PDA

View Full Version : So Whos idea was it to remove Ambient Light?



dnch
01-02-2018, 07:42 AM
Because it was quite useful:/

MichaelT
01-02-2018, 07:53 AM
You can simply put a bit of illumination on the material you use to achieve the same result. I think they had to because they changed how the rendering engine is supposed to behave. I think it is OK really.. there are many things we need to do differently (and sometimes require more work) now.

dnch
01-02-2018, 07:59 AM
well.. illumination doesnt help if you need colored ambient light .. also if you have hundreds of surfaces

Snosrap
01-02-2018, 08:13 AM
It's for the best. Good decision. At some point I hope they remove all the lights on a "clear scene". Maybe in 2019. :)

dnch
01-02-2018, 08:34 AM
I dont mind it being turned off on default scene, but to remove it absolutely..

MichaelT
01-02-2018, 08:37 AM
Hmm, I think they need a light or the rendering engine would explode :) That said, I kind of agree on that. It is a bit annoying that I can't have an entirely clear scene, and add what I want from that. But it isn't a showstopper either.

- - - Updated - - -


well.. illumination doesnt help if you need colored ambient light .. also if you have hundreds of surfaces

Yeah I know.. but regardless. I'm actually happy they did what they did. Even if it means more work in that regard :)

rustythe1
01-02-2018, 08:59 AM
Environment light with no shadows?

Dan Ritchie
01-02-2018, 09:24 AM
Turn on a little fog?

- - - Updated - - -

Turn on a little fog? Adjust the blackness level?

gar26lw
01-02-2018, 01:52 PM
i used ambient a lot for npr stuff. not good.

JamesCurtis
01-02-2018, 02:08 PM
I usually turned ambient lighting down to two or zero for most of my rendering for my clients. Doing this I was able to more accurately get colors for my clients machinery for which I had to use stl models of for simulations. I relied on the lighting itself to get proper levels.

caustics
01-02-2018, 02:11 PM
Image Processing -> Image Filter?

Perhaps someone could provide a script to simulate the effect of "Ambient Light".

Just an idea ... personally I didn't use it, so no loss for me.

Chris S. (Fez)
01-02-2018, 02:21 PM
Follow Corona render's lead where all tone-mapping and image processing filters are visible in the VPR. This will massively make up for no ambient lighting, which is essentially just brightening the rendered image.

It is surprising it is not in 2018 already.

Skonk
01-02-2018, 03:15 PM
I only really used ambient for baking clean unlit UV maps with the surface baking camera. Setting the light to 0% and ambient to 100% so remove all shading.

Can do it now by other means but all requiring more work than the ambient trick.

shrox
01-02-2018, 03:22 PM
I used it.

gar26lw
01-02-2018, 04:32 PM
the message that is coming across here is that removing things that are not mathematically correct or considered unneeded causes a lot of unforeseen problems for users. artists use the tools in unorthodox ways and this was one of lightwaves strengths. i think ambient should be added back in some form.

what i am seeing, reading the forums is that there are simple and fast solutions in lightwaves workflow that are being replaced with more complex workarounds. that’s making lightwave slower and less lighwavey. too much of that over time will reduce its edge.

we need the more advanced features and nodes but please consider the fast workflow too.
the nodes button next to the simple solution was a great example in previous incarnations of offering both.

tyrot
01-02-2018, 04:37 PM
what i am seeing, reading the forums is that there are simple and fast solutions in lightwaves workflow that are being replaced with more complex workarounds. thatís making lightwave slower and less lighwavey. too much of that over time will reduce its edge.

try rendering a decent archviz scene with this new system... it is so slow that you remember 90s .. Thanks Otoy and Juan for Octane .. i still use LW layout because of it..

Chris S. (Fez)
01-02-2018, 04:50 PM
try rendering a decent archviz scene with this new system... it is so slow that you remember 90s .. Thanks Otoy and Juan for Octane .. i still use LW layout because of it..

2018 scales extremely well with more threads. Optimization is important too. But, yeah, Octane is great.

shrox
01-02-2018, 05:19 PM
the message that is coming across here is that removing things that are not mathematically correct or considered unneeded causes a lot of unforeseen problems for users. artists use the tools in unorthodox ways and this was one of lightwaves strengths. i think ambient should be added back in some form.

what i am seeing, reading the forums is that there are simple and fast solutions in lightwaves workflow that are being replaced with more complex workarounds. thatís making lightwave slower and less lighwavey. too much of that over time will reduce its edge.

we need the more advanced features and nodes but please consider the fast workflow too.
the nodes button next to the simple solution was a great example in previous incarnations of offering both.

I concur, I might not upgrade. I can get TurbulenceFD for a similar price, which would address my particle, fluid and fire/needs.

Nicolas Jordan
01-02-2018, 05:35 PM
try rendering a decent archviz scene with this new system... it is so slow that you remember 90s .. Thanks Otoy and Juan for Octane .. i still use LW layout because of it..

Some have said that converting all materials in a scene over to PBR instead of standard is supposed to render faster. I won't be able to try this out on a more complex scene until I have more time. I found leaving the materials as standard ones takes even longer to render with Monte Carlo in 2018 than it did in 2015 with the same settings.

Nicolas Jordan
01-02-2018, 05:40 PM
I don't use the ambient light feature myself but for those who need it maybe they could have ambient light default to 0% rather than 5% so PBR is accurate unless you want to use ambient lighting for some reason.

Snosrap
01-02-2018, 05:45 PM
for those who need it maybe they could have ambient light default to 0% rather than 5% so PBR is accurate unless you want to use ambient lighting for some reason.
That as well as a radio button to turn it on would be good. Even though I never use I think others have made some good points to put it back in. :)

dnch
01-02-2018, 06:37 PM
i use it for animations where i need relatively quick(which means cheap) renders, interiors with long flythroughs, also i sometimes use baked AO ..
oh and fast render check with the same scene without converting materials the render was 5times slower even without incompatible nodes and no reflection blur (which should make it faster)..

but it could be caused by different/more accurate lighting engine, I have lot of area lights in the scene (also the quality settings for render/lighting might not be the same, i didnt check if they translated from previous version)

- - - Updated - - -


Environment light with no shadows?

this might work

erikals
01-02-2018, 11:02 PM
new Fog works fine >
Render Properties, Volumetrics, Fog

https://i.imgur.com/VBUCPLt.png

a bit slower though, for the ones that use/used Ambient Light

i can see how the old setting could be useful for NPR

gar26lw
01-03-2018, 12:41 AM
new Fog works fine >
Render Properties, Volumetrics, Fog

https://i.imgur.com/VBUCPLt.png

a bit slower though, for the ones that use/used Ambient Light

i can see how the old setting could be useful for NPR

problem for me is that i used fog and ambient lighting, with different colours to match to an external render.

dnch
01-03-2018, 01:05 AM
fog, image filter and brightening in post doesnt work the same way as ambient light, as it just pushes blacks up, but it doesnt reveal textures and details in shadow areas, i think the only way is to use suggested enviro light with no shadows or render in passes

hrgiger
01-03-2018, 01:45 AM
I consider them removing ambient light a feature. Good riddance.

bobakabob
01-03-2018, 02:03 AM
This is a brand new physically accurate renderer so there's no need for that old ambient setting. I never used it ever. You could develop repetitive strain switching the default off for every light. It just washed out the scene in a really artificial way.
Don't have 2018 yet but in Arnold you'd sort with interior materials if appropriate or use an environment light for a more convincing approach, so LW equivalent should allow more flexibility if needed.

djwaterman
01-03-2018, 03:03 AM
This is a brand new physically accurate renderer so there's no need for that old ambient setting. I never used it ever. You could develop repetitive strain switching the default off for every light. It just washed out the scene in a really artificial way.
Don't have 2018 yet but in Arnold you'd sort with interior materials if appropriate or use an environment light for a more convincing approach, so LW equivalent should allow more flexibility if needed.

You only ever had to turn it off for one light and it would be off for all lights, so you would never have had that problem. For those that want it, try parenting a light to the camera pointing straight ahead, maybe use a point light instead, turn off it's shadow casting properties and any fall-off. This could serve as an ambient light that effects everything. That's the best I got.

dnch
01-03-2018, 03:31 AM
This is a brand new physically accurate renderer so there's no need for that old ambient setting. I never used it ever. You could develop repetitive strain switching the default off for every light. It just washed out the scene in a really artificial way.
Don't have 2018 yet but in Arnold you'd sort with interior materials if appropriate or use an environment light for a more convincing approach, so LW equivalent should allow more flexibility if needed.

the default value larger than 0 was bad, but removing the feature is bad too.. physically accurate render is nice, but it greatly slows down rendering ... and time is money


I consider them removing ambient light a feature. Good riddance.

just because you dont use it, doesnt mean nobody uses it.. removing feature is never good thing

gar26lw
01-03-2018, 04:15 AM
I consider them removing ambient light a feature. Good riddance.

don’t you use modo? hey, i don’t use edge weighting much, let’s remove that next cos it’s not needed.

gar26lw
01-03-2018, 04:20 AM
You only ever had to turn it off for one light and it would be off for all lights, so you would never have had that problem. For those that want it, try parenting a light to the camera pointing straight ahead, maybe use a point light instead, turn off it's shadow casting properties and any fall-off. This could serve as an ambient light that effects everything. That's the best I got.

thanks. as you can see, workarounds. we want to get away from workarounds in lightwave. personally i subscribe to the option so everyone’s happy and there is the ability to bend the rules.

hypersuperduper
01-03-2018, 04:23 AM
Can you use the Standard Material and bump up the luminosity like in the good old days? you will need to do it per material, but when I test it it seems to work more or less like in prior versions. and it updates quickly like the old VPR.

just turn off GI and all that jazz, and use a standard material instead of Principled BSDF.

gar26lw
01-03-2018, 04:29 AM
Can you use the Standard Material and bump up the luminosity like in the good old days? you will need to do it per material, but when I test it it seems to work more or less like in prior versions. and it updates quickly like the old VPR.

just turn off GI and all that jazz, and use a standard material instead of Principled BSDF.

thanks, problem the is you are editing multiple materials and that is bad ux.

i think the solution, atm is to use 2015.3 or something else with an ambient setting.

hypersuperduper
01-03-2018, 05:01 AM
Yes, one ambient setting is easier, but you can multi select all materials and adjust correct?
I used both the ambient light and luminosity back in 2015.3 for everything from flat shading to cheapo “GI” both solutions had their disadvantages ambient is good because it is only one setting. Luminosity good because it could be seen in modeler and adjusted per surface which was helpful when it cane to this sort of fakery.

samurai_x
01-03-2018, 05:12 AM
fog, image filter and brightening in post doesnt work the same way as ambient light, as it just pushes blacks up, but it doesnt reveal textures and details in shadow areas, i think the only way is to use suggested enviro light with no shadows or render in passes

This is very true.
For mograph and npr and other uses, ambient was pretty useful to avoid high render times because you can lower the bounce count and just use 5-10% ambient light that has no render hit and it affects global illumination to reveal dark areas and textures that can't be done in post. Its one of those tricks like putting reflection maps instead of relying on real raytrace reflections.
Oldschool tricks I learned from the masters that are still useful today when you need the fastest turnaround time.

dnch
01-03-2018, 05:44 AM
Yes, one ambient setting is easier, but you can multi select all materials and adjust correct?
I used both the ambient light and luminosity back in 2015.3 for everything from flat shading to cheapo “GI” both solutions had their disadvantages ambient is good because it is only one setting. Luminosity good because it could be seen in modeler and adjusted per surface which was helpful when it cane to this sort of fakery.

right, but you will struggle to simulate colored ambient light (which is useful for faking bounce light from colored floor for example)

hypersuperduper
01-03-2018, 05:51 AM
You would have to add it to the material color instead. No it’s not as simple as before , but consolidating these separate values into one controller seems like something a plugin developer could whip up pretty easily.

But you are right, it would be more user friendly to add an ambient light that only affected the “standard” material.
Ambient light and pbr materials seems like sort of a non-starter though.

hrgiger
01-03-2018, 08:04 AM
donít you use modo? hey, i donít use edge weighting much, letís remove that next cos itís not needed.

Edge weighting is not a faked feature like ambient lighting was.

And if anyone should remove edge weighting, it should be lightwave since they dont fully work.

shrox
01-03-2018, 08:24 AM
I consider them removing ambient light a feature. Good riddance.

Thanks so much.

Ztreem
01-03-2018, 09:30 AM
Edge weighting is not a faked feature like ambient lighting was.

And if anyone should remove edge weighting, it should be lightwave since they dont fully work.

If I go after how many times I used the different features they could remove edge weighting before ambient light. Ambient light was very useful for setting up quick ambient light for GI renders and of course for ambient occlusion rendering/baking.

RebelHill
01-03-2018, 09:37 AM
Environment light with no shadows?

Yep... this is the way to do it, enviro light, shadows off, affect specular off, visible to camera off. If you want flat colour ambient, then u disable sample backdrop, but otherwise, you can use a BG gradient or image, and have "ambient" based upon that, which you never could previous.

Airwaves
01-30-2018, 12:53 PM
I know this thread is old by this point but I wish the ambient light was there. I do not do complex scenes and it cut my time by sooo much but now I am kind of stuck trying to get lighting right. For example the scene I have used before I am struggling with.

139858

In the past I just had a distant light that shines through the windows and ambient light. I did not have to worry about a glare shining on the walls from inside lights. I used that lighting setup without any radiosity (tried radiosity once with it and just got lots of issues in 2015).

I am thinking of which lighting to work best in this scene? I have one point light right now but have tried a few other things. I tried making linear lights where the overhead lights are but ran into lots of glare on walls in all different places. I will keep testing to see what I can do that is basic and simple. This is about as realistic a scene as I get, lol.

Sensei
01-30-2018, 01:28 PM
Because it was quite useful:/

Indeed. User could set Ambient Light Intensity 100%, then the all Lights 0% (or disable them in Scene Editor), and have solid color pass..

jbrookes
01-30-2018, 02:21 PM
the message that is coming across here is that removing things that are not mathematically correct or considered unneeded causes a lot of unforeseen problems for users. artists use the tools in unorthodox ways and this was one of lightwaves strengths. i think ambient should be added back in some form.

what i am seeing, reading the forums is that there are simple and fast solutions in lightwaves workflow that are being replaced with more complex workarounds. thatís making lightwave slower and less lighwavey. too much of that over time will reduce its edge.

we need the more advanced features and nodes but please consider the fast workflow too.
the nodes button next to the simple solution was a great example in previous incarnations of offering both.


Well said. It would be a shame to see LightWave lose its quick work-flow advantage.

I'm still hoping to see the classic camera put back in there along with its low, medium, and high antialiasing settings. But that likely won't happen since (apparently) the new render engine can't do that.

tcoursey
01-30-2018, 03:32 PM
Yea unless I am wrong...they removed the entire OLD rendering system which was fast and award winning! Love heading to PBR but having options is crucial. I use Octane, so it's not an issue, but I wouldn't have upgraded if I didn't use Octane because PBR initial release is slow on my old CPU's....my 1080ti's x 2 are very nice though :)

Ever use Max, you have scanline, Ray something, something else...etc. Options :) Not sure what that means during development but to axe it all might have been a mistake, unless it's coming back in 2018.2 better. *shrug*

Snosrap
01-30-2018, 06:26 PM
because PBR initial release is slow on my old CPU's

It's not just the PBR stuff that is slow - try using Modeler in Weight Shade mode!

Sensei
01-30-2018, 06:54 PM
It's not just the PBR stuff that is slow - try using Modeler in Weight Shade mode!

Weight Shade in older LWs was made the same technique as Legacy OpenGL..

Texture/Texture Wired were accelerated using newer OpenGL functions.

Snosrap
01-30-2018, 08:06 PM
Weight Shade in older LWs was made the same technique as Legacy OpenGL..

Texture/Texture Wired were accelerated using newer OpenGL functions.

Well whatever - but why slower in new version. New version should equal faster/better. :)

gar26lw
01-30-2018, 08:14 PM
Well whatever - but why slower in new version. New version should equal faster/better. :)

like softimage ---> xsi

jwiede
01-30-2018, 09:37 PM
like softimage ---> xsi

Well, interestingly, customers who purchased XSI were given access to Softimage as well, specifically because Softimage, Co. understood XSI was initially less capable in certain prior-supported feature areas / workflows compared to Softimage. I really think Newtek needs to adopt a similar policy w.r.t. LW2018, where customers who don't already have access to 2015.3 are provided with it, in order to address needs of customers on versions prior to 2015 upgrading directly to 2018 and then encountering workflow limitations as a result.

jbrookes
01-30-2018, 10:13 PM
Yea unless I am wrong...they removed the entire OLD rendering system which was fast and award winning! Love heading to PBR but having options is crucial. I use Octane, so it's not an issue, but I wouldn't have upgraded if I didn't use Octane because PBR initial release is slow on my old CPU's....my 1080ti's x 2 are very nice though :)

Ever use Max, you have scanline, Ray something, something else...etc. Options :) Not sure what that means during development but to axe it all might have been a mistake, unless it's coming back in 2018.2 better. *shrug*

Yep. I use Max and Maya from time to time. You raise a good point! Why did LightWave 2015's scanline renderer have to be pulled? Couldn't they have left it intact? Again, LightWave is known for great looking output and photo-realistic imagery (and a quick workflow). Sure, Physically-Based Rendering is cool and likely an important direction to take things in, but why throw away a render engine that is both relatively quick and proven to deliver the goods for many an exceptional production while at the same time breaking compatibility with existing project data?

gar26lw
01-31-2018, 04:16 AM
Yep. I use Max and Maya from time to time. You raise a good point! Why did LightWave 2015's scanline renderer have to be pulled? Couldn't they have left it intact? Again, LightWave is known for great looking output and photo-realistic imagery (and a quick workflow). Sure, Physically-Based Rendering is cool and likely an important direction to take things in, but why throw away a render engine that is both relatively quick and proven to deliver the goods for many an exceptional production while at the same time breaking compatibility with existing project data?

i see 2018 isn’t in your fave waves list yet, ;)

vncnt
01-31-2018, 05:05 AM
Would 2018 be here if Newtek had to support all legacy features?

gar26lw
01-31-2018, 06:18 AM
yep

jbrookes
01-31-2018, 06:52 PM
Ah, you noticed.

Definitely more testing needed before LW2018 can make that list. It needs to prove itself in a number of departments (including sufficient render speed). There's 3D software for working out theories and there's 3D software for getting the job done quickly and efficiently.

And I agree with you, LW2018 could be here and still support legacy features. Anything's possible if your programming team is good enough and have the resources they need at their disposal.

Rayek
02-01-2018, 12:51 AM
Yep. I use Max and Maya from time to time. You raise a good point! Why did LightWave 2015's scanline renderer have to be pulled? Couldn't they have left it intact? Again, LightWave is known for great looking output and photo-realistic imagery (and a quick workflow). Sure, Physically-Based Rendering is cool and likely an important direction to take things in, but why throw away a render engine that is both relatively quick and proven to deliver the goods for many an exceptional production while at the same time breaking compatibility with existing project data?

I mentioned this too a while ago the second day after trial testing 2018 and its new path tracer. Cinema4d introduced ProRender as a new render option, but keeps the original render engine. Blender still has the old Blender Internal render engine alongside Cycles. In both cases this turned out to be a good decision, allowing the user base to slowly make the transition from old proven and tested workflows to discover new better workflows - without breaking old scenes and interrupting existing workflows.

Lightwave 2018's path tracer still needs more polishing, that's obvious to everyone here. Pre-2018 Lightwave scenes have to be converted and still need adjustments to make the most use of the new engine, and a number of features that are part of the old render engine (such as quick and nice looking caustics) are not (yet?) part of the new path tracer.

For Lightwave users the transition would have been much gentler if the old scanline renderer would still be an option to fall back on. And it would have been great to combine the strengths of the one where the other falls short. And it would have allowed Newtek to add requested render features and fixes and improvements in the render workflow, while allowing users to decide for themselves whether their render workflow could transition to the new path tracer.

Which really raises the question why Lightwave's development team decided to kill off the old render engine and not offer it as an secondary alternative? Seems a bit drastic - but then, perhaps it wasn't possible to have both renderers in the same Lightwave. Although the new open architecture seems to contradict this. Perhaps it was too much work for the team.

In my view it's a short-sighted approach, but I am no mind reader, and I am not a part of the development team. They must have had their reasons.

DogBoy
02-01-2018, 02:35 AM
Which really raises the question why Lightwave's development team decided to kill off the old render engine and not offer it as an secondary alternative? Seems a bit drastic - but then, perhaps it wasn't possible to have both renderers in the same Lightwave. Although the new open architecture seems to contradict this. Perhaps it was too much work for the team.

Because it isn't just that they implemented a new renderer, they also reworked shading completely. This is my guess the reason why the old one was dropped, so they didn't need to make shading work with the old engine. As jwiede says, NT could have made 2015.3 available to those upgrading from earlier versions, but they they chose not to.
The take away here is if you want ambient light, either use the environment light trick or go back to rendering in earlier versions.

RebelHill
02-01-2018, 02:45 AM
Which really raises the question why Lightwave's development team decided to kill off the old render engine and not offer it as an secondary alternative?

Because the renderer relies upon much of the other (unseen) architecture of the application to gather its information. The prime example is the new mesh system. A mesh isnt just this shape you see on screen, its a data structure, with certain attributes and linkings, and structure in memory, etc, etc. The renderer needs to be able to take in this data structure otherwise it essentially cant "make sense" of the mesh. The new mesh system completely broke the old renderer, the two were never designed to go together. To keep the old renderer with the new would have required a whole bunch of rewriting which would have been more time, more waiting for release and more maintenance further down the line, meaning more waiting for more releases.

Snosrap
02-01-2018, 08:06 PM
To keep the old renderer with the new would have required a whole bunch of rewriting which would have been more time, more waiting for release and more maintenance further down the line, meaning more waiting for more releases.

I agree 100 percent! Seems reasonable though that Mark/Antti could add ambient light back in.

RebelHill
02-02-2018, 02:55 AM
Enviro light, no shadows, no spec.

gar26lw
02-02-2018, 06:17 AM
or just dial up the ambient value :)