Hmm, I’ve tried to see if I could get to the bottom of the issue and couldn’t make the problem recur. In my previous experiments I must have been doing something in particular to make it happen. I haven’t had that much time to be in fR due to a heavy workload but at some point I’ll probably do something that will make the error happen. Once I know what’s causing the issue I’ll report it.
Yes lets us know what is causing this.
Tha’s the problem with complex software, nailing down a bug that is based on a chain of commands is really hard to find.
I have always wondered how FR is integrated “extremely” well into Cinema when you have to redo light setups, (one of the main 9.5 upgrade features = AREA LIGHTS, AO),
AND it uses a far more complicated shading system, a completely different system?
[B] no deep shadow maps,
no area lights
no tinted falloff
no thirdparty of course,
no 3d shaders
no effects shader lumas
no effects shader proximal
no effects shader sline e.t.c, e.t.c, e.t.c…
no multi-pass rendering
no skecth and toon[/B]
One of the key corner stones of Cinema, and its success thus far: EASE of use (Cinema is notoriuos for this). So when I read posts of the tight integration, I thought of something like AR, but after reviewing FR and trying to see what exactly the integration is, maybe the GUI is tightly integrated?
I must be missing something.
Could someone post an example of something an FR shader can do that a Cinema shader cannot?
Sorry for sounding negative about FR, that is not what I am saying, I am actaully thinking of purchasing FR, and would like to spark a discussion about these “tight integration” and “more felxible shading system” cards being thrown around.
One of the selling points of FR is that it is great for animators becuase of FRs speed. BUT, without pyroclucter and sketch and toon, this is one of the biggest things in animation. Now I know someone is going to say “it depends on what kind of animimation, I use it for architectual fly throughs e.t.c…”
I only mention this becuase Cinema is actually one of the KEY choices of software for animation in the broadcast/motion graphics indusrty, which I think is a greater number than archi fly throughs, so when one says animation, a lot of animation being done in Cinema is for broadcast/motion graphics, which is a lot of pyrocluster, thinking particles, and plug-ins such as pathdeformer, storm tracer e.t.c. And these are rendered using multi-pass alot for After Effects compositing.
Maybe we should say “FR is great for simple GI animations, that dont involve a lot of the modules for Cinema, and most of the third party plug-ins?”
I hope you can see why I ask where the “tight intergration” is…when you cannot utalise ALL the things I just listed.
I am only trying to start a healthy discussion here, so please dont flame me
Of course not all features are supported, what else do you expect from a 3rd party render engine that is at its V1 state and have only been around for 1 month 1/2?
When we state that FR2 is very well integrated into Cinema, it means what it means : 95% of C4D features are supported out of the thousands different things you can think of.
It means that if you open an old scene, 95% of the things you can see in the scene are going to be rendered without modifying them. If that’s not compatibility, I don’t know what to say more.
Ah yes, you could try and check compatibility with Maxwell. Good luck.
Don’t expect 3DShaders, 3rd party plugins and advanced effects like S&T to be supported, no render engine is going that far into integration with any 3D software.
plugins are way too many for them to try and be compatible with them all. Do you also really think they are going to dedicate developement time to things they are not sure are going to be supported in the future? Of course not.
Think of it that way : do you expect Storm Tracer to be compatible with Fast and Fur and be able to use its effects? Do you expect any plugin to support and make use of other plugins effects (mind you, I’m talking about effects here, not geometry)?
I wanted to point out that area lights are supported, although not fully from 9.5 (no shapes and new features). It may come in the future, though. FR has also its own area lights.
Multi pass rendering is also supported to some extent, not as far as C4D, but it’s a start. More may come later too.
Cebas did a good job at integration, maybe not to your liking but enough for them to release the product in a timely manner, for a fair price and to please the majority of their customers.
Of course, there will always be something not supported, or not supported properly, but give them some time as it is a fairly recent software that needs maturing.
Since you are on the skeptical side of things, I would suggest you wait for a demo version and see if it fits your needs.
Oh, and don’t think of us as crooked car dealers, we are just reporting out of experience how is the software, not forcing a sale on anybody.
Well, it’s true that there are some C4D things that FR does not support. In my opinion, “tight integration” means that once your scene is set up, with adjustments for any unsupported features, you can work with it just as if you were using AR. That is, you don’t have to fiddle around with any external editors, there’s no file logistics involved etcetera - you simply press ‘render’ and it renders. On the other hand, FR adds things that AR cannot do, like true 3D motionblur and 3D DOF.
Anyway, the features not supported by FR is what has made me say “it depends on what you’re doing” when people ask if they would benefit from having FR. Then again, I’m sure this is not an unusual situation. Does MentalRay, Vray or PRMan support all the features of the various applications it plugs into? I would guess not. It’s just a trade-off you have to deal with no matter what, whenever you use a non-native renderer :shrug:
So, like with all questions regarding “what 3D package should I use?” it all comes down to the old saying, that users have to try it themselves in order to see if it will work for their personal needs. And apparently this goes for renderers as well.
You can’t rely on other opinions.
area lights are supported(rectangular)
multipass is supported ( as renderelements)
material system is great with its nodes and much more control as c4ds system. only in a few parts c4d has more things like lumas and some special shaders.
95% of all c4d shaders work too.
and it supports a lot of things cinema dont has yet:
like excellent bucket & DR rendering- ultra fast!
a choice of blazing fast and realistic GI systems, far more advanced than current c4dsolutions
much better and much faster AA, with very deep control again
much faster and more beautiful MB
much faster and detailes subpolydisplacment.
…just to name a few.
no qustion c4d is very nice and very easy to learn, but FR has defenitly its part here too, and it will open new marktes toc4d i think.
i always wonder why some c4d users react so agressiv to other renderengines- the are no enemies they are our friends! you also dont react in such a way to other thirdparty plugins- dont you?
FR is a very nice adddon to c4d, it complements it well, and there is no other solution that is integrated so well in cinema for this task.
it is natural that you have to readjust somethings- if it would look the same i wouldnt need the other engine- wouldnt i?
I’m sorry I have to ask…
what about hair?
ducks behind desk
You can generate polygons out of Hair and render them without problems with any renderer, but don’t expect the special shader to work.
Since polygon hairs are generated at render time, it should also render animated with dynamics and all that fuss.
I think seeing FR as a complimentary tool for C4D users is the best way of looking at it. Simply put, users may need to set up scenes ahead of time knowing which renderer will be used (if they want absolute control). I don’t think Cebas wrote FR to completely replace AR but as an additional option for users. I have done some basic test renders, and could already say FR is pretty darn fast and has a unique quality of its own. The best way to know is to test the renderer for yourself.
Checking out the cebas forum i was amazed to find that FR does not support pyrocluster, cebas make both fr and pc so though other things can be forgiven for not being suported missing out PC is a real let down
I see I’m not the only one. I think it is real strange that Pyrocluster is not supported.
If any one has the time i would be interested to see a comparisson of AR and FR on the c4d petals scene, render times, shadow handling and color correction. I think this scene really showed of the new color correction in ar2.5 but i am sure FR could do as good if not a better job
Can anyone tell me more about FR shader tree setup? I’ve read the description on the CEBAS website and it does not seem easy to create many of the most common textures used and created (ie. wax, etc.)
Is there going to be a finalshaders for fr-2 c4d for example? Or a MUCH more detailed tutorial(s) or explanation of how to create shaders using the tree shader?
Learning abour FR2 is going to be tricky as there are very few people who have it and even they are just starting to get the feel of it
the problem is no demo, i think cebas are making a mistake by not making a demo available, i can’t see to many people shelling out hundreds of dollars for something they can’t test drive. Now cebas make TP and pyrocluster, both are incorporated as optional modules for c4d and as such can be tried out in the demo version of c4d, perhaps maxon should make Fr2 a module thus it would be avail;ble in the demo version of c4d
Final Render has a pedigree a mile long.( Not like that other render)
I doubt that there will be a demo.
It is not for the average home user it is set up for studios.
There are a few examples included, but there is a wealth of
info available from existing users of FR for max & maya.
As far as I know Cebas don’t make TP and Pyrocluster for C4d, Maxon just borrowed some technology from them and it is extremely unlikely that something like fR2 will become a module as it is a Cebas product.
It’s not all that easy to learn, that’s true. It’s very deep. And being able to poke around with a ray-hit is pretty wild, though it does take a bit of understanding how the stuff works in order to figure out what to do with it.
If you want an example of a shader tree system to tinker with, in the absence of a demo version of fR-2, check out DarkTree Textures. It will at least give you a sense for what it’s like to build a shader with a shader tree, though without fR-2’s tight integration.
I’m still just at the experimenting stage… that alone is a lot of fun.
If your going to play with DT i suggest you book your analyst up for a few sessions, DT is COMPLEX and for something so “powerful” i am suprized there is very little mention of it’s use considering how well known the darksim shaders are
Before they ever put out a demo version, some things need to be done first, like the Mac version
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.