EDIT: Since posting this, I have learned my way around cycles a little better and have changed my opinion of it. I am actually working ona project completly rendered in cycles and actually like it now. Stop bothering meabout my initial statment, as I realize it was impulsive and not thought out… I have retracted my statement several times…
Ok, so I just got an early build of blender with cycles… Cycles is cool because you can use it in the 3d window and it renders quite well, but as of now the materials SUCK!!!
You can’t use normal blender material!! It uses some sucky node system and is difficult to use… Texturing the objects with Cycles is near impossible!!
Overall cycles looks like it has potential, but they need to fix it ALOT… If the materials setup stays as is, then I may have to find an alternative to blender…
Oh no, don´t threaten to leave. Blender will never be the same without you. scnr
If you leave it for an external raytracer, which cycles is intended to be, it only has a tight integration, you´r welcome to do so anytime. :eek:
And as you opened a seperate thread for this, you´r obviously not aware of the huuuuge thread in general discussion about Cycles, where all this was talked about.
Sorry, but I completely disagree. The node materials system is much easier to use, is unified, scalable and much more flexible than having countless different panels to set the material properties.
Texturing is probably in fact easier than before as there are actually less steps to accomplish it. Look in the threads about cycles for examples.
Nodes are easier? lol how could you actually think that they are harder to use? The nodes system makes Blender even MROE special (not to mention well…everything else aswell…)
Using a nodes tree just about tripples the amount of customization that you can do with your materials. And because everything is Physically accurate the renders come out a lot nicer.
Honestly also, the normal version still exists…or did you not notice that little detail?
Quitting because of an external system is like no longer using Windws because they release a new version of Office lol
as they all said, its EXTERNAL, meaning this isnt the render engine USED by blender, its just extra IF you want it…meaning you will have the ability to use the old renderengine too, although thats about to be upgraded, you will still have the abilities as you had before, it will just look better, stop complaining about something you DONT have to have
Nodes are easy, and if you’re this angry about a free product and complaining about this new development that JUST CAME OUT. You’re then making yourself sound like a whiny over-privileged little baby.
And I’m with Arexma, who cares if you leave, doesn’t effect any of us. If anything the forums would be a lot cleaner if we didn’t have so much complaining.
And again, why would you need to redo ANYTHING? at all? It’s not like BI has suddenly dissapeared and gone forever. The next official updates on the BF website will not have it anyway. I cannot actually see a single reason for you to complain.
Currently the old system is also very good for fast semi realistic rendering
and general motion graphic design work.
Cycles is for me a much needed tool to close the photo realism hole in Blender.
In addition Cycles is actually really great when you want to see how you would need
to light a scene with the color bleeding and light bounces if you want to do it the fake way.
Use Cycles to preview and Blender Internal to light the scene.
Cycles is early in development, so you would naturally expect bugs, crashes, and feature incompleteness in general, there is a todo list currently in place and anyone can help code those missing features into the new and modern code-base.
It will not replace BI right away, it will only do so when it can do roughly everything BI can do (including passes)
The trend in render engine materials is going towards a node-based system, which is far more flexible and already the norm for some of the big commercial apps. like Maya.
Look in the side panel that has automatically generated options based on what nodes you use, a number of the texture options not exposed in the node-tree itself are in that panel.
Blender approximate ambient occlusion with indirect light is not bad for certain effects.
Light bounces and color bleeding together with smooth / blurred reflections and no fake specular
light shaders is what makes a lot of realistic renderings look just realistic.
Most non GI renderings simply lack the detail of light bounces - even when you watch Pixar movies
you can spot those dark gray areas.
Pixar’s Tangled is a good example of such a toon stylized rendering. The characters are well lid while
light flaws are not that evident but the architecture sometimes shows the light / dark area problems.
But if this is a visual problem - I dont think so, it is just a toon style and looks great.
The particular shot will look good and with the lighting method attention can be drawn to the object
of interest - but this might not really work that well for product shoots were realism is simply the requirement.
But the indirect lighting works mainly good when the mesh is dense which increases computation time
of the pass and each time you want to re-render it has to re calculate this pass.
this might be a good option for rather flat objects but already this object here would eat up more time
setting up lights so it is realistic compared to simply using a GI engine and having a maybe somewhat
slower finale rendering but a much faster setup-time.
The cynicism of this forum has some fun after all. Expected always, predicable.
gnomestudios is trying to say his opinion, he’s not threatening to leave, really. But if things goes wrong, as it already happened with the beautiful new UI then he probably has to find a better app. The new 2.5UI is wrong, you already realize this using cycles.
Pixar’s Tangled is a good example of such a toon stylized rendering.
Err, Tangled was made by Disney’s own in-house animation studio which is separate from Pixar, the same studio that made Bolt, so in essence Disney has two different animation studios (one in-house studio and one that was acquired)
