Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 62

Thread: Why would not Newtek cooperate with developers of third-party renderers?

  1. #31
    'the write stuff' SBowie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The stars at night are big and bright
    Posts
    19,393
    Quote Originally Posted by pinkmouse View Post
    Wrong question. I think a better one is "Why should third-party renderers cooperate with Newtek ?"
    Oh, let's just leave it as it is. It makes it easier to identify it as a loaded question, similar to the ever-popular "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
    --
    Regards, Steve
    Forum Moderator
    ("You've got to ask yourself one question ... 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, spammer?")

  2. #32
    Man of many cells. shrox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Eureka, CA
    Posts
    6,962
    App gap. I liked that one...
    shrox www.shrox.com
    -----------------------
    Heavy Metal Landing


    -----------------------
    I build the best spaceships, the biggest spaceships, they're great, you'll love them.

  3. #33
    Why would Newtek not develop a native render engine?

    I would rather them not waste resources trying to be
    compatible with every single 3rd Party render engine.

    I don't wanna have to buy a 3rd Party render engine.

    I wanna know, whats so great about these render engines?
    Are they actually that great or is it just Trendy to be
    using what these large studios use. Examples Please, cause
    a lot of the work done in studios has post work all over it.

  4. #34
    I haven't used Vray or LW2018, so what is
    so different between the two render engines.

  5. #35
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Right here
    Posts
    1,533
    Quote Originally Posted by VonBon View Post
    I haven't used Vray or LW2018, so what is
    so different between the two render engines.
    Speed, quality, control, features (frame buffer post effects like glare and bloom), GPU support (all tough not yet there completely), ALShaders, sub-poly displacement, atmosphere simulation, outstanding hair rendering, cut-through rendering, great reflection shaders, camera exposure, ease of use and production proven, learning material / tutorials, lots of high qualy models and texture packs.

    I would say what LW2018 lacks most of these (for me) are speed, conductor / metallic quality, camera exposure, sub-poly and atmosphere simulation. Volumetrics seem easier in LW for me compared to Vray (but I haven't used both volumetric systems much yet).
    Last edited by Marander; 05-29-2018 at 04:26 PM.

  6. #36
    show me some examples.

    Post some pics of the Options panels.
    Post some pics of the same scene (if someone has access to both).
    post some render times.
    Last edited by VonBon; 05-29-2018 at 04:10 PM.

  7. #37
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Right here
    Posts
    1,533
    Quote Originally Posted by VonBon View Post
    show me some examples.

    Post some pics of the Options panels.
    Post some pics of the same scene (if someone has access to both).
    post some render times.
    I don't know if this is allowed according to the forum rules... but check out some site like Render&Beyond for archviz examples of Vray4C4D.

  8. #38
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Right here
    Posts
    1,533
    And not to forget in favor of LW, Vray alone costs as much as the whole LW package (depending on the platform and LWs current price).

  9. #39
    Currently I think its the best to wait how this AGE OF RENDER WAR (TM by me )
    will actually play out. If a render takes 32 minutes while the other just takes 28 minutes to
    render it, I do not care. Much more important is that they are reliable. That they scale with
    the complexity and their optimisation does not introduce artifacts on more complex scenes.
    (Unwanted surprises). Like LW 2015 did.

    Also to compare it with blender is a bit unfair, every new renderer wich wants to have a big
    userbase has to support it in some ways. Also workflow is a point. Some of them need you
    to go through a complex export path to get some results (= non interactive renderer)
    wich ultimatively throws you back 10 years.

    LW has the big advantage to have a renderer wich can somewhat play in the same league
    and with octane has a good gpu side coverred, wich is enough for the next 5 years
    to be useable.
    Until then we can see wich of the new and old fancy renderer will have
    a userbase big enough to be worth supporting (also pricewise)

  10. #40
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Right here
    Posts
    1,533
    Looking at the chaos group site - the list of products / supported platforms is huge, it seems LW is the only 3D application missing.

  11. #41
    pass:sword OFF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Russia
    Posts
    1,013
    Quote Originally Posted by raymondtrace View Post
    It almost sounds as if you think 2018 is a step back or a step aside. 2018 brings the PBR material workflow, which is used in other renderers. So you're oddly asking why NewTek is not cooperating when they're blatantly moving toward greater compatibility.

    Keep in mind that even though those other render engines you listed are compatible with Blender, Blender devs still focus on their own renderer(s). There's still value in that.

    I may be using the internet wrong, but I do see other renderers promoted by NewTek. https://www.lightwave3d.com/third_party/
    I do not think Newtek took a step back. I think that the logic of its development has not changed for a very long time and belongs to the past epoch. If you are not the manufacturer of some highly specialized product, such as DAZ 3d, etc. - there is no sense in refusing to compete with the best representatives of the industry. Such as Max, Maya, Cinema 4d and already even Blender.
    Because if you do not want to stand on a par with the best - one day you will be left behind forever.
    All software developers want to attract users - as a rule, you need to follow what users want. But Newtek tries to convince users that it's better for them not what they want, but what the company offers them.
    Six months have passed since the release of the new version of LW - but during this time there was not a single confirmation that some of the third-party renderers are preparing their versions for the new LightWave.
    The answer is not simple. In my opinion, this is because Lightwave has long established itself as a project with very slow and not deep development. That predetermines not even the outflow of old users, but not enough interest from potential users.
    I think that one of the factors of the breakthrough in this regard, along with the improvement of the program functionality and the correction of bugs (the third update is coming out, but the old Dynamics module has not been amended) is the company's own initiative to attract partners such as third-party renderers or simulators of liquids and gases, etc.
    Each new step in development today leads to the complication of already complex codes. No company is able to provide its users with all the necessary tools today. Which group of the same number of specialists will release, for example, a more perfect tool for dynamics - one that does this as part of a whole 3d program or one that does just this tool?
    It's not that bad specialists are in Newtek - the fact is that they can not break into all directions and make all the functionality of the level of the highest standards of the industry.
    Therefore - it is necessary to establish a dialogue with some developers, so that they write their plug-ins under the Lightwave. This and the consistent improvement of the modeling and animation environment of the Lightwave itself can have the most beneficial effect on the influx of new users.
    We all love Lightwave because, in my subjective opinion, that in the very beginning it was created under very good logic. But unfortunately its further development was only the exploitation of this logic with, for the most part, cosmetic changes. The farther away - the more painful it felt and so it continues to this day. Every time we get some small and very nice gifts, against a background of almost unchanged foundation.

    Why is there so much criticism right now, after the long-awaited release of a fundamentally new version of LightWave? Not because the new version is bad, but because in the very attitude to users and the development of the product, which many of us rely on in their professional work, lies unwillingness to reckon with the desire of users to see the LightWave as a full-fledged 3D product capable of competing in all major areas with industry leaders.

    As for the fact that the new Lightwave in combination with Octane renderer gives everything to anyone - it's not so, because, firstly, Octane has its limitations and I can not do everything through the Octane, which I can do through my native Lightwave render. Secondly, Octane itself costs almost 600 dollars (standalone+one license). But to this amount, you need to add about at least $ 1500 more, since you will most likely need to purchase rather expensive graphics cards (thanks to the miners!), A more powerful power supply or even make a full upgrade of the equipment. That today is quite expensive.

    So, the more modern tools, including third-party, will be used in lightwave - the better for us, users, and for the company, in the end. In my opinion.

  12. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Marander View Post
    I don't know if this is allowed according to the forum rules... but check out some site like Render&Beyond for archviz examples of Vray4C4D.
    I checked it out but I do think you can get that quality from LW.

  13. #43
    Just seen this, (Path Tracing with Optix's AI assisted Denoiser from Hurley Works) and I share it here :
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLvzAaNYDAs
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QmPWOxs_20
    Eddy Marillat - PIXYM
    WS : MB ASUS X299-Pro/SE - i9 7980XE 2,6ghz 18C/36T - 32GB Ram- 2 GTX 1080 TI - Win 10 64
    GPU Net Rig : MB Biostar - Celeron 2,8 ghz 2C/2T - 8GB Ram - 2 RTX 2080 TI - Win 7 64

  14. #44
    Dont' know why people keep asserting that GPU rendering is vastly more expensive than CPU is. You're getting a larger return on your dollar from GPU rendering than CPU. I just recently priced out a new AMD thread ripper system which is even cheaper than a intel system of similar performance. At least 3K and that's factoring in that I would keep my current GPU (1080Ti). On the other hand, I could spend another 1k to 1.2k and pick up another 1080Ti and just kill that new thread ripper system on rendering times. There's a limit to how much you can do in a workstation on CPU, yet GPU will continue to scale the more GPUs you throw at it. People also keep talking about the limitations of GPU yet despite that, the rise of GPU rendering continues to grow and more and more people are adopting it.


    There are some nice things about the latest release but I do think NT spent a lot of time throwing out the old renderer and creating a new one from scratch. Other vendors have been able to add PBR rendering to their renderer without throwing out the whole thing and starting over. And it didn't take them 3 years to do it.

  15. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by hrgiger View Post
    Dont' know why people keep asserting that GPU rendering is vastly more expensive than CPU is. You're getting a larger return on your dollar from GPU rendering than CPU. I just recently priced out a new AMD thread ripper system which is even cheaper than a intel system of similar performance. At least 3K and that's factoring in that I would keep my current GPU (1080Ti). On the other hand, I could spend another 1k to 1.2k and pick up another 1080Ti and just kill that new thread ripper system on rendering times. There's a limit to how much you can do in a workstation on CPU, yet GPU will continue to scale the more GPUs you throw at it. People also keep talking about the limitations of GPU yet despite that, the rise of GPU rendering continues to grow and more and more people are adopting it.


    There are some nice things about the latest release but I do think NT spent a lot of time throwing out the old renderer and creating a new one from scratch. Other vendors have been able to add PBR rendering to their renderer without throwing out the whole thing and starting over. And it didn't take them 3 years to do it.
    My testing shows that I would need 3x 1080 Tis to beat the 1950x in render time, a bit disapointed bout the render time for octane.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	benchmark.jpg 
Views:	113 
Size:	356.0 KB 
ID:	141900
    I'm a Norwegian photographer, check out my web site www.fotofashion.no

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •