Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 47

Thread: VPR understanding

  1. #16
    RETROGRADER prometheus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    sweden stockholm
    Posts
    15,125
    Quote Originally Posted by raymondtrace View Post
    I appreciate you singing that song but this discussion topic is about VPR and Eevee, the interactive renderers discussed in the first post.



    That is exactly why one makes comparisons!
    We could also compare a real life camera VS vpr or Eevee..itīs not the same thing, but we can compare

  2. #17
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Right here
    Posts
    1,535
    Quote Originally Posted by raymondtrace View Post
    I'm not reporting an opinion....
    ... As noted in Blender's link above, there are limitations to the real time performance so you are definitely not getting "full quality".
    Well, what is full quality... VPR also lacks features that other engines have.

    Most 3D packages and render engines have an IPR similar to LW.

    As I wrote in my post "Some features are not yet implemented in those RT engines" and that for higher realism, one can change to Cycles (which has an IPR comparable to VPR).

    Unreal is a great RT engine but has a different purpose / cannot be compared with a 3D package. Yes, LWs UE4 integration is good but so are others.

    Now Eevee is a different story. When I used it the first time it became apparent to me that this a new way of working in a 3D package, a game changer to a certain degree.

    A big part of it is that it can just be used to model, texture, light or animate or navigate in the scene. In addition to that it blends beautifully with other viewport modes and OpenGL elements.

    Other packages offer also good 3D viewports with screen space lighting, reflections, shadows or ambient occlusion but none of them to that extend.
    Last edited by Marander; 08-09-2019 at 03:14 PM.

  3. #18
    Founding member raymondtrace's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    863
    Quote Originally Posted by Marander View Post
    Well, what is full quality...
    That's an excellent question. I was quoting and responding to your initial use of the phrase "full quality". The Blender docs don't claim anything about full quality. They're quite open about Eevee's (and OpenGL's) limitations.

    I don't think there is any debate here so I hope we're not beating a dead horse.

    The only thing that has rubbed me the wrong way is several of us suggesting something "cannot be compared". It is almost as if we do not understand what the definition of "compare" is.
    LW7.5D, 2015, 2018, 2019 running portably on a USB drive on an Amiga 2500 running Wine.

  4. #19
    You can compare them all you want. But you're comparing two very different things. Which makes comparison even easier. Comparing an apple and an orange (easy), comparing two oranges from the same tree,(a little tougher). Eevee is an apple you can model in , animate in, see a final result largely without rendering. VPR is an orange that you can get a cup of coffee while it resolves because you can't do anything else in Layout while it's happening without starting it all over again. But that's just the viewport.
    You can of course also do a animated sequence of images with Eevee just like a standard renderer but it is not intended to replace Cycles or any other rendering solution. It is an alternative with a difference scope and purpose. Which of course what is what rubs me the wrong way about the idea that somehow Eevee is substandard to VPR quality when you consider everything else it is that VPR is not.

  5. #20
    Electron wrangler jwiede's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    6,513
    A big part of the difference stems from the notion of "interactivity": IPRs "interactivity" in general tends to be quite limited, while Eevee-style real-time viewports (in the vast majority of cases) offer practical "real-time interactivity" while operating and making changes to the scene viewed. Both types might be cited as "interactive" in name, but Eevee-style display engines were developed as a direct reaction to the loss of "usable interactivity" that commonly occurs with IPRs in modern use scenarios. There were other factors taken into account as well, but realizing useful interactivity was a key requirement targeted (and addressed) by Eevee-style display engines.

    Lump them together all you want, but it won't change that Eevee-type display engines were developed to address render engine IPR interactivity/usability shortcomings.
    Last edited by jwiede; 08-09-2019 at 07:11 PM.
    John W.
    LW2015.3UB/2019.1.4 on MacPro(12C/24T/10.13.6),32GB RAM, NV 980ti

  6. #21
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    476
    So now I have another question that I may not fully understand. In Lightwave my render farm is currently cpu. When I render out a scene it looks for the most part like the vpr in the viewport.

    If I were to use blender and use Eevee it is GPU based, with that being said I do not have a GPU farm so if I used cpu to render out a scene in blender would it look vastly different from what I saw with Eevee? This is all new to me so I really appreciate all your comments. It sheds new light and helps me plan for the future.

    Also I emailed blender asking some questions and they said they use Flamenco (CPU based) for the blender animation studio. This made me curious to understand if cpu produces better results than gpu. Is this blender specific or maybe they just are not equipped for gpu at the moment. (This is not meant for a fight between gpu and cpu - just trying to understand where the industry is headed)

    My render farm is in a big need of an upgrade and I will have to determine things like software, cpu vs gpu, etc.

  7. #22
    RETROGRADER prometheus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    sweden stockholm
    Posts
    15,125
    A bit VPR offtopic, and within blender.... one thing I just noticed Eeeve canīt handle, but cycles do..that is using the sky texture in the world surface tab, itīs just pure grey.
    The sky texture is a bit similar to Lightwaveīs physical sky, or dpont sunsky...while I think blenders version that works in cycles only..is quite a bit behind Lightwaves sky environment, it is harder to set up..and I frankly donīt know how to connect the sunlight direction properly ..and also suncolor behavior, much much easier in Lightwave.

    In Lightwave Just add physical sky and choose your desired light, in blender, go to world tab..and you need to check use nodes for world surface, then click on that surface to get a drop down list, choose background, then click on the color button and choose sky texture...the workflow of setting a background sky up in blender isnīt nice....and again, doesnīt seem to work within eeve, but you can switch to cycles and it should work.

  8. #23
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Right here
    Posts
    1,535
    Prometheus maybe this is something for you:

    https://blendermarket.com/products/pure-sky

  9. #24
    RETROGRADER prometheus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    sweden stockholm
    Posts
    15,125
    Quote Originally Posted by Marander View Post
    Prometheus maybe this is something for you:

    https://blendermarket.com/products/pure-sky
    If Iīm gonna pay for it..itīs gonna have to be something that I do not already have payed for, and I did pay for Lightwave which does the physical sky, having to pay for an addon that does almost the same isnīt my idea of getting the most out of things for a cheap buck.
    Havenīt looked in to the addon though...but from the screenshots...looks terrible, both how the sky is looking when it is a clean sky, and the clouds is just procedural texturing in the backdrop...that is not what I want or should be used for more realistic skies, it needs full volumetrics, or just clean photage backdrop from real skies.

    so no..I donīt think that is for me, there is a script from oscurart that handles the sun direction..but I think it isnīt updated for 2,79 even...one guy did a script change and I may look at that..but it requires manual editing of the original script.

    and thereīs better ways for clouds with true volumetric items in blender.

  10. #25
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Right here
    Posts
    1,535
    Quote Originally Posted by Airwaves View Post
    So now I have another question that I may not fully understand. In Lightwave my render farm is currently cpu. When I render out a scene it looks for the most part like the vpr in the viewport.

    If I were to use blender and use Eevee it is GPU based, with that being said I do not have a GPU farm so if I used cpu to render out a scene in blender would it look vastly different from what I saw with Eevee? This is all new to me so I really appreciate all your comments. It sheds new light and helps me plan for the future.

    Also I emailed blender asking some questions and they said they use Flamenco (CPU based) for the blender animation studio. This made me curious to understand if cpu produces better results than gpu. Is this blender specific or maybe they just are not equipped for gpu at the moment. (This is not meant for a fight between gpu and cpu - just trying to understand where the industry is headed)

    My render farm is in a big need of an upgrade and I will have to determine things like software, cpu vs gpu, etc.
    What type of renders / work are you doing?

    Do you use the full potential of LightWave? Is there something you cannot do with it or you dislike?

    What don't you like in Octane?

    Did you try out Blender with Eevee, Cycles or maybe ProRender?

    Do you want to invest in something else and what is your budget for software? What licensing do you prefer? How important is availability of training or material libraries for you? Special requirements where only specific plugins exists for?

    For Eevee you don't need a render farm, as far as I know it only supports one GPU and that might not change because it's not a path tracer, more like a game engine.

    As mentioned, Eevee and Cycles can look different depending on your scene. But Eevee can nevertheless be used for lookdev as the principal materials are the same.

    Cycles CPU and GPU look exactly the same. And Cycles has an render view like VPR too of course.

    Where the industry is heading...

    For example for feature film, the standard is Maya with Arnold, Renderman or Redshift / Clarisse as well as inhouse tools.
    For VFX and simulation it's Houdini / Cinema 4D + X-Particles / Maya / Max + Plugins with Arnold, Physical, Octane, Redshift or Mantra.
    For character animations Maya
    For TV productions, advertisement and indie films, freelancer work, small studios, it's Cinema 4D with Physical, Octane, Vray, Corona, Cycles 4D, Arnold or Redshift / Modo with Physical and Vray / Max / Maya with Arnold or Redshift / Blender with Cycles / LightWave with Octane.
    For Archviz Max / Cinema 4D with Vray or Corona / Unreal.
    For MoGraph and FUID Cinema 4D / Houdini with Octane or Redshift.
    For games Max / Maya / Blender / Houdini / Unreal / Unity.

    All main packages have many capabilities today, so many different solutions and combinations are possible for these tasks, but that's just my observation what's going on in the industry.

    Many or maybe most indie artists or small studios use render services nowadays anyway, that can be much cheeper than running your own infrastructure. And maybe that's the best choice if you're happy with LightWave.

    Otherwise all you need nowadays for most tasks is one beefy multi GPU machine to do all the work.

    If you stay with LightWave, for future best is to get a fat 4x GPU machine and Octane in my opinion.

    Or if you want LightWave VPR rendering, use a render service or wait for high end Threadripper 3rd Gen systems, when they are out (up to 64 Cores / 128 Threads).

    If you want to change or add something to your toolset, again question what work you do, requirements, your budget, personal taste, available resources and last but not least efficiency / workflow. All packages have demo versions, why not just try them out or watch some tutorials of good artists using their tools, doing work similar to you? How easy or fun is it for you to learn something new?

    Hope it help, cheers
    Last edited by Marander; 08-10-2019 at 04:23 PM.

  11. #26
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Right here
    Posts
    1,535
    Quote Originally Posted by prometheus View Post
    ...but from the screenshots...looks terrible,...
    Yes I agree and thought you would say that ;-) Not something I would pay for too, but maybe there are better addons for Blender. If it has decent quality for that price why not.

  12. #27
    Electron wrangler jwiede's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    6,513
    Quote Originally Posted by Marander View Post
    Yes I agree and thought you would say that ;-) Not something I would pay for too, but maybe there are better addons for Blender. If it has decent quality for that price why not.
    Well, there's also https://blenderartists.org/t/procedu...evee/694700/12 for clouds, perhaps mixed with a HDRI sky?

    I think the typical answer for sky in Eevee is to use HDRI sky images, at least while Sky Texture node remains unsupported (they'll need to change how it renders/samples internally, but unclear whether anyone considers that worth priority). The HDRI approach fits well with the general needs of those focused on fast Eevee-based lookdev, etc. There are certainly shader-based real-time sky simulations available for Unreal and Unity, so likely could be done for Eevee as well, just requires someone to care enough to actually do the work involved.
    Last edited by jwiede; 08-10-2019 at 04:40 PM.
    John W.
    LW2015.3UB/2019.1.4 on MacPro(12C/24T/10.13.6),32GB RAM, NV 980ti

  13. #28
    Founding member raymondtrace's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    863
    Quote Originally Posted by Airwaves View Post
    ...If I were to use blender and use Eevee it is GPU based, with that being said I do not have a GPU farm so if I used cpu to render out a scene in blender would it look vastly different from what I saw with Eevee? This is all new to me so I really appreciate all your comments. It sheds new light and helps me plan for the future...
    Please excuse the dumb question... Why are you seeking Blender specifics in a LightWave forum? And why are many here promoting Blender with varying degrees of accuracy?

    Eevee cannot use a GPU render farm. It is limited to one GPU. It is just a live preview while you're working, like VPR, but different.
    LW7.5D, 2015, 2018, 2019 running portably on a USB drive on an Amiga 2500 running Wine.

  14. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Airwaves View Post

    If I were to use blender and use Eevee it is GPU based, with that being said I do not have a GPU farm so if I used cpu to render out a scene in blender would it look vastly different from what I saw with Eevee? This is all new to me so I really appreciate all your comments. It sheds new light and helps me plan for the future.

    Also I emailed blender asking some questions and they said they use Flamenco (CPU based) for the blender animation studio. This made me curious to understand if cpu produces better results than gpu. Is this blender specific or maybe they just are not equipped for gpu at the moment. (This is not meant for a fight between gpu and cpu - just trying to understand where the industry is headed)

    .
    Eevee will only use the GPU that is being used for the display because Eevee is using Rasterization. If you want to utilize a CPU render farm, you would want to use Cycles if you're using Blender to take advantage of multiple CPUs (which can also use it with GPU acceleration simultaneously or GPU entirely).

    That said you would need a pretty substantial CPU render farm to beat the render times of Eevee which are for the most part going to be in several seconds per frame. You just have to understand what the limitations of real time rendering are vs something like VPR or Cycles to see if it meets your needs. This is a good piece which lays out those limitations: https://cgcookie.com/articles/blende...time-rendering

    If you want to know where the industry is headed, you only have to look at how almost everyone is adopting RTX raytracing which is GPU acceleration. Companies adding RTX to their products include Adobe, Ansys, Autodesk, BinaryVR, Blackmagic Design, Blender, Boris FX, Chaos Group, Colorfront, Epic Games, Foundry, Luxion, Maxon, Noitom, OTOY, Pixar, PTC, Reallusion, Redshift, Siemens and Unity. Having a new render engine in LW that is CPU only is not an advantage in this case unless of course you have a rendering farm to utilize or use a third party render farm.

    And to clear up some things about Eevee, it is not merely a display while you're working, it is also a rendering engine.
    Last edited by hrgiger; 08-10-2019 at 08:31 PM.

  15. #30
    RETROGRADER prometheus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    sweden stockholm
    Posts
    15,125
    Quote Originally Posted by raymondtrace View Post
    Please excuse the dumb question... Why are you seeking Blender specifics in a LightWave forum? And why are many here promoting Blender with varying degrees of accuracy?

    Eevee cannot use a GPU render farm. It is limited to one GPU. It is just a live preview while you're working, like VPR, but different.
    aren't you mostly confusing comparing and promoting?

    as for some of my latest post here..it is comparing the sky environment in lightwave vs blender..with quite a lot of plus for lightwave...which rather can be seen as a promote of lightwave in that case so to speak.

    I really don't see any direct promotion of blender from others either.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 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
  •