View Poll Results: Cycles for LightWave ?

Voters
36. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    30 83.33%
  • No

    2 5.56%
  • Maybe

    4 11.11%
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 44 of 44

Thread: Cycles for LightWave

  1. #31
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Right here
    Posts
    1,698
    Quote Originally Posted by erikals View Post
    - it is cheap
    - yes, it is implemented into a future Blender version
    Actually maybe there's a confusion and the dev meant it will be available for the main Blender version instead of a separate fork. Not free.

  2. #32
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Right here
    Posts
    1,698
    Quote Originally Posted by prometheus View Post
    So...You purchased it? just curious in such case to why..isn┤t eCycles supposed to be implemented in future blender versions? and if you say it is that expensive, it will probably not be of interest for me.

    Good info though, but how does it handle volumetrics?
    Sorry didn't see your volumetrics question before, yes it works with volumes just like Cycles.

    Haven't really done volume speed comparisons but on a dual RTX setup, Ryzen 3950X 16C/32T, 64GB, E-Cycles is very fast, also for built-in Blender volumes like Smoke Domain.

  3. #33
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Right here
    Posts
    1,698
    I upgraded E-Cycles to the RTX 2020 version amd asked the dev about the Blender integration, here's his answer :

    "About the possible integration in Blender, it was indeed promised for the first release back in early 2019. To make a complexe thing short, the "risk as a user" if any is that the comparative speed-up goes from 2x to 1.8x on the 2019 version, but the 2020 version is already faster anyway."

    In my opinion E-Cycles is worth it for any Blender user.

  4. #34

    cool, thanks, couldn't find the quote.

    In my opinion E-Cycles is worth it for any Blender user.
    Absolutely.
    LW vidz   DPont donate   LightWiki   RHiggit   IKBooster   My vidz

  5. #35
    Electron wrangler jwiede's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    6,735
    Quote Originally Posted by Marander View Post
    I upgraded E-Cycles to the RTX 2020 version amd asked the dev about the Blender integration, here's his answer :

    "About the possible integration in Blender, it was indeed promised for the first release back in early 2019. To make a complexe thing short, the "risk as a user" if any is that the comparative speed-up goes from 2x to 1.8x on the 2019 version, but the 2020 version is already faster anyway."
    That's a nice non-answer on their part.
    John W.
    LW2015.3UB/2019.1.4 on MacPro(12C/24T/10.13.6),64GB RAM, NV 980ti

  6. #36
    RETROGRADER prometheus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    sweden stockholm
    Posts
    15,904
    Quote Originally Posted by Marander View Post
    Sorry didn't see your volumetrics question before, yes it works with volumes just like Cycles.

    Haven't really done volume speed comparisons but on a dual RTX setup, Ryzen 3950X 16C/32T, 64GB, E-Cycles is very fast, also for built-in Blender volumes like Smoke Domain.
    My question was a bit ambigueous, I know it it works with the volumetrics, the question should be how well and fast compared to ordinary cycles, I think
    But I think Brent Alleyne has a coverage of that in his youtube channel, a lot of cycles ecycles comparison.

  7. #37
    RETROGRADER prometheus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    sweden stockholm
    Posts
    15,904
    Quote Originally Posted by Marander View Post

    Cycles in LW I don't see that happen. I know there are some development efforts buy a guy but that doesn't look convincing me at all. I use Cycles4D since beginning I have an idea much development a good integration means. And why do you think automatically eCycles should be there too in this LW bridge jst be caused it would be part of Blender?

    That is the feeling I have too as well, I hope he can prove us wrong though, I do not want to discourage the development of it..if he manage to pull it of and working well in Lightwave..I will promise to forward my excuses to him for ever doubting him..when that day arrives.

    I hope any doubts from users not convinced, may serve as incitament for the Cycles to LW developer to prove us wrong, if it is completed and working well..he should be rest asured that many users would be very greatful and he would be eligible for support from us in various ways, that I am sure of.

  8. #38

    hope it happens, Cycles Render has a team of 50 developers... yes, that's right... 50!

    https://www.cycles-renderer.org/development
    LW vidz   DPont donate   LightWiki   RHiggit   IKBooster   My vidz

  9. #39
    RETROGRADER prometheus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    sweden stockholm
    Posts
    15,904
    Quote Originally Posted by erikals View Post
    hope it happens, Cycles Render has a team of 50 developers... yes, that's right... 50!

    https://www.cycles-renderer.org/development
    Put in to relation VS how many is working on Lightwave┤s current native renderer.
    Put in to relation VS how many is working on Cycles for Lightwave....and how much of impact the 50 Developers of the Main cycle core for blender would make in the aid of supporting
    the development of Cycles for Lightwave.


    Makes me think, what if Cycles for Lightwave would become accessable and also for free, and simply outperforming Lightwave┤s renderer on all accounts, that would render any development of the native renderer pretty
    obsolete, unless they step up the game with more people resources and a better renderer than cycles, why waste development resources on something like that in such case.
    But...just speculating, Cycles would need to work with LW materials I reckon and all other areas as well, and upon First Glance I do not think it can do that.

  10. #40

    LW standard materials would just be swapped with Cycles, like Octane Materials, so should be easy enough that way.

    guess Viz will have to decide.

    we'll see...
    LW vidz   DPont donate   LightWiki   RHiggit   IKBooster   My vidz

  11. #41
    RETROGRADER prometheus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    sweden stockholm
    Posts
    15,904
    Now that Viz is the head office so to speak, and with focus on realtime engines, I would have guessed they should look in to the blender eevee engine and incorporate development in to their products capable of similar things, and if Lightwave could benefit with yet another engine able to do that stuff, why not....just speculating wildly.

    So Norwegians and Swedes more incorporated in to the DNA of Viz And Newtek, if I am not mistaken by the new management page.

  12. #42
    Registered User Rayek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,510
    When Lightwave 2018 was released with the new render engine, my first thought was: "why?".

    Cycles could've been integrated instead while keeping the old (still good!) render engine around in Layout. Or AMD ProRender. Both have more developers and Cycles is a more mature render engine at any rate. Both have permissive licenses which allow for this.

    The few lightwave devs left could have focused more energy on actually improving the software in key areas that are just screaming out for attention given to it. And they could have ridden the Cycles gravy train for free, as well have GPU rendering.

    But no. Instead a whole new CPU renderer was developed with no hope for a GPU version in sight. A waste of time and resources in re-inventing the wheel. Creating a new battlefront while losing ground in other major fronts was a strategic blunder of epic proportions, in my opinion.

    But, hey: water under the bridge. Hindsight is 20/20, right?
    Win10 64 - i7 [email protected], p6t Deluxe v1, 48gb, Nvidia GTX 1080 8GB, Revodrive X2 240gb, e-mu 1820. Screens: 2 x Samsung s27a850ds 2560x1440, HP 1920x1200 in portrait mode

  13. #43



    yep, plus a bit Britain from what i recall



    ---------------------------------------

    ...the new render engine, my first thought was: "why?"
    could be that they didn't spend all that much time on it, just using old improved code.
    the plan was to focus on rebuilding Layout, for then to focus on rebuilding Modeler. Unsure if that still goes.
    Last edited by erikals; 01-07-2020 at 02:47 PM.
    LW vidz   DPont donate   LightWiki   RHiggit   IKBooster   My vidz

  14. #44
    RETROGRADER prometheus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    sweden stockholm
    Posts
    15,904
    Quote Originally Posted by Rayek View Post
    When Lightwave 2018 was released with the new render engine, my first thought was: "why?".

    Cycles could've been integrated instead while keeping the old (still good!) render engine around in Layout. Or AMD ProRender. Both have more developers and Cycles is a more mature render engine at any rate. Both have permissive licenses which allow for this.

    The few lightwave devs left could have focused more energy on actually improving the software in key areas that are just screaming out for attention given to it. And they could have ridden the Cycles gravy train for free, as well have GPU rendering.

    But no. Instead a whole new CPU renderer was developed with no hope for a GPU version in sight. A waste of time and resources in re-inventing the wheel. Creating a new battlefront while losing ground in other major fronts was a strategic blunder of epic proportions, in my opinion.

    But, hey: water under the bridge. Hindsight is 20/20, right?
    No point in repeating that I think, now they know how it has been perceived in terms of speed issues, and they can choose to do nothing about speed enhancements for the CPU, and do nothing to get a GPU version going...if that is how they choose do do, they will surely shoot themself in the foot..I honestly do not think it can survive without adressing those two issues.

    They also have new technology to wrestle with in terms of performing slow, shape primitives, which are very nice if you want infinite detail on landscapes for instance (not restricted only to that) but It becomes unbearable to work with when you have to wait for minutes to have the shape primitive iterate to anything you actually can see materialize..if you are working with procedural textures, put that in relation to seconds when you have dense subpatch landscape with the same procedural texture..so new technology, but also implemented as being very slow to get decent feedback from.

    Same with VDB fluids...nice technology and stuff that I can not do directly either in blender for some force stuff, but also lacking a lot...and very slow to use, and very hard to get decent OpenGL presentation.
    Same with fiberfx, new primitive type..and the results may be very nice once rendered, but so darn slow I can not bear to use it at all ..and I do not spend any time on it anymore since cycles does it so much faster..both cpu and gpu for that matter.

    So it was a dramatic change they did for 2018-19, and they need to survive adapt and overcome, and that they do not do by having the new technology performing as it does in it┤s current state.
    All the new tech is exciting sort of, VDB tools, more realism in materials and lighting, and in volumetrics, I think I prefer the volumetrics best if I have to choose from the new technology, even though I was a bit reluctant against it
    in some cases, and desptite they screwed up perfectly good workflow for hv┤s and some functions, it does deliver more realistic volumetrics and with some functions that was much harder to acheive with old hypervoxels..so they gained in some areas there and lost in some others.

    I still haven┤t evaluated the render speed differences when it comes to volumetric items with procedural textures such as clouds, comparing gpu cycles with lightwave┤s volume item and cpu, I have some test scenes for cycles that I may need to check, thoughthe scenes has to be at the same scale for getting the proper comparison evaluation.
    Then you got Octane volumetrics which I haven┤t had the chance to try that much, VDB files didn┤t work properly, though I need to work a bit with some of the stuff Lino Grandi showcased for volumetric clouds and octane in blender and compare the speed and ease of setting up with Lightwave┤s native volumetrics.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

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
  •