PDA

View Full Version : Vray news



Pavlov
09-03-2007, 03:36 PM
http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=47&t=535728&page=2&pp=15

Not what some hope, btw: fully native Vray integrated in another major 3D app. The only one missing beside LW.
This thread is not intended to raise a flame, the Vray thing is being debated otherwere and luckily Kray is a valid replacement an will be even more in the future.
I post because it's another signal of how much we're out of the rings, as always... shall this be an incouragement toward open-ess.

Bye
Paolo

Matt
09-03-2007, 03:44 PM
They'll have Vray for Blender before LightWave! I know it's just a paranoid view, but I sometimes feel we're being punished for using LightWave!!!!

Pavlov
09-03-2007, 03:57 PM
Enclosure keeps us from having most of the goods happening out there, on dry land.
3D world is very clearly about connection now, beside nice recent improvements, NT doesnt do a step in this direction for years and nothing is in to-do list.
I think everyone which not just "agrees" but feels damaged from the lack of openess should say something here. It's about telling NT something users need, nothing else.

Paolo

IMI
09-03-2007, 05:00 PM
Why do we need VRay? I can understand the point you're stating, but Vray is a render engine designed for an app with a far more symbiotic relationship with plugin developers. (Not to mention the fact that it's designed to "supplement" the built-in inadequacy of a program which costs four or more times as much as LW...)

Not that that's a bad thing. :D But LW's render engine is exceptionally good and comes with the program as a whole. May not have VRay Materials, but we have nodes. VRay is slow, too. Just ask the Mac people who are still waiting on its mere arrival. ;)

3dworks
09-03-2007, 05:06 PM
all the latest discussions shows that this becomes the main area of concern for everyone working with LW professionally. see all the threads about 3d file formats not supported (DWG) or import modules not being updated for ages (3DS format), sticky and only slow development of hooks for 3drd party renderers (fprime or kray) - but fortunately, for the last point lately some inprovement was achieved! finally, on the output side, still no steps into the direction of true multilayer and compositing ready output like it is found in nearly all other main apps on the market.

it would be a good sign if we see some improvements in these areas during the very next 9.x iterations, maybe this is even more needed than any CA tools updates. but of course, i'm speaking from the point of view of someone doing archviz with LW, so please, CA wavers, now don't flame too much on me ;)

markus

Pavlov
09-03-2007, 05:09 PM
IMI, i said explicitly this thread is not about the "we need Vray", the intention was brining another examples of how enclosure works against users excluding them from most market innovations. This hits not just Viz users like me or Markus, but all users in their respective fields.

Paolo

SplineGod
09-03-2007, 05:50 PM
Im sure that the makers of VRay can get the LW SDK and see what they can do with it. In the end Im sure that it boils down to how many people would buy it for LW to make it worth their while. With LWs renderer as good as it is Im sure most end users would opt to not purchase it.

Captain Obvious
09-03-2007, 07:43 PM
While the Lightwave renderer is probably the best of the in-house built-ins (ie, not mental ray), the idea that Lightwavers have no need for Vray et al is simply preposterous, and quite frankly a little offensive. Even if the LW renderer fills the needs of some, the assumption that nobody who uses Lightwave needs third party renderers is very presumptious indeed. Lightwave's renderer is good for some things, especially for a built-in renderer, but it can't be all things to all people. Vray is great for many things, finalRender is great for many things, 3Delight is great for many things, Maxwell is great for many things. FPrime and Kray, too. Choice is key.

There aren't many people in arch viz who actually use the built-in LW renderer for anything. It's just not very good at it. Even if the LW renderer is great for spaceships, it just doesn't cut it for buildings that look like spaceships.

Without third party renderers, I would probably lose interest in Lightwave. I don't really care if it's Kray, Lightwave or Vray, as long as it does what I need, and I do not see NewTek being able to tune the renderer to fit my needs. In order for Lightwave to be useful for me at the moment, it needs third party rendering solutions. In order for Lightwave to be useful for me in a year's time, it will need more third party rendering solutions with better integration, better integration and better support from NewTek.

I don't want to hear about how hard it is to communicate. Here's a suggestion, NewTek: Pick up the phone and call Worley! Call Grzegorz! Call Vladimir! If they don't respond to email, call them! If they don't pick up the phone, keep calling until they do. Send snail mail. Heck, you could even send a person over there to knock on their door and talk to them, face to face. Ask them what they need from the Lightwave SDK, and supply them with it. Lightwave cannot survive without third parties developing for it. This is not due to some failing on Lightwave's part, mind you! Maya or Max or what have you would not do very well without third parties, either. That is just the way things work. You need to play well with others, and you need to support custom or alternate solutions, otherwise you will end up either being marginalized and pigeonholed into the very small field you actually support well, or you end up trying to be everything to everybody. The latter will lead to failure.

I will repeat myself, because this part cannot be stressed enough:

NO ASPECT OF LIGHTWAVE WILL EVER FIT EVERYBODY'S NEEDS!

Us arch vizers need faster GI and ray tracing and instancing, etc. Film rendering needs better rendering of amazingly high polygons scenes. Game rendering needs great support for baking ambient occlusion and normal maps etc from high-res geometry onto low-res in-game content. Should Lightwave's built-in tools do all this? NewTek has only so many developers, and cannot make the renderer do all this. So what should they choose?

Instead, choose to build a proper SDK, making it easy for anyone who wants a fast GI & ray tracing renderer to develop one, and easy for anyone who needs a Renderman bridge to develop one. This is what Lightwave needs. It might not be what NewTek feel that Lightwave needs for commercial success in the hobby market, but if you want Lightwave to be taken seriously in the professional market in the next five years, you will need to work hard on this.

If NewTek has some big rewrite planned for Lightwave that will force a completely re-done SDK, then call up anyone who might be interested in developing for it and ask them for input. Learn from old mistakes. Don't be tight-lipped about it; nobody will benefit, especially not in the long run. The customers will suffer (especially studios), because we won't be able to make proper long-term plans. Third party developers will suffer for the very same reason. And in the end, NewTek will suffer when people start looking for alternate solutions.

In response to SplineGod's post about "how many would use it?", let me point out the following:

NextLimit chose to port Maxwell to Lightwave. They have quite a few Lightwave users. Probably not nearly as many as they have Max users, but that's hardly the benchmark. Yet of all the Maxwell integration plugins, the Lightwave one is by far the worst I've used. Why is this? It could be because NextLimit simply decided to make a crappy plugin and leave it at that, but that seems like a very sketchy reason.

This may sound overly critical, but keep in mind that the only reason I even care, is because I like Lightwave! I want to keep using it, but unless I at least see some sign that the issues I have are being addressed, I have no choice but to start looking for other solutions.

And, in closing, let me repeat one thing:

I LIKE LIGHTWAVE, AND I WANT TO BE ABLE TO KEEP USING IT!

SplineGod
09-03-2007, 08:26 PM
Newteks stated somewhere that they welcome the development of 3rd party renderers that work with LW. I dont think developing LWs renderer and making it open to 3rd party renderers are mutually exclusive. Newtek has already stated that they are and are continuing to improve and open up the SDK.
In the end the amount of resources each side devotes to this depends very much on how many people show interest and buy them.

Captain Obvious
09-04-2007, 02:20 AM
Newtek has already stated that they are and are continuing to improve and open up the SDK.
Yet I keep hearing third party developers complain about how the SDK doesn't support this and doesn't allow for that. They do seem to be working on it, but I would appreciate them being a little less tight-lipped about the progress.

Erwin Zwart
09-04-2007, 02:25 AM
In the end the amount of resources each side devotes to this depends very much on how many people show interest and buy them.

how many people bought FPrime? What amount of resources does each side devote to making sure that everything works 100% every release?
Advocate of the :devil:

Anyway, still waiting for a way to render with 3rd party engines within LWSN.exe without needing some unsupported hack like WSN.exe and with full access to all LW shaders, imagefilters etc.

Matt
09-04-2007, 02:42 AM
I've always been under the impression that VRay was fast and great looking, is that not the case then?

Iain
09-04-2007, 03:34 AM
Anyone who thinks the LW renderer is 'good enough' and we don't need anything else is just short sighted. You're deluding yourself, safe in the knowledge that it does what you need so it's fine. Progress should be constant in computing industries and no-one can rest on their laurels as Newtek found out 5 years ago.

Third Party engines are WAY ahead of what we have. Sure Kray might be there soon but the native engine won't.
VRay is only slow because it has top end features and produces very high quality. Like everything else it can be greatly speeded up through optimization.

We need to stop thinking that "our out of the box solution is the best so nah nah". If we stay complacent like that, we'll never be considered worth making render engines for.

Elmar Moelzer
09-04-2007, 03:52 AM
I want to ask a question here:
How well does Vray integrate into otehr apps compared to Fprime into LW?
I am under the impression (and correct me if I am wrong), that Vray and even Mental Ray are still suffering from very simillar, if not worse integration- problems (other than MR in XSi of course) than Fprime does.
So if Worley can do it with Fprime (even though he used some mean tricks), others should be able to do it for LW as well.
I think the biggest problem is, as Larry said (and I think he was a bit missunderstood here), that the market, while absolutely there (and it would be foolish to argue about that), might not be big enough to justify a great amount of development cost for a port.
It is always a matter of cost versus result. They wont port Vray to LW if the profit wont be signifficantly higher than the cost.
I am sure that the order of development for the individual packages is defined by how much each will gain them in revenue. So if the other packages provide a larger potential market than LW, they will get served first.
In this case LWs excellent built in renderer (and no it is IMHO not better for architecture than Vray is) is actually reducing the potential revenue from their investment.
Let me say it again (to avoid missunderstandings), I am aware of the lacks of LWs renderer when it comes to doing architectural viz and I am (being a 3rd party developer myself) not always 100% happy about the SDK, but I think that just blaming NewTek for the lack of 3rd party renderers for LW is not entirely fair.
That said, putting some more development time into building bridges to other apps would be a good idea. I do think however, that there are many other aspects of LW that should get attention first.
CU
Elmar

Iain
09-04-2007, 04:18 AM
I think that just blaming NewTek for the lack of 3rd party renderers for LW is not entirely fair.


I blame the users. A large portion of them being hobbyists, they don't need and therefore don't demand the third party support the professional users need.

cresshead
09-04-2007, 04:45 AM
one of the very good things about Vray is the realisitic materials that are avilable for it either free or in commercial shader packs from the likes of evermotion [which also make mental ray shader packs btw]

could be that if lightwave had a set of realisitic shader packs [nodal or old style] either for free or as a commercial purchase then lightwave woudl be held up next to vray more often in arch viz...of course haveing ies lights would help too!

...just getting a vray renderer without the ies lights for lightwave would be a waste.

scratch33
09-04-2007, 04:47 AM
I blame the users. A large portion of them being hobbyists, they don't need and therefore don't demand the third party support the professional users need.

90 % off blenders users are hobbyist I thing but there is a vray for blender...:D

Iain
09-04-2007, 04:48 AM
one of the very good things about Vray is the realisitic materials that are avilable for it either free or in commercial shader packs from the likes of evermotion [which also make mental ray shader packs btw]

could be that if lightwave had a set of realisitic shader packs [nodal or old style] either for free or as a commercial purchase then lightwave woudl be held up next to vray more often in arch viz...of course haveing ies lights would help too!

...just getting a vray renderer without the ies lights for lightwave would be a waste.

I don't get the IES issue.
It's a gimmick that only adds to the very occasional scene. You can fake it in LW or in post and you can use DPont's shader.

It's way down on my wish list.

Iain
09-04-2007, 04:49 AM
90 % off blenders users are hobbyist I thing but there is a vray for blender...:D

That's because Blender is very easy to port to. LW isn't.

cresshead
09-04-2007, 04:52 AM
I don't get the IES issue.
It's a gimmick that only adds to the very occasional scene. You can fake it in LW or in post and you can use DPont's shader.

It's way down on my wish list.


ies is no gimmick....it's been used in architecture visualisations for around 10years....gives a correct lightwash

lightscape..studio viz...

Iain
09-04-2007, 05:02 AM
ies is no gimmick....it's been used in architecture visualisations for around 10years....gives a correct lightwash



If it's not a gimmick, how could people do arch viz for the last 10 years without it?
It's not essential to my workflow and I'd rather have fast, accurate GI with proper light spread before anything like that.

Pavlov
09-04-2007, 05:10 AM
Elmar, i point out again argument was not intended to be merely rendering related, but in past years i've been in contact with most engine developers and a diffuse opinion is that developing for Lw is a lot harder and a lot more limited than for other platforms. Porting of some tools would be possible but often it would result in cut-off versions. Regarding Vray, how would they implement their own lighting ? how about distributed rendering ? these are objectively sdk limits.

Paolo

SP00
09-04-2007, 05:21 AM
Wouldn't it be better and probably our best bet to get Newtek to improve its native renderer to be equal to Vray's? Whether by including realistic node materials or providing higher quality GI at faster speeds.

Iain
09-04-2007, 05:24 AM
Wouldn't it be better and probably our best bet to get Newtek to improve its native renderer to be equal to Vray's? Whether by including realistic node materials or providing higher quality GI at faster speeds.

Well yes and they are but you're missing the point.

We would ALSO like access to high end render engines. Or more appropriately, we'd like them to be able to access LW.

Lewis
09-04-2007, 05:25 AM
That's because Blender is very easy to port to. LW isn't.

Hi Ian !

1. you CAN'T fake IES with LWs native lights (I'm working with IES every day for last 6 months and that's not possible. I can prove you at dozens of scenes especially when you need real results. Currenty Dpont IES Kit is my saviour (otherwise i would need to switch to MAX) but it's not good enough for scnese with many lights (i.e. recently i had to put 1800 LED lights (proper IES from Philips LedLine2 series) to Bridge and it's PITA to work on them since with DPKit you need to clone one by one 'coz you can't clone object/light in same time with multiselections :( ). Workaround is very crazy hierarchy list of objects/lights+null objects and then clone hierarchy of that but it's tedious to setup all that at first. If we could get native IES support i could easily clone/move lights with LSCRIPTing it wiht LSCommander and just hitting execute to repeat my steps or just select pultiple lights and hit copy XXX and move.

2. If is LW port so hard how come that FRY is ported so nicely to LW then ?

cheers

P.S. And to be clear I'm all for it to be ported but i think it's not NTs fault 'coz we don't have VRAY since we have several 3rdparty renderers so it's obviously doable.

SP00
09-04-2007, 05:32 AM
Is Vray better than Kray? If they are very close, I can see why Vray is avoiding LW, due to competition and the lower cost of Kray.

Iain
09-04-2007, 05:38 AM
Well Lewis, I have been faking IES using two LW spotlights for years but I take your point.
I've never had to accurately portray 1800 IES lights. I don't imagine it would be easy in max either though.
LW has never been the tool of choice for real world accuracy.

As for easy porting, I can only take others' word on that but I've just tried to export a medium sized scene to Fry and it's crashed 8 times.
Maxwell's LW plug in is well documented in it's crapness.

FPrime is still limited in it's LW access as is KRay.

Pavlov
09-04-2007, 05:39 AM
Lewis - Fry is not exactly ported. It has an exporter plugin which save all data and send them to Fry. The same wil be doable with Vray standalone, probably.
Vray need a much tighter integration to give its boost, it need its lights, a proper network manager and so on. Otherwise we would have seen it long time ago. Same limits which hits kray development, since network rendering needs a better LWSN.

Paolo

Lewis
09-04-2007, 06:08 AM
Pavlov - I know how FRY works in LW I saw videos and i might say it works pretty fine and you have FRY Camera which proves my theroy that NT did good part on providing SDK since now you can add new cameras/renderers inside of LW. It's possible but as many mentioned it's just question how much they (VRAY makers) will get $$$ after port :).

And here is Few "EASY" samples for Ian to fake. Can you show me how wuold would fake this with LW native lights, especialy just two as you say :) :)? Both of those are singe IES data/light and 2nd one is Schreder Furyo3 highway/bridges lamp with what i'm currently rendering 3000*1500 bridge simulation and it's asymetrical :). Show me how to fake that and then i'll send you complete exterio building comparison of facade lighting wher ei noted what is the problem wiht faking IES in LW.

P.S. I know not many Arch guys use LW for aarchitecture but as i said it would be possible with native IES/light support and pretty fast if i may say wiht new GI which will be further updated in 9.x

Iain
09-04-2007, 06:28 AM
And here is Few "EASY" samples for Ian to fake. Can you show me how wuold would fake this with LW native lights, especialy just two as you say :) :)?

Umm..........I'd use four spotlights for those.

Captain Obvious
09-04-2007, 06:59 AM
Wouldn't it be better and probably our best bet to get Newtek to improve its native renderer to be equal to Vray's? Whether by including realistic node materials or providing higher quality GI at faster speeds.
Well, Vray isn't the end-all be-all of rendering. It has several weak points, speed being one of them. I'd argue that Lightwave's own renderer is already a lot faster and better than Vray at scenes without heavy ray tracing. Vray only shines when you have blurred reflections instead of specular highlights, GI, etc, the exact areas Lightwave's renderer falls down at.

NewTek have obviously improved the SDK, and there are a few things that really are quite cool. The fact that nodes and cameras work in FPrime and Kray is a good example. The fact that nodes and cameras often cause FPrime and Kray to crash is a good example of how it might need improvement. The fact that adding new UI elements is always a dirty hack is a good example of how it might need improvement. For example, for assigning Maxwell materials in Lightwave, you have to add a shader, and then set that up, because the only way to add a new element to the material UI is to do it via a shader.

SP00
09-04-2007, 08:18 AM
I would like to see some comparison. Does anyone have a common scene they can render in Max (vray) and LW9.3 (native) to compare. It would really clear things up.

Iain
09-04-2007, 08:25 AM
http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?t=72492


There were comparison links near the end of this thread.

Lewis
09-04-2007, 08:47 AM
Umm..........I'd use four spotlights for those.

Mee too but it won't work (i tryed several tricks in past and failed every time :() - notice how 2nd light is asymetrical and not burnt and light is just 30-50cm from wall. LW current native solution will burn it (wall/texture) and not have proper shape. Try it please :).

Iain
09-04-2007, 09:59 AM
Mee too but it won't work (i tryed several tricks in past and failed every time :() - notice how 2nd light is asymetrical and not burnt and light is just 30-50cm from wall. LW current native solution will burn it (wall/texture) and not have proper shape. Try it please :).

If someone asked me for that and I gave them this and they said that's not that-it's not all wobbly and assymetrical, I'd say f*** off you pedantic w***** I never claimed to do that s***!
Then I'd do this: :) just so there wer no hard feelings :thumbsup:

cresshead
09-04-2007, 10:41 AM
nice 'hack':devil: :D

Iain
09-04-2007, 10:46 AM
It is a hack but it renders in no time and you can just copy and paste them as a group.

Honestly, I've done about a hundred renders using fake IES. Nobody I've ever worked for would have any clue. All they see is a nice picter.

Intuition
09-04-2007, 10:48 AM
I mentioned this in another thread but.... even XSI doesn't have Vray before Blender.

So, don't feel totally left out.

Lewis
09-04-2007, 10:57 AM
If someone asked me for that and I gave them this and they said that's not that-it's not all wobbly and assymetrical, I'd say f*** off you pedantic w***** I never claimed to do that s***!
Then I'd do this: :) just so there wer no hard feelings :thumbsup:

Not good enough (doesn't look lime my 2nd render which is rendered in 7- seconds also) and I'd need screen grab form LW to see is it without DPKit ;) :) :D :p

IMI
09-04-2007, 03:15 PM
IMI, i said explicitly this thread is not about the "we need Vray", the intention was brining another examples of how enclosure works against users excluding them from most market innovations. This hits not just Viz users like me or Markus, but all users in their respective fields.

Paolo

I apologize. I misunderstood your post. :)

creacon
09-04-2007, 03:38 PM
I'm afraid that I don't agree because we tried VRAY. Everything went well until we started to make fake hair using different transparency mapped layers one on top of the other (this is a very old trick).
Rendertimes with VRAY went skyhigh. We went back to LW render and it rendered without problems. Not to mention FPrime which was even faster.

needless to say that the grass is always greener at the other side of the hill.




Anyone who thinks the LW renderer is 'good enough' and we don't need anything else is just short sighted. You're deluding yourself, safe in the knowledge that it does what you need so it's fine. Progress should be constant in computing industries and no-one can rest on their laurels as Newtek found out 5 years ago.

Third Party engines are WAY ahead of what we have. Sure Kray might be there soon but the native engine won't.
VRay is only slow because it has top end features and produces very high quality. Like everything else it can be greatly speeded up through optimization.

We need to stop thinking that "our out of the box solution is the best so nah nah". If we stay complacent like that, we'll never be considered worth making render engines for.

Iain
09-05-2007, 02:15 AM
I'm afraid that I don't agree because we tried VRAY. Everything went well until we started to make fake hair using different transparency mapped layers one on top of the other (this is a very old trick).
Rendertimes with VRAY went skyhigh. We went back to LW render and it rendered without problems. Not to mention FPrime which was even faster.

needless to say that the grass is always greener at the other side of the hill.

It's not a case of the grass being greener. I know LW is better for some things so I want both.
What's wrong with having options?

We're back to the old "how dare you say other applications are useful too" argument.
I want a render engine that can do all the things LW can't. I have Maxwell but it's slow. Kray seems to be a good option but even it's beta testers agree it's not at VRay's level yet.

Iain
09-05-2007, 02:32 AM
Not good enough (doesn't look lime my 2nd render which is rendered in 7- seconds also) and I'd need screen grab form LW to see is it without DPKit ;) :) :D :p

Not good enough for what? For whom? I didn't use DPKit and it took about 4 minutes to set up so I'm sure I could get closer to yours but that's my point; yours looks like an error even though it is based on technical data. IES are for those people who use a RI of 1.51 for glass even when 1.4 would look better (namely Max users:) ).

Builders don't build to visualisations so in my book, if it looks right, it is right. If you need more than that you shouldn't be using LW. It's not up to the job of technical accuracy and that's certainly not just the case with IES. It doesn't simulate sunshine and daylight accurately, never mind halogen bulbs.

Anyway, I would welcome IES support in any of my render engines. My initial point was it's just not near the top of my priority list.

RedBull
09-05-2007, 02:35 AM
In the case of Vray I've seen no evidence that Vray could not be supported, By LW's SDK... Fry, Maxwell, Kray seem to manage okay now as it is...

So i imagine this is an Evermotion issue and perhaps seeing C4D as a bigger potential market for there plugin. Although in the case of C4D, they did go to a lot of effort with Vray/Final Render and others to allow a much better level of integration for third parties a few years back.

Personally i think with plugins like Kray in development, it's not really needed.
But (that's for me personally) If i really needed Vray for a job I would price it into the job and i would look at buying either standalone or a C4D edition.
And make the client pay for it today, rather than wish upon an Evermotion plugin.. Problem solved... :)

Personally i look at the difference in price and feature quality between Vray and Kray and i cannot see the extra worth. (Vray being twice the price)
Waiting for something to eventuate, which even if done would be quite expensive and possibly limited compared to other applications that already have it.
Anyway i keep getting the feeling these messages would be best suited to an Evermotion forum, if people seriously wanted Vray for Lightwave..

Lewis
09-05-2007, 02:51 AM
Not good enough for what? For whom? I didn't use DPKit and it took about 4 minutes to set up so I'm sure I could get closer to yours but that's my point; yours looks like an error even though it is based on technical data. IES are for those people who use a RI of 1.51 for glass even when 1.4 would look better (namely Max users:) ).

Builders don't build to visualisations so in my book, if it looks right, it is right. If you need more than that you shouldn't be using LW. It's not up to the job of technical accuracy and that's certainly not just the case with IES. It doesn't simulate sunshine and daylight accurately, never mind halogen bulbs.

Anyway, I would welcome IES support in any of my render engines. My initial point was it's just not near the top of my priority list.

1. Not good enough i.e not 100% correct techically - that's my point :). And Be sure that my render of FURYO3 Schreder lamp is NOT an ERROR :). That's their data and their lamp so i bet they know what they are doing ;).

2. My company does lighting (install, sell and even design/produce some samll amount of them) and before you can sell 50-100k EUR worth lamps to building facade/bridge/park/street client surely want's to see it before since there is so many different laps/filters/lenses in current Halogen, metal halogen, neon... lights that is very important to see even small difference. And contrary to your belief (tha ti shouldn't use LW) it does look accurate after rendering it and fixing those lights in real life. I see that everyday for last 18 months when i started to freelance for this company but before DP Kit i was just modleing and they were rendering it in MAX. Now since DPKit come out they hired me to do both and MAX is history here :).

3. About priority list. I agree it maybe isn't on top of YOUR list but it is on my so who is right :)? Everyone have different needs but who can say which one is right or which one should be on TOP :)? Since we all agree LW needs new lighting system why not include IES on start then? seems like resonable request and easier one than getting VRAY for LW since that don't depends on NT only and IES does :).

RedBull
09-05-2007, 03:02 AM
Why would this be Evermotion's problem and why should it be on their forums? When it's Chaosgroup (http://www.chaosgroup.com/) who makes Vray :p

Evermotion sells 3dsMax (VRay) content, such as models, textures etc.

Heh, Yeah i had a feeling that it wasn't right when i wrote it, thanks for the correction.

Iain
09-05-2007, 03:08 AM
1. Not good enough i.e not 100% correct techically - that's my point :). And Be sure that my render of FURYO3 Schreder lamp is NOT an ERROR :). That's their data and their lamp so i bet they know what they are doing ;).

3. About priority list. I agree it maybe isn't on top of YOUR list but it is on my so who is right :)? Everyone have different needs but who can say which one is right or which one should be on TOP :)?

I said it looks like an error even though it was right. I was talking aesthetics.
If you work for a firm that sells those lights then they would need accuracy I agree, but there are programs out there much better suited to this than LW. Max does immediately come to mind.
If I did work like that daily, I'd stop saying "I'd like this feature max has but I don't want to switch" and I'd switch. Simple as that.
DPKit is great but it's a workaround.

I wasn't saying my priority list is more important than anybody elses, I was just questioning the rationale that VRay without IES would be pointless.

Lewis
09-05-2007, 03:16 AM
Ok Iain all good :) I understand you and i agree it would be good to have all 3rd party renders available for LW in future :).

P.S. Id probabl yneed to switch to MAX for that but since I'm 5x times faster in modeling in LW than in MAX so i'd still need to use both and from tests we made here this DP kit looks same as it looks in MAX (accuracy vise) so no need for switch. MAX IES is anyway just what is left (acquired) from Lightscape which once worked great wiht LW :(.

And about daily work - Since you need VRAY more than I do (and many users here from what I can read) why don't you make switch to MAX then :) :)? It's not simple as - right :)?

Iain
09-05-2007, 03:22 AM
And about daily work - Since you need VRAY more than I do (and many users here from what I can read) why don't you make switch to MAX then :) :)? It's not simple as - right :)?

Ah but I don't need to. I can get by using LW and FPrime but I still think VRay is great.
If I can have it for LW without going through a massive development curve that would be great. In the meantime, I'll be buying Kray shortly (all going well).

Lewis
09-05-2007, 03:33 AM
That's what i like ot hear, go for KRAY :). I'm also waiting for KRAY but still need latest Demo to show my Boss is it worth for us :).

Pavlov
09-05-2007, 04:14 AM
Guys, remember the fact thread was not directly Vray related.
Openess shows its advantages in other directions too. What about CA ?
Why, in your opinion, CAT or many other awesome tools for animation have not been implemented in LW ? Why each major tool ported to LW has to pass through cutdowns to fit LW spaces ?
For sure engine is a crucial part of any app and the vastwe choice of engines popping out reveals clearly there's a need in the market, but issue is larger than that.

Paolo

Lewis
09-05-2007, 04:32 AM
Guys, remember the fact thread was not directly Vray related.
Paolo

Thread named "VRAY NEWS" isn't directly Vray related :). Are you kidding Paolo :)?

Ztreem
09-05-2007, 05:37 AM
Even if Chaosgroup is the maker of V-ray it seems like they only do the 3DMAX version. ASGVIS is the company behind V-ray for Rhino and ScetchUp.
They also have vote poll on their site for wich app you want to see V-ray for. http://www.asgvis.com/

creacon
09-05-2007, 05:51 AM
Options are always good. but that was not my point, I said what our experience in production was and you can only judge a product if you really have used it in a production environment.

LW renderer has its drawbacks but as of 9.3 there are far less then before.
I was just stating that you'll find VRAY has drawbacks too.

Can you elaborate on what you want from a renderer that the LW renderer can't do?

creacon


It's not a case of the grass being greener. I know LW is better for some things so I want both.
What's wrong with having options?

We're back to the old "how dare you say other applications are useful too" argument.
I want a render engine that can do all the things LW can't. I have Maxwell but it's slow. Kray seems to be a good option but even it's beta testers agree it's not at VRay's level yet.

Pavlov
09-05-2007, 07:49 AM
ehehe Lewis - partially true, the title was to catch attention... if you read the entire post anyway, i've been explicit from the beginning, but it's ok.. important is open-ess issue gets discussed somehow.

bye
Paolo

Iain
09-05-2007, 08:03 AM
Can you elaborate on what you want from a renderer that the LW renderer can't do?

creacon

Bucket and network rendering options.
Higher Quality AntiAliasing (Even in high contrast materials!).
Tone Mapping.
Displacement and Fur/Grass features that work and are useful.
Better clarity material reproduction that is not so reliant on bright light sources and close up cameras.
Photon Mapping options.
IES support.
Accurate and predictable Caustics and Volumetrics.

I could get a lot of that from Kray but not all.