PDA

View Full Version : Lightwaves Rendering engine



Tony3d
10-21-2006, 09:42 AM
Someone told me that Truespace uses the same rendering engine as Lightwave. Somehow I find that hard to believe. The renderings from Truespace just don't seem to look as good.

Captain Obvious
10-21-2006, 09:49 AM
Hahahaha... ahhahahaha. :lol:

In other words (well, in words, I guess): NO, they do not.

Tony3d
10-21-2006, 10:08 AM
Wait till Chilton gets a hold of this one.

Chilton
10-21-2006, 12:33 PM
Hi,

Here's a little behind-the-scenes thing that happened. During my interview here, I showed one of the engineers a snippet from a movie I thought was pretty cool, on YouTube. They watched it, apparently as fascinated as I was. When it was done, they said it was good, but embarrassing. I saw magic. They saw imperfections.

Not only did they know, instantly, that it was rendered in LightWave (I didn't tell them), they also started rattling off issues in the render that they didn't like. Tiny things, that frankly I didn't see, myself. Over the next few days, I realized that most of them could pick out a render that was done in LightWave. In fact, a few of the engineers could tell which *competing products'* renderer was used for something.

Due to the amount of time our engineers spend obsessing over things in the rendering engine, I *seriously doubt* anyone else is using it. If they were, the 'it' they are using would fall a generation behind, about once a week. There's a reason LightWave's rendering engine is as good as it is--hard work, and a much deeper understanding of light, physics, math, and other sciences than I will ever have.

If *I* wrote LightWave, from scratch, it would have a great UI, lots of MacOS level hooks, and generally make everyone happy. Unless you wanted to actually make something. Using the product would be easy--it wouldn't actually do anything!

So it's really for the best that there are smarter people here, working on the engine. WAY SMARTER. Maybe we've licensed the engine to a third party, but I don't know about it if we did. And as far as I know, our renderer is not based on anything anyone else has. Despite what they consider flaws, our engineers are quite proud of the rendering engine.

I would be very suspicious of anyone who claimed to be using it. Unless they had an opened LightWave box sitting on their desk.

dglidden
10-22-2006, 02:44 PM
Chilton, feel like sharing the youtube URL for that movie?

Chilton
10-22-2006, 03:40 PM
Well, I was going to when I wrote that, but the particular scene I was referring to has been since removed. One of those 'don't put our movies on youtube' kinds of things, I guess. It was a scene from some sci-fi show though, as I recall.

-Chilton

Largemedium
10-23-2006, 12:27 AM
It was a scene from some sci-fi show though, as I recall.

-Chilton


Probably the opening sequence for Star Trek Voyager. LOL!! :D

Chuck
10-23-2006, 10:41 AM
We've never licensed our renderer; it remains exclusive to NewTek's 3D product line. It's possible that someone might feel that the renderer in another package is doing things similarly to what is implemented in the LightWave renderer, but it isn't the case that any other 3D application is using the same renderer.

Tony3d
10-23-2006, 11:00 AM
Thanks Chuck. I already responed to the person basically telling him the same thing.

byte_fx
10-23-2006, 01:34 PM
Kind of surprised no one has asked when the render engine guys are going to 'fix' the things they don't like.

Just kidding - for the most part.

But kind of curious what they are - and how they match with users' observations.

Many times I can instantly spot a LW sequence - with one provision.

There are a LOT of LW sequences that are done on the cheap in the sense that lighting and surfacing could be improved at the expense of render times.

In this business lighting, surfacing, and rendering take time and time means money. Money for salaries. money for render nodes. money lost when losing a new project because the current project is still in the works.

In the cases where those factors have been ignored the sequences can be quite good. Although they may still have a bit of a LW look it's not certain that LW was used.

All comes down to the effort expended to get a good image.

It's my feeling - although I'm not certain - that LW's render engine is a bit more fragile in that respect than others when photo-real (or better yet 'real') images are needed.

That's just my impression.

All in all I like LW's renderer - I've been using it a long time and have resigned myself to the overhead needed for ultimate quality - but it could use some tweaks.

byte_fx

Matt
10-24-2006, 03:56 PM
Just wondered, the award winning renderer that we know and love (as written by the 'old' NT team). How different is the new raytracing core that was re-written by the 'new' programming team?

Are we to understand that, technically, it's not really the same renderer anymore?

jameswillmott
10-24-2006, 04:26 PM
My hammer has had two new heads and three new handles, but it's the same hammer. :)

Technically as soon as NT changes ANYTHING about the renderer it is no longer the 'same' renderer.

The new render core seems quite different, seeing as it's based on raytracing rather than scan conversion, and it implements kd-trees rather than whatever the old renderer did...

bryphi7
10-24-2006, 04:39 PM
My hammer has had two new heads and three new handles, but it's the same hammer. :)

Technically as soon as NT changes ANYTHING about the renderer it is no longer the 'same' renderer.

The new render core seems quite different, seeing as it's based on raytracing rather than scan conversion, and it implements kd-trees rather than whatever the old renderer did...

yeah, but the old guys new renderer(modo) is looking superior at this point...from my few test anyway!

Chilton
10-24-2006, 05:58 PM
I don't pretend to know the differences between different renderers. But I do suspect that the specifics of how the rendering engine works, and to what degree we understand our competitors' rendering systems, is the stuff of trade secrets.

-Chilton

Matt
10-25-2006, 04:12 AM
yeah, but the old guys new renderer(modo) is looking superior at this point...from my few test anyway!

My point exactly! They had a real feel for quality, I wonder if the new team think in the same way. That's my worry.

Chilton
10-25-2006, 05:59 AM
I'm not going to comment on the differences between our renderer and any of our competitors.

bryphi7
10-25-2006, 06:18 AM
yes, nodal needs speed badly. It sucks having to hit f9 to test nodal!
Did I mention viper is useless?

Matt
10-25-2006, 07:33 AM
If I'm being totally honest, I NEVER use the native render engine for the simple reason - GI is far too slow.

I use FPrime exclusively, which means I'm still using v8, despite having v9. So all the nice goodies - new cameras / node shading etc. are wasted for me.

Until LW has fast (and I mean A LOT faster) GI, it's render engine is useless to me.

Not attacking NT, but this is the bottom line for me.

Matt

bryphi7
10-25-2006, 08:10 AM
I have said it before... g2 and fprime are a far better option then nodal and no fprime. The gi is useless, BG gi works ok when it can be used. The speed needs to be better all around...

Puguglybonehead
10-26-2006, 12:28 AM
Well, the new team has already shown they can improve the LW render engine, capacity-wise. LW 9 can now handle much higher poly-counts than previous versions (physical RAM allowing). That's one hurdle cleared. I think the speed problem will be addressed soon. Remember, they now have one of the guys who wrote EI's Camera renderer on their team. Camera is the fastest renderer out there. I'm sure that they will be able to improve the speed in LW's renderer.

Matt
10-30-2006, 04:35 AM
Yes, we wait and see, I do want to point out the new team have worked wonders in the time they've been together, can't wait to see what they do next!