Would you rather want a genuine new Blender feature or fake it (work around) instead?

I just want to see the level of discontent for new or existing features that some members feel they can work around easily or even do without, like these examples.

-Some like procedural textures, others think we should be required to make our own all the time or use photos
-Some like the native strand renderer, others think we should make the meshes ourselves
-Some like raytracing, other think the raytraced stuff is better off faked or other methods should be used

And your attitude towards possible new features that may or may not come soon, like

-A clouds renderer, some would like it, others would scorn it because they’d rather use a photo
-Micropolygon, some would like it, others would say it’s not needed
-Volumetric lighting, some would like it, others say it could just be done with halos and python

No poll because I don’t know how to do that.

as long as it is free, I will take anything I can get.

There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who don’t.

Well people will use what they like, so added features will not take away from others.

It seems like a loaded question though CD. So watch your back, the feature mafia will be after you.


Dude, you put so much freakin’ spin on those questions, you’d better make sure they don’t boomerang around and hit you in the back of the head.

i am always happy with any new features even if i don’t use them
because i know that someone need them . and may be a new feature become a reason to get a good new artists to blender land
and also new features meaning little and little gap between blender and his big brothers

so as long as it isn’t bother our great developers i would prefer new features than working around :slight_smile:

I really don’t get the point of this thread?

It sounds like you’re saying whether we prefer a full featured true effect, or a semi-functional workaround. I mean, who is really going to choose the semi-functional workaround? If the workaround was as good as the full feature, then nobody would make the full feature… You may as well just ‘fake 3d’ by drawing a cube on a piece of paper, using traditional drawing techniques like perspective and stipple shading… :rolleyes:

Whichever is balanced between speed and appearance. I never use raytracing in animations, that would take way too long to render. It’s not difficult to get all the features through quick work arounds, which sometimes actually look better. Though volumetric lighting would be nice, I will not use it if it has a hugely negative impact on render time.

Well, considering that it’s all fake, it really shouldn’t matter so long as it gets the job done within the constraints of the project (time, budget, etc.). The only thing that matters is the end result, unless it’s something being judged from a purely technical point of view. Regular, uninitiated viewers don’t (and shouldn’t) have to care about how the results are accomplished.

what the fuck.

I think that a feature is better then a work around, as long as the work around is not better then the feature. Lets say there is a new feature, but the work around gives you more options, that would not work.

-Some like raytracing, other think the raytraced stuff is better off faked or other methods should be used
Some don’t mind working a little to get the job done the way they want it done and as efficiently as possible, others want to just press one button and make do with what the computer gives them, no matter how long it takes to render.

Since “raytraced” does not even nearly equate with “perfection”, it’s incorrect to assume a good light set-up is an attempt to fake ray tracing. It’s actually an attempt to avoid the numerous and sometimes severe limitations of ray tracing. Effort can mean the difference between a carefully crafted Stradivarius and a mass-produced violin - where ray tracing is the quick and easy, mass-produced model of course.

It seems like a loaded question though CD
You think? :slight_smile:

hmm, as far as i know this thread originated from the Clouds Test by CD and now im sorry that i asked for the render time…

But i have to say CD You have a very strange attitude towards CG in general. The truth is CG is fake and it’s good that way, because using fakes mostly speeds up the work. It’s almost suicidle to make an animation with lets say indigo which will look real and physically correct but will be enjoyed by your grandchildren…

For such films like Pirates of the Caribbean renderers are developed utilizing special, custom fake techniques to get the right effect and decent complexity (render times). And before Shrek all the GI was faked by Ambient Occlusion and proper light setups (and it still is a mix of these 2 and “normal” GI).
Another example would be trees in the background as it’s mostly done with simple objects, like a couple of intersecting planes with alpha maps, because it’s a waste of memory to model them if they would look the same or even worse.

I’m not saying that GI is bad or gen3 is a waste of time, what i want to say is that ofcourse new features are great, but u cant say that using fakes should be banned. Drawing clouds in eg. GIMP takes me about an hour, maybe 2 to get it right for the scene. If making it with fake volumetrics and SSS takes a day to render, what would u choose ?

I treat Blender like any other software, it’s a versatile tool but it cant do everything, right ? and it shouldnt. Procedurals cant be used in every situation, that’s why it’s neccessary to paint textures, but that doesnt mean u cant mix both techniques, right?
The most important is (and it was said earlier) getting the right end result and it shouldnt matter if it’s faked or pure render. I highly encourage to read 'making-of’s of various pieces, especially not blender related so u can see that artists use fakes a lot.

Just to make myself clear, i love new features :wink: nodes were probably the best thing that could happen to blender and i cant wait for the QMC, tiles and new particles integration. I would also love to see a proper photon mapping with cache GI in internal. Micropoly displacement would be handful too, but some features like clouds or new image browser arent really neccessary for me.

  • Kroni

PS. sorry for the ridiculously long post, but some posts at the Cloud tunnel test thread really made me angry :wink:

Really well said kroni.

Personally, Im totally not against new features, I love em(its like christmas), even if I dont use em.

I also enjoy a bit of fakery and work to make my renders quicker, because who wants to wait any longer than they absolutely have to for an animation, or even a still(unless your using inidgo or something really fantastic).

I’ll take both thanks, and with good rendertimes If I can have it. I’ll go with a good fake over long rendertimes any day.