PDA

View Full Version : Blender Render + GPU Acceleration



rttwlr
16-Oct-10, 01:59
Hello,

Why isn't Blender's internal renderer as good as Octane or VRay?! :mad: It's so slow and bad, who uses it anyway? We need unbiased, physically correct results and not this ancient s**t that's closer to CryEngine than Avatar! I'm angry.


Just kidding. But after seeing the results that real-time renderers produce nowadays it's hard not to stop and think why so many Blender users spend their valuable time watching slowly moving buckets instead of setting up lights, editing textures or doing something more productive. I'm not talking about these 'real-time' progressive renderers like Octane, SLG, Arion etc. but the renderers that give results as good as Blender Internal with interactive framerates.

Take a look at MachStudio Pro (http://www.studiogpu.com/) for example. Yes, the results of course aren't photorealistic but closer to animations like... Sintel. FurryBall for Maya (http://furryball.aaa-studio.eu/) looks even more impressive with really nice looking faked indirect illumination. And this comes from person who absolutely hates the typical ambient occlusion look.

With all these excellent external renderers out there: biased Yafaray, unbiased LuxRender, really promising Mitsuba and all the commercial software, i simply don't see any reason to use BI. I assume that I'm not the only one and apparently there's been a lot of discussion about the subject. So if I was to make one suggestion considering the future of Blender's internal rendering, that would be huge speed improvement by taking this whole new approach.

And I didn't even mention Blender's game engine yet. :yes:

MeiaLua
16-Oct-10, 02:07
errm....

Mach studio Pro: $3,999
Furry Ball LIGHT: $299

They are very nice, but while I wait to win the lottery I'llk stick with BI or SmallLuxGPU. BI has its problems, but as with all things its a tool, you can do anything you want if you have the skillz to use it correctly.

Bao2
16-Oct-10, 03:09
Why isn't Blender's internal renderer as good as Octane or VRay?! :mad: It's so slow and bad, who uses it anyway? We need unbiased, physically correct results and not this ancient s**t that's closer to CryEngine than Avatar! I'm angry.

Try another 3D app that fit your demands ! Go for the expensive ones, don't buy something too cheaper.

Blender has in the list of things to do a revision of the renderer, but not before some months because before that it has priority to have Blender 2.5 stable with the same functionality 2.49 had. Much work ahead for developpers.

dsavi
16-Oct-10, 03:54
Personally I find BI to be very flexible, especially in the sense that I know that anything I can do in Blender will work in BI. GPU acceleration will come soon enough, and there's not a lot preventing us from using SLG/Octane until then.

Of course it almost goes without saying that render engine features are probably the hardest to write.

rttwlr
16-Oct-10, 05:28
Something I'd like to add before this thread turns into war.

First of all I'm not saying this must happen anytime soon, there's indeed more important things in Blender's development. Of course, I will use Blender even if its internal renderer wouldn't be updated ever again. It was all just a suggestion that I hope people would consider as a possibility to improve the quality of their renderings.

Obviously I'm not the biggest fan of the way BI currently works. No real GI solution, slowish raytracing, mediocore results that probably could be done with the real-time renderers that I mentioned in the first post. Which, of course, are out of my budget. But it's not like they have any top secret state-of-art technology that would explain the high pricetag.

Let's take MachStudio Pro for example. I don't believe it's that different from exporting a scene from Blender and importing it to CryEngine. It's just that MachStudio is a moviemaker/studio and make things a lot easier when it comes to setting up materials and correct lighting.

Instead of trying to compete with the most used renderers like mental ray, VRay, FinalRender or these new GPU-accelerated 'rt'-renderers like Octane and Arion, it would be interesting to see BI taking a whole new route. Let's forget about indirect illumination using pathtracing that other renderers are already good at and speed up rendering by highly optimized code that game industry have used for years.


Well maybe it's wrong to say that it is BI that should be changed, this could be a whole another engine or simply Blender Game Engine that also works as a renderer. Or then simply a stupid idea in another forgotten thread in Blender Artists Forums. :)

NinthJake
16-Oct-10, 05:49
One question, have you actually seen the scanline renderer in 3ds Max? xP

That is the default one that Autodesk developed for Max originally, Mental ray and Vray and all those other nice render engines are just plugin renderers for Max (except for Mental ray which got intergrated) just as Yafaray and Luxrender are for Blender. The original renderer sucks for almost all 3D applications except for maybe C4D which actually have a pretty powerful render engine.

BI is actually even far more powerful than Scanline for 3ds Max is.

That being said, yes I agree that it would be nice to have GPU acceleration for Blender's render engine (after getting proper GI of course) but I think that BF should make Blender more plugin-friendly rather than focusing on making their own stuff perfect. All the commercial packages do it so it should work for Blender too :)

The Happy Friar
16-Oct-10, 06:02
i simply don't see any reason to use BI.

Well, not everyone is making content to be rendered. IE game assets. No need for anything but the internal.

FreeMind
16-Oct-10, 06:36
rttwlr, everyone knows how bad is BI.
You don't have to state the obvious.

So be patient, it wont be fixed soon, but someday it will be....

Gustav Göransson
16-Oct-10, 10:56
rttwlr, everyone knows how bad is BI.
You don't have to state the obvious.

So be patient, it wont be fixed soon, but someday it will be....

Yeah, and in the meantime you could try learn how to create amazing stuff dispute BI's flaws (check gallery, there's actually a lot of people who have succeed )

Tea_Monster
16-Oct-10, 11:05
If you want physically correct rendering from Blender, check out LuxRender. they have a very good Blender plug-in and can make excellent images. If you want it faster, then try Yafaray, which isn't physically correct, but is much faster.

cekuhnen
16-Oct-10, 11:40
while we talk about integration of other engines via an export function
makes sense, but I see two problems:

1. OSS engines come and go
2. not everybody has the money for commercial products (After all Blender is more used by non professionals)

and 3. what happens to all those additions Blender got lately or in the past?

stress texture
particles fur
smoke system
material/texture nodes

Could those be integrated so easily with VRay, Yafaray, Octane, Thea, LuxRender?

I am not sure how it is today but some years ago most of those effects were done in Max via Plug-ins.
I am not sure how those are integrated and working with Mental Ray, VRay, or Renderman (Maya).

If Blender focuses on fast animation but would improve the raytracer speed and continue the Render Branch
they would already provide some reasonable improvements.

I would not throw away the internal engine at all - may declare the focus on what BI should be for.


But to be honest if somebody does a lot of product rendering, a render box or a good card and Octane
provides a dream tool for a designer or architect. The speed and feedback is unmatched by any other
system.

Truly with hardwork everything is possible - but when you make money with this type, time is money.

Viator
16-Oct-10, 11:41
If you want physically correct rendering from Blender, check out LuxRender. they have a very good Blender plug-in and can make excellent images. If you want it faster, then try Yafaray, which isn't physically correct, but is much faster.

Neither Luxrender nor Yafaray (or any other renderers in existence) are really "physically correct" in the true sense of it - they are, however, *physically based*. Both Luxrender and Yafaray have "unbiased" (as in path/bidir/ppm/sppm) and "biased" methods (as in classical photonmapping, AO, Whitted/direct lighting). Yafaray's photonmapping is indeed faster and probably more mature than Lux's, while lux's path/bidir modes are equally more mature than yafaray's equivalent at this point in time.

(Caveat; I'm a lux dev)

V

namekuseijin
16-Oct-10, 12:45
6 posts and trying to sell proprietary solutions to an open-source app. I feel some desperate astroturfing...

Check out Sintel and tell me Octane would be able to complete it in time with significantly better GI-look and without its usual shortcomings in texture size and excessive DOF to try to minimize it...

yeah, rough interactive previews are nice, but getting a final render without grainy looks is another thing. 1+ hours per frame render is unacceptable for many animations...

Uncle Entity
16-Oct-10, 12:57
Where's Endi when you need him?

michalis
16-Oct-10, 13:24
Where's Endi when you need him?
See?
I mostly agree.
Please post some renders , build some scenes, do something anyway, talk about it later.
BI is definitely not the best renderer but it works. Lot of users in zbrushcentral keep asking "is this blender? how?" "why don't you try 3dmax etc" But I love it, waiting for a better re builded one. All other external renders are rather pointless here. Stay with BI, ask for a better one, be creative.

cekuhnen
16-Oct-10, 14:01
3 posts being in the don't change anything mind set?

Your guys arguments are not really the best either for those
who are interested in GPU things.

Not everybody does also animations.

People have different needs - why do you think there are so many
render engines / technologies out there?

Just a thought.

TylerZambori
16-Oct-10, 18:50
Neither Luxrender nor Yafaray (or any other renderers in existence) are really "physically correct" in the true sense of it - they are, however, *physically based*. Both Luxrender and Yafaray have "unbiased" (as in path/bidir/ppm/sppm) and "biased" methods (as in classical photonmapping, AO, Whitted/direct lighting). Yafaray's photonmapping is indeed faster and probably more mature than Lux's, while lux's path/bidir modes are equally more mature than yafaray's equivalent at this point in time.

(Caveat; I'm a lux dev)

V

thread title: Octane> fast?... not so sure...

http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?t=112506&highlight=octane+render

cekuhnen
16-Oct-10, 20:19
The videos sound as biased as the apples to apples approach as well as Brads PC and GPU rig show.

In particular what he dramatically fails at, as most people in that thread, is that there are 2 different 3D industries.

I am curious when people finally understand that.

CG 3D motion is not 3D object shot.


Of course do CPU system have some advantages and so do GPU systems.

You just need to pick the one you need.


Why is this so complicated to see???

toontje
16-Oct-10, 21:25
Again the spontaneous orgasm by the mere mention of unbiased rendering or GPU rendering. I haven't really followed the development of Yafaray, but Yafray couldn't do motion blur, so that was pretty useless for animation.
I think the GPU rendering is the 21st century version of the shiny chrome ball on a checker board, because that's all I'm seeing.... although utterly impressive, but they just all renderings of different specular reflectance models. Nice motion blurless sports cars animation, shiny Buddha, frosted glass Sanford Bunny,,, but that's it for GPU rendering.
I'm impressed if skin, hair and fur could be rendered through GPU. GPU is cool, but far from being a replacement for BI.

tyrant monkey
16-Oct-10, 21:41
@toontje dude you need to come out of your cave more

dyf
16-Oct-10, 22:32
....u mad?

cekuhnen
17-Oct-10, 03:00
no not mad

they just do not know, that they do not know.

Alvaro
17-Oct-10, 05:34
Again the spontaneous orgasm by the mere mention of unbiased rendering or GPU rendering. I haven't really followed the development of Yafaray, but Yafray couldn't do motion blur, so that was pretty useless for animation.
I think the GPU rendering is the 21st century version of the shiny chrome ball on a checker board, because that's all I'm seeing.... although utterly impressive, but they just all renderings of different specular reflectance models. Nice motion blurless sports cars animation, shiny Buddha, frosted glass Sanford Bunny,,, but that's it for GPU rendering.
I'm impressed if skin, hair and fur could be rendered through GPU. GPU is cool, but far from being a replacement for BI.

You're right. First of all, in many ways YafaRay is not ready for animations, the first reason is the lack of raytraced motion blur. Implementing raytraced motion blur is going to be hard, at least in YafaRay. Means writing and rewriting all around. There are other reasons, though. Many GI algorithms will have to be tunned to work consistently in animations, YafaRay scene description specs does not support transformation matrix. A hugue task.

About GPU rendering, I'm sceptic and enthusiast at the same time. With common hardware configurations, for instance, desktop computing, GPU rendering is not going to deliver the boost some guys are touting, mainly with complex scenes. You will need workstation-grade hardware all around to get significative gains.

On the other hand, it does have interesting capabilities. The first and most important, is to make raytracers run like game engines, for real-time purposes. The question many raytracer developers are making themselves at this point is whether you want real-time or animation capabilities, and what is the oportunity cost when you make a choice in either direction.

With current hardware specs, people are writting different raytracers for each purpose, rather than a raytracer working all across the board, which is rather silly. Because it means you have to branch your software in two engines, working as a single one. Not good.

Nobody knows what the future will bring. AMD is going to release GPU on the CPU die. Multicore CPU will keep on growing. Larrabee is dead, but maybe someone wants to give it a second chance. The raytracing field is becoming increasingly complex, any decision has got an increasingly expensive oportunity cost.

kakapo
17-Oct-10, 07:24
i really liked the furryball videos. not everyone needs raytracing. it would be nice if blender had better opengl/glsl rendering suitable for final output. probably such a renderer would also be much easier to write than something like yafaray since a lot of things (like rasterization) the programmer wouldn't have to care for himself. but i am not really an opengl programmer so i don't really know. :)

Tea_Monster
17-Oct-10, 07:41
What the Blender Internal renderer REALLY needs is to get sorted out on a more basic level. Yeah, the BI is great for basic animations without ray-tracing. But even then it has a lot of problems still.

I still like the idea of separating it so that it can be worked on as a GSoC project in its own right. From what I've heard, a large part of the problem with working on it (though I'm not a coder) is that the code is such a mess.

Once it can do half the stuff that Yafaray can do (caustics, non-distored image mapping) etc., then we can think about accelerating it. Putting GPU acceleration on the existing code is like sticking a rocket engine onto the back of a garbage scow.

niuarts
17-Oct-10, 08:30
I get the point that rttwlr is trying to make. For what is worth, I enjoy Blender Internal Render, I think that great works can be done with that, but I really miss GI. In my opinion is important to highlight the positives side of this great tool that we have for free, but what did this a great tool so far is that does exist a good communication between the developers and the community. I hope that the rendering engine gets more attention for the next release cause the modeling, texturing and animation on blender are awesome to me, simple, fast and intuitive. Cheers to the development team and the community!

rttwlr
17-Oct-10, 22:57
Once it can do half the stuff that Yafaray can do (caustics, non-distored image mapping) etc., then we can think about accelerating it. Putting GPU acceleration on the existing code is like sticking a rocket engine onto the back of a garbage scow.

Well said. I wasn't suggesting at any point that GPU-acceleration should be added to the existing code of BI.


Having done many commercial animations I've faced too many times the situation where you have to explain to client 'what rendering is and why it takes so long to get results'. And who can blaim them when they see their kids play Gears of War at home and I'm struggling with a simple logo animation. Yes, the reason why games look as good as they do has to do with prebaked lighting, lack of raytracing and all that optimization but still, as FurryBall, 'DX11-renderer' shows, the realtime methods used by game engines can really be useful in production. Less 'physical accuracy', more faking.


As we all know, seeing MLT/BiDir based indirect lighting produce breathtakingly pretty dispersive caustics is definately better than sex. But of course, when you have 25-30 frames per sec you are likely to seek for faster solution. And I'm still not convinced that the so-called biased rendering is the best way to go to get results faster.

It's always nice to leave your workstation render an animation through the night just to find an unusable flickering animation in the morning. So my intention was not to diss BI, but point out that this kind of tool may not be the best way to go. mental ray and VRay are good, but they do have their own problems. I'm still amazed that after all these years something as common as glossy relfections are so slow to calculate.


One can produce amazing results with just about every renderer out there but that doesn't mean the renderer is neccessarely really good. It just says that the artist has skillZ and is able to use his tools efficently. Of course GPU won't solve everything and there's things like memory limits that can be a huge problem. But it's interesting territory and who knows what the future holds.

Who said AO is the best way to fake GI? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9u8EdFbmiI

namekuseijin
18-Oct-10, 12:58
I like your style, rttwlr...

Tea_Monster
18-Oct-10, 18:09
... Having done many commercial animations I've faced too many times the situation where you have to explain to client 'what rendering is and why it takes so long to get results'. And who can blaim them when they see their kids play Gears of War at home and I'm struggling with a simple logo animation. Yes, the reason why games look as good as they do has to do with prebaked lighting, lack of raytracing and all that optimization but still, as FurryBall, 'DX11-renderer' shows, the realtime methods used by game engines can really be useful in production. Less 'physical accuracy', more faking...

Thats a great idea. I've pushed for that before in other threads. The Blender game engine can do some amazing stuff (parallax mapping, god rays, etc) but you have to be an Open GL programmer to get at it. If we could enable it simply for the viewport, we'd have pretty much instantaneous renders that look amazing. Every time I've suggested this I've got shouted at in other threads. Nobody looks. They all just want a physically accurate renderer (even though we have a few already).

The biggest laugh from the "physically accurate only" crowd is that they are crowing about the abilities of the Mitsuba renderer. I bet a lot of them have no idea that the wonderful looking (and nearly instantaneous) preview render that you get at the beginning is all done with Open GL !

cekuhnen
18-Oct-10, 18:22
You guys now what biased opinions and style of argumentation is?

Just checking ...

Because I notice everybody of you guys compares GPU rendering to
the application in character animation.


What about accepting GPU what it is and what it is not intended for.
Could save some embarrassing comments/judgments.

Maybe a visit to SIGGRAPH or other 3D solution presentations can help
to clarify what is going in the industry and not only on your home PC.

Tea_Monster
18-Oct-10, 18:31
A lot of the people who want a physically accurate renderer in Blender are ignoring the fact that Blender is an animation programme at heart. Yes, Arch Viz people need a physically accurate renderer for stills, but they completely ignore the fact that we also need a way of doing quick animations. They just don't want to know. If you point this out to them and try to suggest other ways of doing this that don't take 30 hours per frame to render, all they come out with is "... but it's not physically accurate" that and "... in a few years, Moores law will sort out your animation problems, so stop trying to stand in the way of progress". None of this solves the problems of the guys who need something quick, dirty and cheaty that will get thier animation out the door in under 20 years time. For animations, cheating is brilliant, sexy and very smart.

The really annoying thing is that we already have Lux Render, which right now will give you realistic results. It takes a ridiculous amount of time to render, but it looks stunning when it does. It's an amazing piece of kit... but even with the promised GPU speedup, I don't think it's going to be that suited to animations.

cekuhnen
18-Oct-10, 21:59
Both what you say is true.
I was more directing the statement towards those which are against GPU or GI in general.

But I am not sure if Blender is for animation anymore or only.

However I do not think that so many want unbiased compared to simply an
improved material and render system. Ton as far as I know from talking
with him is very much in favor in upgrading the render module in case
somebody could do it.


Only because some who are new to 3D or do not grasp it fully want the features
they read about, and maybe repost their wish, others who are more educated in that
are do not need to be alienated. I am pretty sure the true unbiased community who
really want it in Blender is rather small.

As annoying some of the unbiased evangelist can get as annoying are also all those
anti-GI and anti-GPU fighters.

VRay, MentalRay, all those are also used for animation and they offer
also GI. Thus I cannot understand when people pull the line GI is not usable
and we do not need it when the industry is already using it since a long time.

GI can mean many things, from basic color bleeding, to caustics
while I am very sure first one is pretty usable and for the last one one must be
insane to consider it for an animation.

I think we are here on a common ground, a flexible render pipeline which can
turn on off specific features and thus produce faster, or slower renderings
depending on the options you select.

tyrant monkey
19-Oct-10, 01:13
if you guys knew what the word unbiased meant in terms of rendering I wonder if you would go on so much about it.

rttwlr
19-Oct-10, 02:40
if you guys knew what the word unbiased meant in terms of rendering I wonder if you would go on so much about it.

Yes.

Good article about the subject:
http://www.thearender.com/cms/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=12&Itemid=38

tyrant monkey
19-Oct-10, 03:06
That's rather short but here is another one, http://www.cs.caltech.edu/~keenan/bias.pdf (http://www.cs.caltech.edu/%7Ekeenan/bias.pdf). In the context of most modern ray tracers it is a pretty misguided way of looking at them if you try and label them biased or unbiased. You just have to change what render mode you are using and the same render engine can go from biased to unbiased. Lux and Yafaray both offer photon mapping, bi-directional path tracing, direct lighting and path tracing to some degree. Though some methods depending on the render engine are more developed than others but the are there. I have never used them but am sure vray and mental ray would have a similar list of integrators.

But as far as BI is concerned the are not many people working on it. So I think for the short and medium term learning to love what you got would be the best way to go.

I am not an animator but in terms of animation shouldn't you guys be whining about motion blur and micro poly displacements more. unless you guys like you movies looking like the are in game cinematics

aermartin
19-Oct-10, 06:41
there' more into GPU computing than rendering, it can chew through your fluid sims and particles at a rate your CPU never can crunch. besides that I think the interactivity you get with most of the lightweight OpenCL based renderers are nice. /besides the objects are only MIT Buddah or rabbits :P/

why would you ever want to render motion blur? that's .... for me awkward and backwards. I wish renderers to totally remove any motion blur from the rendering. that's a post process effect I can control myself in compositing.

you CAN do animation if yafaray. pretty nice ones if your name is matray.
http://www.vimeo.com/9863121

agentmilo
19-Oct-10, 08:23
@Tyrant
I wouldn't really back that up- Octane still cant render particles, hair etc so it can't completely replace BI.

callmeishmael
19-Oct-10, 09:15
From the article linked by rttwir:


... The quality comes from other elements though; materials, textures, geometric complexity and of course user skills and artistic talent...

This. The bestest, fastest renderer in the world won't make my crappy models and inept texturing look one bit better.

Hoverkraft
19-Oct-10, 09:16
I wish renderers to totally remove any motion blur from the rendering. that's a post process effect I can control myself in compositing.

That is only true for the most simplest of cases.

cekuhnen
19-Oct-10, 13:16
Aermartin

as with dof there are ways to cheat with motion blur as well but
depending on the realism one might look for it will not work in
all cases. Take a look at how motion blur via vector is computed
and you can see the problem. Same with DoF.

I feel having both is still good.



Agentmilo,

who says Octane is there to replace Blender Internal - where is that written?

aermartin
19-Oct-10, 14:25
cekhunen

I find vectors working for directional blur. DoF blur I think is pretty descent. only problem I've had is that the background can bleed into the object.

Serialsiner
19-Oct-10, 15:07
I've been working on my short animation for almost 2 years now and for me BI is perfect, I can use raytracing on big scenes without exceeding 5mn by frame, I can simulate GI, everything is possible with some work.
For me, unbiased rendering is for lazy people, only one lamp to add, no control over the lighting, just hit render and have a coffee ...
There's no bad tool, only bad users (Tribute to Endi).

Sneg
19-Oct-10, 15:22
only problem I've had is that the background can bleed into the object.Yeah. I got tricked by that once, but solved it using extra nodes to mask the blur. But pulled a lot of hair before that.

edit: and we can't even complain, 'cause the behaviour is correct. The right way is actually to 'mask' the effect, which messes with something that's correct.

cekuhnen
19-Oct-10, 19:13
Hi aermartin

that's the one I am talking about. When made engine animations we quickly noticed
that the vector blur has issues with non-linear motions. Well it makes sense since
the vector blur uses a linear motion to calculate the blur.

My point is that that post-pro are a great time saver as long as what you want is also
possible with them.


Serialsiner

you must know it.

goosey
19-Oct-10, 20:11
Yeah. I got tricked by that once, but solved it using extra nodes to mask the blur. But pulled a lot of hair before that.

edit: and we can't even complain, 'cause the behaviour is correct. The right way is actually to 'mask' the effect, which messes with something that's correct.

Isn't there a setting which reduces the bleed?

StompinTom
19-Oct-10, 20:30
For me, unbiased rendering is for lazy people, only one lamp to add, no control over the lighting, just hit render and have a coffee ...

Or people who don't have time to screw around with faking light setups. Different ballgames, man.

goplexian
19-Oct-10, 21:27
What you need is an introduction to ray tracing! Here you go!

Ray Tracing from the Ground Up (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1568812728?ie=UTF8&tag=learnin01-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1568812728)

I expect to see a new contributor to BI sometime soon.

Serialsiner
20-Oct-10, 02:19
Or people who don't have time to screw around with faking light setups. Different ballgames, man.

If you don't have time then forget 3d stuff, all this requires lot's of time : modeling, unwrapping, texturing, lighting ...

tyrant monkey
20-Oct-10, 02:36
If you don't have time then forget 3d stuff, all this requires lot's of time : modeling, unwrapping, texturing, lighting ...


True this is the way to go spend lots and lots of time setting up bounce lights and trying to fake GI so that your render can look like it came from the 90's.

cekuhnen
20-Oct-10, 02:53
Serial - do you also repeat what you mom tells you?

Serialsiner
20-Oct-10, 04:04
Ok guys, BI is a crap I won't use it anymore ... You're all right, I'll be waiting for GPU rendering In Blender in order to finish my project.

PhilBo
20-Oct-10, 06:18
I remember back in the day when Blender users on this forum did not want Blender to have a "gay tracer" integrated. They argued that they could achieve everything that a ray tracing engine could by using all these shortcuts and cheats. Like setting up a duplicate scene below the ground plane to simulate a glossy floor.

In the end, the devs implemented a real ray tracer and Blender is better because of it. I find some of the same arguments going on here. "We don't need those new features that other engines have...we can fake it!"

lsscpp
20-Oct-10, 06:49
@serailsiner: you can work as long as you want with BI. It still won't give you certain photorealistic effects (pro-level tested). It is a matter of fact. So if BI is good or perfect for some kind of works, it is inadequate for others. Don't get it just white or black. There are also greys.

Serialsiner
20-Oct-10, 06:55
I personnaly never said that I didn't want a accelerated rendering system or anything that would improve Blender in any way, what just made me react was the first sentence of the thread :
Why isn't Blender's internal renderer as good as Octane or VRay?! It's so slow and bad, who uses it anyway?

I've been using Blender for nearly ten years now (far before raytracing integration) and I can tell that Blender actually is a fantastic tool. The former typical sentence was "The interface sucks", now with a new UI, users ask for an improved renderer ... In my humble opinion it is better to stick to what you have, trying to use every aspect of your tool, mastering your technique before asking for the next feature that will do the job for you ...

tungee
20-Oct-10, 07:28
There is an octane2Blender exporter available!
Yayyy! Link:
http://www.refractivesoftware.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=4035&start=20

The link is visible to customers only.
I dont need another renderer beside octane.
For other stuff i use the Internal renderer of blender...

dsavi
20-Oct-10, 07:32
What you need is an introduction to ray tracing! Here you go!

Ray Tracing from the Ground Up (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1568812728?ie=UTF8&tag=learnin01-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1568812728)

I expect to see a new contributor to BI sometime soon.
Hmm I want that book now.

rttwlr
20-Oct-10, 07:47
Serialsiner, you forgot ":mad:". It was just bad, provocative and unnucessary humor. Sorry.

Serialsiner
20-Oct-10, 07:57
Serialsiner, you forgot ":mad:". It was just bad, provocative and unnucessary humor. Sorry.

Ok, I maybe overreacted too, forget it :evilgrin:

GottfriedHofmann
20-Oct-10, 08:32
Concerning that the next open movie will be about photo realistic scenes combined with real footage there will be some improvents to BI. In order to speed things up: Give money to the Foundation, buy stuff from the e-shop or sponsor a developer directly...

cekuhnen
20-Oct-10, 12:40
Serialsiner

I and many here do not say BI is crap. It, as Ton him self states, lacks many
features modern engines have. And as he went more in detail when I talked to
him this includes the material system as well as the render engine.

As annoying feature requesters are as annoying are those who say you can fake
it and GI etc is useless / not needed.

Also you make as many other anti-GI people the same causal argumentation error
of declaring that BI is perfect because it fits your needs and in addition state that
GI is useless because A) one can fake it and B) in animation it is to slow.



I really ask myself why it is so impossible to have a normal discussion about how
to improve Blender's render engine.

This is kinda sad and embarrassing.

goplexian
20-Oct-10, 13:11
I really ask myself why it is so impossible to have a normal discussion about how
to improve Blender's render engine.

This is kinda sad and embarrassing.

First of all the first post in this thread was basically "Ugh this, like, totally sucks! Why don't you guys make a better one faster for me!"

A post like that isn't going to attract the right type of people to the discussion.

I had to wade through 3 pages to find your post.

If your post had been first this would have been a different discussion.

cekuhnen
20-Oct-10, 13:44
He also wrote "Just kidding. But after seeing...".

Looks like some oversaw it.


But to be honest we should really put an end to the Anti-GI or unbiased for everything threads.

It is foolish to continue arguing that because it works for me it is true for everybody else
or that everybody needs unbiased or maximum photorealism.

Fact is that Blender can do a lot but not as much as with a more modern and feature complete
engine as Ton states himself.

You do not need GI for your job - don't use it.

You need GI for it and animation, well use it and set things up the right way.

What is so difficult about this??? I really don't get it.

NinthJake
20-Oct-10, 16:41
@Tyrant
I wouldn't really back that up- Octane still cant render particles, hair etc so it can't completely replace BI.
Octane is still missing a lot of important features IMO.

Btw it won't replace BI because it costs money. Sure it may be "cheap" right now but that is only because it is still in Beta stage, when the final version is released it will most likely cost more like 999£ instead of 99£ like it does now.

And the developer(s) are too focused on stopping piracy than working on the render features because they claim that they will go "bankrupt" otherwise.

Octane is really good and it is the fastest renderer I have ever used, not to forget the fact that it runs fine on my crappy old GeForce 9500 GT. I still wouldn't buy it unless they start working on the renderer itself.

lsscpp
20-Oct-10, 16:59
He also wrote "Just kidding. But after seeing...".

Looks like some oversaw it.
Yep. I guess those readers are... biased.

StompinTom
20-Oct-10, 18:30
If you don't have time then forget 3d stuff, all this requires lot's of time : modeling, unwrapping, texturing, lighting ...

Ever been on a deadline, Serialsiner? And before you ask why I would use a slow, unbiased renderer on a deadline, it's because of consistent, reliable and high-quality results which clients happily pay for.

And, cekuhnen: +1

TylerZambori
20-Oct-10, 18:40
removed due to harassment from outside these forums.

(jay)
20-Oct-10, 21:22
It's easy to focus on what is needed (which, let's be honest, is old news), but the real issue is how to make it happen. How many man-hours will it take to code the appropriate changes to implement gpu-accelerated GI in Blender? I'm guessing more than a couple. So, who wants to volunteer a few free hours to make it happen? There is a nice thread about learning to code around here...
The simple answer is, if you don't like BI or it doesn't suit your needs then learn another solution, either free or commercial- after all, if you are making money with it, you can justify the expense and write it off as a business expense or tax deduction or whatever. If you don't want to learn a new renderer or can't afford one, adapt. Again, just talking all day about what a software package needs will only result in a big pile of jack squat. Real solutions will be more conducive to make things happen. You guys seem like a smart bunch, I'm sure you'll figure out something.

cekuhnen
20-Oct-10, 22:13
no objection to that.

rttwlr
21-Oct-10, 00:41
And the developer(s) are too focused on stopping piracy than working on the render features because they claim that they will go "bankrupt" otherwise.

Octane is really good and it is the fastest renderer I have ever used, not to forget the fact that it runs fine on my crappy old GeForce 9500 GT. I still wouldn't buy it unless they start working on the renderer itself.

Not that I've any reason to defend Octane but if you take a look at the newer images at their forum, it's clear that they actually are updating the engine. No more fireflies and it can even produce caustics nowadays. So it's clear that it's not plain pathtracing anymore.

It seems though that they've revisited the 1.0 feature list and MLT has become 'Custom Sampling Algorithm (Custom MLT-like implementation)' for example. That aside, I have always liked Octane's approach which really forces the developers to find completely new solutions that haven't been done before. At least no one can blaim them for not being ambitous and I do hope they can deliver what has been promised.


By the way, when starting this thread my only intention was to point out that some kind of Real Real-Time Engine could be a great addition to Blender, or to any 3D package for that matter. I didn't mean to refer to these Octane-like GPUaCceleratedProgressiveUnbiaSedPhysicallyBasedWh atEvFullSpectRal-renderers but some kind of game engine on steroids that gives good results really fast. I'm still kind of suprised that MatchStudio and FurryBall were the only ones I was able to find that have taken this route. (I'm really starting to repeat myself.)

What I still don't get is why people get so upset when someone says that their favourite renderer sucks or could be improved. I mean sometimes it seems that it's worse than telling you how fat your mother is. When mental ray was my renderer of choice I had no problem reading an anti-mentalray blog which in most cases pointed out its flaws that I had to deal with all the time. Some 3d artists should calm down and take things less seriously. Ten years from now and we'll be all laughing at the awkwardness of the tools we currently think are state-of-art.

Serialsiner
21-Oct-10, 03:47
Once again, I'm not a fan boy, I explained my reaction about this post and the first sentence I read. If I'd begin a post calling you jerks then say "I was just kidding", how would you react guys ?
I'm not opposed to renderer (or Blender) improvements and I would really be happy to have GI and fast GPU rendering but the way this post was introduced made me feel angry cause I think it was provocative and useless as rttwlr explained ... And yes my mother is fat and BI fits my needs.
No more posts on this from me ... See ya.

TylerZambori
21-Oct-10, 08:58
removed due to harassment from outside these forums.

callmeishmael
21-Oct-10, 09:43
Isn't it a bit early in the development of GPU-based rendering (At least at the PC level) to be calling for it to be implemented in Blender? There's also the fact that, as far as I know, GPU-based rendering for PC's is limited to NVIDIA products. While my hat's off to NVIDIA for its work here I'm leery of having Blender be dependent on NVIDIA's continuing good will for support of a major feature, particularly when the desires of the gaming community are a way bigger driver in NVIDIA's business decisions than we modelers will ever be.

cekuhnen
21-Oct-10, 10:20
Well I would say it would be a little unrealistic to move BI onto the GPU.
GPU code and CPU codes arent the same.
Plus then the question is which GPU do you support, NVIDIA and CUDA or openCL.

I would be more then happy when for example the compositor and fluid/smoke could be accelerated via the GPU utilizing openCL.

I think some people have the impression that GI always is slow - but when set up right it can render
very fast itself. Then the time it would take to imitate is nonsense and longer then rendering it with
the help of the GI code.

Modern approaches to that are pretty speedy when indirect lighting and color bleeding is what
you are concerned about. caustics are of course a different story.



rttwlr

I very much understand what you mean with 3d realtime based rendering.

Take a look at Autodesk Portfolio or Lumiscaphe Patchwork 3D.
This are 10k openGL based render engines which deliver not too bad results
for not software rendered.

Grafos
21-Oct-10, 10:23
There's also the fact that, as far as I know, GPU-based rendering for PC's is limited to NVIDIA products.
That is incorrect. Nvidia is using their own technology called CUDA fot stuff like GPU rendering. OpenCL rendering is not bound by such ridiculous limitations. Have a look at SmallLux:
http://www.luxrender.net/wiki/index.php?title=SLG

callmeishmael
21-Oct-10, 12:28
Thanks for the link, Grafos. It's good to know that there are solutions that aren't hardware-specific.