Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 47

Thread: VPR understanding

  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    476

    VPR understanding

    I am not using 3d software as much as I use to and I came across some things that has me wondering about how things work in Lightwave3D. I upgraded up to 2018 version and do not feel the need to go further and even sold off one of my licenses in exchange for animation work. Now I am down to my one license and one of the things I have always loved is VPR.

    Today I saw a youtube video for blender https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyxWDHy4ppY . About 2:35 into the video he talks about the new feature of Real Time. Is that what VPR is?

    I don't fully understand the difference and the people who I pay to do a lot of my heavy animation stuff uses blender for certain things. Can anybody tell me the difference between the two software? Thanks

  2. #2
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    476
    Also I do not use the GPU rendering quite yet and still have my cpu render farm. Does blender real time mean you have to use GPU for that? It mentions unreal engine and I use that for a game we make but it relies heavily on the GPU. Anyway you can see my confusion as I thought I understood VPR but now I don't think I do.

  3. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Right here
    Posts
    1,522
    No, VPR is nothing like realtime.

    There are these kind of engines:

    - CPU (Bucket / Progressive / IPR) - LW VPR, Corona, Vray, Arnold
    - GPU (Bucket / Progressive / IPR) - Octane, Redshift
    - Hybrid CPU and GPU (Bucket / Progressive / IPR) - Cycles
    - GPU RT (Realtime) - Eevee, Unreal Engine

    However the line is blurry because some engines like Vray and Arnold are slowly adding GPU support and others are adding RT (Redshift RT).

    LW VPR is a progressive CPU render preview / IPR like most render engines have to preview the scene with low samples / grainy and with time / progressively refining the render. It can also be used for the final image (it's the same render engine as for F9 renders) but bucket rendering is usually more efficient.

    LW VPR uses CPU only and is pretty slow compared to some other CPU engines and multiple times slower than a GPU engine (depending on the hardware used of course).

    Now RT as the name implies is giving you the final image without waiting (it renders within some milliseconds) like in a game.

  4. #4
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    476
    This is great. Thank you. When I use unreal engine the ability to see things in real time is great and we love using it. Maybe I need to try blender.

    I guess I always assumed blender was behind on a lot of things.

  5. #5
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    476
    Ok, another question. I have a render farm that is cpu based. It is not big but good enough for what I do. I have played with octane but I am not too fond of it due to my lack of experience and not the software.

    How does blender work if you work in real time using gpu and then render it all out on a cpu? I would think there will be differences in renders.

  6. #6
    Medical Animator mummyman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    1,026
    Quote Originally Posted by Airwaves View Post
    I am not using 3d software as much as I use to and I came across some things that has me wondering about how things work in Lightwave3D. I upgraded up to 2018 version and do not feel the need to go further and even sold off one of my licenses in exchange for animation work. Now I am down to my one license and one of the things I have always loved is VPR.

    Today I saw a youtube video for blender https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyxWDHy4ppY . About 2:35 into the video he talks about the new feature of Real Time. Is that what VPR is?

    I don't fully understand the difference and the people who I pay to do a lot of my heavy animation stuff uses blender for certain things. Can anybody tell me the difference between the two software? Thanks
    This is a great video! Thanks for sharing. Good info in there. It looks pretty amazing.

  7. #7
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    476
    Do they have a website or some place that compares all the 3d applications so I can see the differences between them?

  8. #8
    Founding member raymondtrace's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    840
    Quote Originally Posted by Marander View Post
    No, VPR is nothing like realtime...
    It depends on the circumstances. The concept between VPR and Eevee is similar: presenting a view of what a final render should look like...while you're manipulating content. Eevee is quicker to show this but at a cost. There are some features that cannot render in Eevee. There are also limits to Eevee's realtime performance. A lot depends on the hardware you offer it.

    The Unreal Bridge offered in LightWave 2019 is a good (free) way to bring GPU rendering to work from LightWave. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzYPL2vG-9g

    Quote Originally Posted by Airwaves View Post
    ...I guess I always assumed blender was behind on a lot of things.
    There are still some things on which Blender is behind. 3D apps play a lot of leap frog with features so it's always good to have more than one app in your toolbox. Blender is a good companion to LightWave.
    LW7.5D, 2015, 2018, 2019 running portably on a USB drive on an Amiga 2500 running Wine.

  9. #9
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Right here
    Posts
    1,522
    Quote Originally Posted by Airwaves View Post
    Ok, another question. I have a render farm that is cpu based. It is not big but good enough for what I do. I have played with octane but I am not too fond of it due to my lack of experience and not the software.

    How does blender work if you work in real time using gpu and then render it all out on a cpu? I would think there will be differences in renders.
    It depends what type of renders you're doing...

    For Realtime GPU rendering like Eevee you often don't need to render out anymore (yes you render but it will take you no time). Of course it requires a good GPU setup to get satisfying results. Some features are not yet implemented in those RT engines but depending on the requirements, complete shows can now be produced in realtime.

    Blender allows seamless switch between Eevee and Cycles if you need more realism and Cycles can render on CPU and/or GPU hybrid. Depending on the some setting (mostly light and volumetrics, mesh emission) Eevee and Cycles can look a bit different but that should be easy to correct. Cycles quality is on par to other top render engines and it has nice features like vector displacement, random walk sss and a great hair shader.

    I did only few tests but working in the Blender 2.8 - the Viewport and Eevee is fantastic to setup a scene. Modeling is another strong part of Blender but it has its weaknesses too.

    If you want fast renders and not learn another application and have a good GPU setup, you should give Octane for LightWave another look. It's a great engine and well integrated (but I dislike its licensing). Now Octane is out for Blender for free by the way.

    I use Redshift in Cinema which is insanely fast and beautiful but unfortunately not available for LightWave. Redshift has the advantage that one license can be used in several software (Cinema, Houdini, Maya, Max and others, soon Blender) and has an ok licensing (offline, node locked) for a rather low perpetual price.

    Cycles renders slower on GPU then those but it's still a big difference to CPU, depending on the setup. There is also E-Cycles which is faster but I haven't tried that. Then there's ProRender for Blender and other applications, Renderman and more... So many choices!

    As for SW comparison you asked for, often they are biased of course. There are advantages and disadvantages everywhere. These reviews are from professional artists:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3J-aYpGay4
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RQ7lxph72I

    Here's a blog about Eevee:

    https://cgcookie.com/articles/get-re...ndering-engine

    And here some interesting Eevee videos:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hGSDD9-Tkc
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDNqpanD8Sg
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5p4B-_PKyRI
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VNztZdfGZY
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUf9VltV4Cc
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xdwvl9JFr2M
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVgNxsCmu-Y

  10. #10
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Right here
    Posts
    1,522
    Quote Originally Posted by raymondtrace View Post
    It depends on the circumstances. The concept between VPR and Eevee is similar: presenting a view of what a final render should look like...while you're manipulating content. Eevee is quicker to show this but at a cost. There are some features that cannot render in Eevee. There are also limits to Eevee's realtime performance. A lot depends on the hardware you offer it.

    The Unreal Bridge offered in LightWave 2019 is a good (free) way to bring GPU rendering to work from LightWave. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzYPL2vG-9g

    There are still some things on which Blender is behind. 3D apps play a lot of leap frog with features so it's always good to have more than one app in your toolbox. Blender is a good companion to LightWave.
    For VPR / Eevee comparison I disagree (but so, opinions are different).

    VPR is an IPR like most other render engines or software have it now.

    Working in Eevee is a game changer in my opinion, because you can model, texture, setup your scene or animate with full quality in real time.

    LightWave's OpenGL viewport is downright ugly compared to other applications and in VPR, the slow and constant rebuilding of the progressive VPR image is much behind other IPRs today.

    LightWave's 2018+ final render quality on the other hand is top notch.

    The rest what you said I completely agree, the Unreal integration is a great addition to LightWave. Yes, Blender 2.8 is very powerful for free but far from perfect.

  11. #11
    VPR is nothing at all like Eevee. VPR is closer to Cycles, just no GPU.

  12. #12
    RETROGRADER prometheus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    sweden stockholm
    Posts
    14,973
    Yep...Cycles Interactive render ..go to display types, those round ball icons right next to object mode, or edit mode or sculpt, that is where you set display type to material, wire, shaded or interactive view, you can also simply use shift-z as a shortcut to enable the interactive render in Cycles, in the render tab of blender you can set the interactive viewer to use either GPU or CPU, GPU mostly faster in many cases but has limitations in volume sampling if rendering volumes, and some other stuff, but it is much faster to render hair than the CPU.

    For lightwave the VPR has the shortcut ctrl-F9...which I always change to "v"...since that is what I connect easier to with my way of thinking, in Layout ..."v" is unused anywa, hitting that makes it easy to turn on and off vpr in a choosen viewport instead of going to the drop down list.

    Now...previously in 2015, VPR and the final render in Lightwave didnīt always produce the same result with things like dielectric etc and some other things, but since 2018...vpr and the final render should not produce any different results, what you see in the progressive iteration refinement in VPR...is also what the final render would show...for Blender I am not sure itīs the same case?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Marander View Post

    LightWave's OpenGL viewport is downright ugly compared to other applications and in VPR, the slow and constant rebuilding of the progressive VPR image is much behind other IPRs today.

    LightWave's 2018+ final render quality on the other hand is top notch.
    .
    Agree completely.

  13. #13
    Founding member raymondtrace's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    840
    Quote Originally Posted by Marander View Post
    For VPR / Eevee comparison I disagree (but so, opinions are different).

    VPR is an IPR like most other render engines or software have it now.

    Working in Eevee is a game changer in my opinion, because you can model, texture, setup your scene or animate with full quality in real time...
    I'm not reporting an opinion. We're comparing "interactive render" systems. This is what the developers intended.

    Lightwave: "VPR (Viewport Preview Renderer) is Layout’s native Interactive Render." ( https://docs.lightwave3d.com/lw2019/.../rendering/vpr )

    Blender: "Eevee’s goal is to be an interactive render engine." ( https://docs.blender.org/manual/en/d...mitations.html )

    As noted in Blender's link above, there are limitations to the real time performance so you are definitely not getting "full quality".

    VPR = full quality

    Eevee = speed/real time, with graphic cheats

    EDIT:

    Notice how Eevee functions like Lightwave's VPR (faster? yes, but you can still see a progressive [and less accurate] render)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZj6koNKePY

    Notice the majority of comments where people are soiling their shorts in excitement over Eevee, oblivious to the crap shadows cast on the ground plane.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ov7o4YcrjfY

    ^ This ~15 second crap turntable render took 20 minutes in Eevee. I'm not great at the rithmetics but I know that this is not realtime rendering.
    Last edited by raymondtrace; 08-09-2019 at 09:36 AM.
    LW7.5D, 2015, 2018, 2019 running portably on a USB drive on an Amiga 2500 running Wine.

  14. #14
    Eevee is a real time renderer like Marmoset or Unreal, not like a traditional path tracer or scan line renderer. Full Quality is a loose term since you can make any renderer look crappy with less samples. Marander is simply saying that Eevee look dev is superb since you're able to see just about what the final render quality would be like all while you're working in the viewport. But Eevee is both a viewport and a render engine. And just like other renderers, you can increase the samples for better quality at a cost of rendering time. But in most cases, you can pump out a near finished quality animation with a few seconds of frame, what would take something like VPR minutes to render. Client wants a preview to see what the final will look like. Sure give me 15 minutes and I'll render it out in Eevee as opposed to, yeah I can have that for you in a day or two. Goodnight Claire or the tree creature will give a better representation of the quality that can be achieved with Eevee.


    But comparing Eevee to VPR doesn't make sense as they aren't the same thing.

    Again, you'll want to compare VPR to Cycles which is Blender's native Interactive Renderer. And it can use both the CPU and the GPU together for optimal performance. And it's about to get even faster once they implement RTX in 2.81.

  15. #15
    Founding member raymondtrace's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    840
    Quote Originally Posted by hrgiger View Post
    ...Again, you'll want to compare VPR to Cycles which is Blender's native Interactive Renderer...
    I appreciate you singing that song but this discussion topic is about VPR and Eevee, the interactive renderers discussed in the first post.

    Quote Originally Posted by hrgiger View Post
    ...But comparing Eevee to VPR doesn't make sense as they aren't the same thing...
    That is exactly why one makes comparisons!
    Last edited by raymondtrace; 08-09-2019 at 11:20 AM.
    LW7.5D, 2015, 2018, 2019 running portably on a USB drive on an Amiga 2500 running Wine.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... 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
  •