Rendering

#1

Any suggestions for a good photorealistic renderer to work with modo and OSX? I’ve heard that there are a couple in the works, Renderman and Maxwell, but both seem pretty pricey and I need one sooner rather than later.
Thanks,
Graeme

#2

Pity you don’t have enough time to wait for Luxology’s renderer.

#3

Yes, I wish it was available now, but there is no word on when it’s likely to be released. Who knows, it may be 6 or even 12 months away. If it was sooner I’d probably struggle on using Bryce as a renderer - but it’s so time consuming because it doesn’t support object layers.
Thanks,
Graeme

#4

Maybe Lightwave 3D is a short term solution. It’s more likely that Luxology’s renderer will have interface similarities with LW3D than other apps, making the learning curve shorter. I’m just guessing.

The glimses we’ve seen of Lux’s renderer look phenomenal. It will beat everything out there, and its performance on OS X will be unmatched. I think you’ll eventually want to switch to Lux’s renderer anyway (no matter what other app you use in the meantime).

Lux said they’re aiming to release the renderer in Q1, 2005. Then again, Modo took longer than originally anticipated, so I understand that you’d find it difficult to wait.

#5

Oh well, if modo is anything to go by, then it will be worth the wait. C’mon Lux - we want a renderer … yesterday! :bounce:
Thanks,
Graeme.

#6

That is not correct. No date has been announced.

#7

I remember Brad say, Lux is going to have alittle suprised first quarter 2005, so i assume it would be the renderer. Or maybe a Modo 1.5 release would be awesome also :smiley:

of course thats still unofficail statement. heres hoping.

#8

It wasn’t an official announcement, but I’m sure someone made an off-the-cuff comment at a trade show that Lux was aiming for Q1 2005 for the renderer.

Anyway, because it wasn’t an official announcement, I’ll take it as speculation. A renderer is coming… “sometime” :). There has been so many sneak peaks of the renderer in the past year or so that we know it’s in the works and coming.

Don’t forget that Modo was once slated for Q1 2004, but in the end took an extra 9 months to complete. I can see why Luxology doesn’t want to make a firm announcement when release dates inevitably slip.

I know that Luxology also wants to keep certain features of the renderer secret until the last minute, so they don’t get competitors trying to replicate it.

The Mac OS X version has been seen at Mac Expos and it renders faster than anything else out there. It hooks into features of the OS X operating system that make it go like the wind. Other renderers haven’t had such OS X optimization. A lot of time could be shaved off the production schedule by using this thing.

I can’t wait for Luxology’s renderer. As Graeme said, “We want the renderer!”

#9

is this thing liable to end up being as optomised for pc users as for macs? also from the way apple does buisness i wouldn’t be overly surprised if they try and buy out luxology and dump the pc version

and frankly i dont wanna use a mac - nothign against them but - i like my pc

but however you look at it i would hope that luxology is working as hard on the pc version as it is the mac as i still think 3d is predominatly a pc market

#10

i’d just go with Lw rendering engine.maybe search for an older version just like 7.5 or even 7.o to not waste alot pf money if you’re waiting for Lux’s rendering module.

#11

Hi there

ive having the same problem about a osx render, im been looking at strata and Vue 5 Esprit for some “low” cost temporarily render while waiting for nexus :hmm:
still thinking its a lot of money for a temp.render! so I havend found a real solution yet!

#12

Have you thought about getting your hands on a free version of Byrce V3 ? they where once pretty available every where with certain computer magazines. Although on the mac it used OS 9. Just an idea for rendering.

#13

I have been having good luck with going from modo to C4d on the mac.

You can try out the ver 9 demo and open up either .obj or .lwo objects from modo in it and render.

hope this helps

#14

Just because Lux’s renderer has been demonstrated at blistering speeds on a Mac doesn’t mean the Windows version isn’t also optimized.

I think the main reason Lux’s OS X performance is better than other 3D app’s OS X performance is due to the fact that it has been written from the ground up to run on OS X, and uses modern tools to develop it. We know that Luxology has been compiling their software using the new X-Code software, and they’re also hooking into some of the features of OS X that’ll make it run fast.

Some of the other 3D apps were originally written for the older Mac OS9, which is essentially a different computer platform to the UNIX based Mac OS X. Some of these other 3D vendors ported their OS9 software to OS X using the “Carbon” method, which meant they only rewrote a minimum amount of code (maybe 15%), and kept their legacy non-optimized code underneath.

So Mac users are now excited about the forthcoming Lux renderer because of its exceptional performance on OS X. But Lux would have also written it to take advantage of Windows XP as well. It doesn’t have to be mutually exclusive. The fact that it runs fast on Mac doesn’t mean it’s slow on Windows. I think users of both platforms will be impressed by Lux’s rendering performance.

People are always running around claiming that Apple’s going to buy this and that 3D company. People were saying Apple will buy Newtek. Then they were saying that Apple will buy Alias. It didn’t happen. Steve Jobs already has a renderer under his umbrella. It’s called PR Renderman.

#15

Thanks to everyone who replied.

KillMe - If modo is anything to go by, then I would assume that the nexus renderer will work equally well under both platforms. I don’t think that any company would be remotely interested in buying out Luxology, at least not until their products mature. Nor do I think Luxology would be remotely interested in selling - they seem to be having far too much fun making significant splashes in the CG pool … so far I’m impressed with what I see.

Nemoid - I’ll probably get flamed for saying this, but I find LW’s interface really ugly and intimidating. Modo provides a very similar feature set but seems far more approachable and intuative. For me, I want to spend more time making stuff rather than negotiating a steep learning curve. But thanks, I’ve heard LW’s renderer produces very good results.

qral - Hi! Does Vue support object layers? Or does it flatten them like Bryce?

Nigel Baker - I have Bryce 5 but the big problem is that it doesn’t support object layers so it takes a lot of messing around in both Bryce and post production for more complex models. However, I think I’m one of the few who actually like some of the graphical elements of the interface!

onikaze - Thank you, I’ll try CD4 - I think I have an uninstalled demo kicking around on my HD somewhere! Just seems such a waste to buy a full package just for the renderer.

Beamtracer - I agree, Apple and Pixar are very close (same CEO). Doesn’t make much economic sense to duplicate what they already have, especially when it’s already doing very well. If it ain’t broke …

Thanks,
Graeme

#16

i realise they aren’t mutally exclusive - just paranoid =) aftera ll i dont think i ever seen a modo vid or demo or anything ever done on a pc and seems liek they are putting alot of effort into smoouzing with apple - whiel not a bad thing abit of fair play is always nice and someone having seen nexus rendering at equally blisterinly fast speeds on a pc would be nice

#17

Not to chime in with any vague or misleading information, but at SIGGRAPH we were showing modo on 2 PC’s and 2 Mac’s, we’re not afraid of either format because the only difference between the two versions is a handful of code… The two systems work ~differently~ more than a specific benchmark, the reason that most of the demo’s that you saw were on Mac’s is because of who was doing the demo’s… I do all of my demo/training work on a PC laptop…

#18

well, if u think so, i retain your opinion.everyone must use the tool he thinks it fits his needs and preferences. Lw has a good renderer, and not so many options to check if u want good results. certainly lw built in is not fast compared to what Lux rendering will be, but is not difficult to use. it has less options to check than let’s say Mental ray.

actually i was going to say go XSI, but i read carefully your post is about OSX, so unfortunately u can’t. also, as i said , MRay is very difficult to use.

Going with C4D could be the best solution for u too.plus, its a good app indeed.

#19

The Luxology renderer was demonstrated to a private audience at the Siggraph expo in 2003. It was a working renderer way back then. I guess it’s my wishful thinking, hoping that it’ll come out in Q1 2005.

I know it takes a long time to build a photorealistic renderer from scratch. Others take 3 years+ to do it. It’s just that I want it now! :slight_smile:

There are a lot of people who are peeved off or worried about the future of their current 3D renderer. These people are looking around now for another renderer now. It’s a pity that Lux’s renderer isn’t out yet to catch all these people into the fold.

#20

I agree. I’m one of those who are looking. If I find a good renderer now, what will be the point in buying the Nexus version further down the track? Perhaps one way for Lux to build customer loyalty may be to allow existing customers the opportunity to be alpha/beta testers for the new renderer. I’d sign up in a flash! :slight_smile:

I can understand their reluctance though. Pixar’s Renderman (a cheaper version of an industry standard) and Next Limit’s Maxwell Render (exceptional photorealism) are both about to be released. Perhaps Lux is waiting to see what the competition has before laying their cards on the table.

Thanks,
Graeme