Great googely moogely. I hope they add some typical rendertime-vs-quality results, with system specs before the preorder period ends. I would need to know what to expect, since the other physically-accurate renderers currently available require extremely long periods of time to produce even reasonably decent results. And people think Cinema’s/other apps’ GI is slow…
M’yeah… fascinating results, but as pointed out above - if it comes with the usual rendertime requirements as other forward raytracers, it’s hard to see how you would actually want to use it in a production situation… On the other hand, if they’ve actually managed to optimise the technology - jeez, then this will certainly be something to add to your toolbox :eek:
From the description on the page, this isn’t a standard renderengine so much as a physically accurate light, material and camera behavior simulator. In other words its not designed to cut corners on accuracy and speed rendering up with tricks like photon or illumination maps, but rather an accurate mathematical simulation of real world light and material behavior, just as RealFlow simulates liquid behavior with a great degree of physical accuracy if you crank up all the settings. I wouldn’t expect this renderer to fly in terms of fast per frame rendertimes, but the delivered imagery should look very accurate if its given sufficient rendertime and CPU power, sort of like Lightscape renders.
[Edit] Looks like the Alpha is a renderplugin for Max 6 or Maya, and C4D will get supported via a connector plugin to the standalone renderer along with other popular apps. I’ve emailed them asking about when the C4D connector might arrive, but I wouldn’t hold my breath for it to be one of the first to be completed. I wonder if that connector will be available before it hits final 1.0 release in June '05.
The reason i think we shouldnt expect fast render times is that
this is a simulation software with a real world camera model (+ a bounch of other stuff),
and its made by Nextlimit the makers of RealFlow/RealWave.
RF/RW are also sim.apps and they are not fast
Were talking 10 to 30 hour sims just to pour water into a glass over 200 frames
The result is of course superb.
But the RF/RW can make cool stuff even on lower settings,
unless your after a realworld sims of course
So the question is how does it look on lower settings and can we live
with the artifacts
Read the description carefully. Its targeted at high-end rendering and visualization markets, named after a physicist, built by the same people who built RealFlow, sets out to simulate all sorts of complex optical phenomena that are bound to be extremely computation intensive, advertises the fact that it can tap into up to 8 CPUs per machine to provide ‘better rendering performance’, and supports Win64 as well as 64bit Linux. In other words, if you’re gonna render animations with this baby, it better be able to bake lighting into textures for use in another renderer, or you’ll probably need a computing cluster to get an animation out of it.
I hope that people are right about it being a 3rd party render engine aimed at the same sort of use as Brazil or Vray, but it looks a lot more like a successor to high-end lighting simulation products like Lightscape to me than a plain-vanilla renderer for everyday use. Maybe I’m wrong in making that assumption, but Realflow which is also built by Next Limit eats CPU cycles for breakfast and Maxwell may be a similar physical-accuracy-in-exchange-for-lots-of-CPUtime sort of simulation or virtual photography tool.
You have a point good thing I dont do animation. I think your right it is something that you probably hit enter and come back next weekend. But for me its a dream come true all the scenes I make and will be making are exterior and daylight in C4D has been really hard for me to achieve a natural look. And its mac compatible aaaahhhh.
this looks quite interesting - the results have a very pleasing look to them, grainy and film-like.
BUT if you look at the hi-res versions of the images you will notice a lot of ‘hot’ pixels in the images. obviously this is just a pre beta version and the final version may well be much better but as it stands those defects are not acceptable in a production renderer (especially if they ‘dance’ when a camera is animated).
it will be interesting to see how they develop this further (especially the connection with cinema and whether it may run 64bit under os X 10.4).
i have been working with maya/renderman/mental ray for the last few matte paintings i have done (model/texture in cinema and light/render in maya) and i can say that it is so much easier to get a good render out of cinema (mainly because the lighting controls in cinema are so much better than maya) and i would still prefer to see Maxon develop AR3 than put time into bridging to any external render systems.
however if next limit decide to build the bridge themselves then everyone wins - maxon still have time and people they can dedicate to AR and people who feel limited by the internal renderer can plug-in something new.
I agree Simon, June 05??? - By that time there may as well be an advanced render version 4 ready for release…
I think Advanced Render is headed in the right direction if we see some point release updates to AR2 in the short term, I will easily stick with AR-
At this point, I will wait based on other peoples experience with this external renderer and Cinema 4D. They would need to get in a fast response development cycle with updates and the like that is common with Vray to gain any attention as a viable competitor with the already growing market of external renderers.
It is all very interesting. I still have not outgrown Advanced Render much less Advanced Render 2 yet, so I am happy to hear the news of this.
Is there anyone going to go ahead and pre-order this and wait for your plug into Cinema to arrive?
I’d be very curious to see any user results and not any from a highly trained expert in this external render program to really see a good range of capability.