An argument for re-introducing Blender Internal in version 2.81 (or, 2.80 final)

(Martynas Žiemys) #81

YafaRay is a raytracer. I don’t think it is correct to say it was ever a competitor to BI. They are different kinds of renderers. I don’t think it is a particularly good advice to try YafaRay specifically as a replacement for BI. EEVEE seems a lot more comparable and appropriate. I cannot make much sense out what you said there - that’s all. I suppose it’s good to try other renderers that are different, see how they work, how they can match one’s workflows and YafaRay seems to be a nice option to try, but it is a different kind of a renderer then BI. One can expect a lot more realistic light from it at a cost of a lot longer render times same as with Cycles.

(carlosan) #82

Using Cycles branched path tracing & light paths Integrator = direct light… Can you get an equivalent result ?

(joseph raccoon) #83

I do wonder if some of the code savvy people around here could sit down and make blender-internal into an addon. It did have its uses although personally…I have no issue keeping several flavors of blender installed and switching as needed.

(kakapo) #84

i think many of you underestimate the amount of work it would take. it’s just not worth it. BI was very tightly coupled with the old blender code. you would have to recreate parts of blender 2.79 in blender 2.8x again.

the proposed solution of using scripts to export from 2.8x and render in 2.79 seem to be more feasible to me.

but it would be way better to push eevee to a point where it fully covers everything BI was able to do.

(joseph raccoon) #85

I agree as well, while I do have some ‘needs’ for BI, most of those involve exporters that I am quite content to keep them in their own blender install.

(jendabek) #86

The problem is that we also lose some elementary BI-specific features, like baking to vertex colors. There is just no way how to perform this task in 2.8.

(Romanji) #87

Doesn’t sound impossible to implement such an option into Cycles or Eevee.
Its an nifty feature one might need, regardless of renderer.
Actually I could use that in my current work, thanks for reminding me that there is such an option.

(jendabek) #88

I cannot live without this… I create models for an older game engine where I bake AO to vertex colors regularly. It makes whole lot of a difference in visuals without any impact on the performance.
But I miss more aspects of BI, like simple shadeless material. You can use Emission but I consider this somewhat “hacky”, as it is not exactly the same thing.

(Craig Jones) #89

As for Shadeless in Cycles/Eevee, the Images as Planes add-on has a built in option for selecting a Shadeless setting that results in a pretty good set up, and it has a node group you could probably keep around and reuse for that purpose if using Cycles a lot.

(jendabek) #90

Thanks, I know it can be solved, I just wanted to point out that 2.8 makes some basic tasks more complicated or even impossible without BI.
But in general, I just believe 2.8 should open 2.7 BI project flawlessly, ideally, some dialog could popup if you try to open a project using BI, like “do you want to convert old materials to Cycles?” (but it should work better than the current converters which don’t work well).
Maybe it is little fantasy, I know :slight_smile: But I am afraid this incompatibility will prevent so many users from using 2.8.

(Craig Jones) #91

Only the users that haven’t yet converted to Cycles already I’m afraid. Perhaps this could be scripted but it is too complex for my own python ability.

(Unreal3DFX) #92

Do not poke old horse, let horse rest in grave peacefully with 2.79

(William) #93

Cycles was introduced all the way back in 2011, with the eventual goal of replacing Blender’s renderer. We are now in 2019. This has been an 8-year long transition. That’s a pretty long time. All materials that have been created for Cycles in the past 8 years will continue to work.

On top of that we have Eevee now too - another replacement for the BI renderer. These also (mostly) can take advantage of all the materials created in the past 8 years in Cycles.

I’d say that’s a pretty slow and conservative transition.

(Shylon) #94

Please Guys, DO NOT WASTE your TIME on old blender-internal, just put your time on EEVEE and realtime. in realtime there is possible to do raytracing shadows lots of advanced effects, realtime also can utilize shader-toy if implemented.

(FreeMind) #95

If 2.79 worked for your projects since now, it will work in the future too.
Switch to 2.79 to maintain your old projects.
Switch to 2.80 to do something new.

Blender Internal should never ever return to blender.

(T.R.O Nunes) #96

He is talking of maturity, as in it is not good to compare renderer that is less than 3 years old (?) to a renderer with 25 years of development behind it.
What you are talking about is technology and function of the said engines, where yes it makes sense to compare since EEVEE is replacing BI.

(BluePrintRandom) #97

check this out

could something like FNode - > spit out the same kinda shaders as blender internal in 2.8?

(Martynas Žiemys) #98

My thinking is that if one just plainly said to someone who is going to miss BI that they should just use Cycles, that might upset them because these render engines are different things and Cycles usually produces more realistic lighting but takes a lot longer to render and that may or may not be desirable. This might not be a good recommendation. After all Cycles is already there, you do not need to do anything to discover or to use it in Blender and they still miss BI. So recommending or comparing BI to YafaRay that is more similar to Cycles than BI seems illogical to me. I mean where did YafaRay recommendation come from? Seems a bit random. Why not Cycles then? Why not LuxCoreRenderer? Why not Appleseed? They are all good options to try, but I think it is likely that people who use BI might want a different thing and EEVEE is going to be that. Well, that’s the goal anyway…

It also seems ‘25 years of development’ means absolutely nothing. Technology development moves way faster these days for these many years to matter at all. It seems the difference in 2.5 years and 25 years of development in individual render engines is blurry. The rendering technologies take long time to develop, not their implementations the way I see it.

(William) #99

A lot of people actually forget that you can set up Cycles to work in a very fast and simple way:

  • Remove all bounces
  • Disable all caustics
  • Make all lamps 0% size
  • Use transparent shader instead of glass
  • If using glossy, remove all roughness
  • light threshold = 0
  • don’t use volumes for fog, but a distance-based color ramp
  • etc

This lets you be able to turn the samples way down, and you can actually make Cycles very fast this way, if you limit it to the kinds of features the BI has. Cycles with, say, 8 samples is actually real fast.

In some areas Cycles then becomes faster than BI if you do the above.

With the BI, users had to manually turn on features in renderer and materials to make it slow. With Cycles, it’s often the opposite. You have to actively turn off features and create node setups that makes it faster.

(rawalanche) #100

I am so happy BI is gone. It was a living example of how an offline renderer should not be done. Not even back in the day, and definitely not today.