited, but that's just normal. if you really wanna do very complex 3D Stuff and especcially with particles, you definitly must go by compositing. rendering everything seperatly and then do the rest in composite. this gives you the real freedom in work. so compositing is not a "BAD" thing, it helps you.

especially the sprite particles, actually hardware rendered ones, are very handy, because they are handling images.

so hardware rendered particles are actually better then software particles in my opinion.

[EverettP]

Particles are used for things like.....?

[svenip]

you can use particles for so much things. dust, clouds, firworks, snow, sand and much much more. everything that is massive and to small to modell all. and everything that is dynamic. means controlled by real world forces.

[graphiouz]

Listen to Svenip:,

And render Particles thrue the HardwareRender is fast!
They are being used more then you can imagine.

Btw composeting particles is fun trust me :)

.

[-wT-]

I just have to ask this... if you render particles in hardware, doesn't that mean you render them directly with your graphics card?
Well what if I have GF2, AKA one the not-so-good-picture-quality cards on the market, will there ever be a problem with particle image quality if I always render 'em in hardware? With GeForce 2 to be precise.

Oh and while we're at the particle matter, is there a way to actually attach objects to the place of a particle? I don't think instancing works now, I tried it and it looked ok in the Maya viewport, but Mental Ray didn't understand it because the objects weren't "real" as is, but instances. It doesn't matter if the objects can't move with the particles anymore, so it would be good for still images only. Just want to know if it's possible, and how.

[svenip]

hi wt

i've heard a time ago soemthing about that topic. i don't really think that there's a difference between different graphic cards.

the next one. NO it's not possible to attach objects to the particles directly. and you're right mental ray can't render particles (yet). but there's actually a way to go around. there is a script on highend named jms_pr.mel. it can bake the particles position to a path. i don't know how it really works. but you could give it a try.

[-wT-]

Ok, thanks svenip!

[stunndman]

Originally posted by svenip


actually that's wrong. ok you can instance them, but for what ? hardware rendered particles can produce effects you never can produce with an instanced surface or whatever. off course they must be compisited, but that's just normal. if you really wanna do very complex 3D Stuff and especcially with particles, you definitly must go by compositing. rendering everything seperatly and then do the rest in composite. this gives you the real freedom in work. so compositing is not a "BAD" thing, it helps you.

especially the sprite particles, actually hardware rendered ones, are very handy, because they are handling images.

so hardware rendered particles are actually better then software particles in my opinion.

so that's actually wrong but it ain't, eh?

for what? because i don't have to take the burder of buying/using/learning another software package just to render out some dust,rain or snow

what effects can hardware rendered particle produce that software can't (i'm really curious) ?

nobody claimed hardware rendered particles to be BAD - i'm sure they are sweet once you got the whole workflow of CG at your hand

sprites can easily be done in software too - e.g. taking a textured poly plane instanced to particles- this just gives you the same amount of control (if not more) as the embedded hardware sprites feature

anyway - i'm in peace with both

to EverettP - check your favorite p2p app - like kazaa, directconnect - there are tons of maya rips out there


--- spank my ass and call me mommy - :airguitar

[CGTalk Moderation]

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.