Thanks! I’m not trying to be a stickler, I just often don’t see any qualifying information behind “not industry standard” I will often hear “not mature” or “lacks features” but it’s nice to hear more specifics.
My frustration stems from the fact that I am using it, and it is working really well for me. But, I am not a blockbuster hollywood studio, so I don’t really run into many showstoppers like billions of polys or massive ram requirements in my use cases. But it keeps my clients satisfied, so it’s doing its job for me!
Hi guys, I was trying to watch a video of Marcos Fajardo, and saw a short film, Star Wars - Call of the Empire (Fan Film) , then I discovered in the Fajardo twitter account, even the full scene C4D, available for everyone. You could try to do the rendering with Cycles with C4D, better you could do a contests among all to see how it could come with Blender.
You don’t have to be a Hollywood studio, you just have to make archviz in bigger scale than home interiors.
Even Blender’s viewport performance is a pain for a bigger projects in some cases (I have more than 10.000 objects momentarily) in the scene.
Also think about the 144 textures limitations of current versions for CUDA.
Elysium had to deal with trillions of polygons, imagine that in Cycles!
The truth is that Cycles is awesome for small to medium size projects, but if you give it too big of a chunk, it will run out of memory and die on you!
Memory management is probably the most important part for large project when it comes to rendering, otherwise you just cannot render the scene, a trick is to cut the render in layers, but that brings other problems and limitations!
That limit has been lifted on Kepler cards (Geforce 6xx and newer) already weeks ago. You can now have 1024 HDRs and 1024 regular textures. If you want more, change 1 single value in the code.
Some of the more critical comments I’ve seen seem to be more directed at Insydium (the vendor creating the plugin) than the Cycles engine itself.
I did see some comments on CGTalk suggesting that some may not even know that Cycles is a Blender product (and almost assume that the X-Particles developer is the one behind it). The resident C4D users here should go and inform them that it’s free, open source technology from the BF.
It’s scary good how am gonna end up learning Blender without meaning to. I mean I can now comfortably model and sculpt in Blender, now am gonna learn Cycles to get ready. If Blender’s devs ever come up with something like Mograph/Mash it’d be my duty to learn to use it. If Insydium one day creates XP for Blender… then what? Hmmmm!!!
Also, Ace: I think you are confusing Thinking Particles with X-Particles which is actually made by Insydium .
If you scroll to the bottom of the page you’ll see this statement:
Is nice to see they’re interested in collaborating with the BF, and are actually donating.
Can we dream with having x-particles for Blender now…? :p:yes:
In about 15:15 minutes of the video, he shows trails. Then he selects Attribute > Trails.
How to achieve that in Blender?
You can bake an Emitter particle system and render it as Paths in Blender Internal.
By choïce, Cycles ignores all blender’s particles render types that are not Object or Group.
When you choose render type Paths for Emitter particles in Cycles UI; you don’t see Cycles Hair Settings panels.
So, apparently you can’t do it without an addon.
But here is my trick.
Bake emitter particles system.
Then, duplicate it by using little triangle menu on the right.
Now, you can change particle system type to Hair.
Hide one of the two particles systems.
Eventually, you just have to set-up your cycles material and animate path settings to obtain same result.
Of course, it would be better to just have to switch to Path render type to render emitters as hair for Cycles like for BI.
