How is Renderman support progressing?

Blender's renderer and external renderer export

Moderators: jesterKing, stiv

Pablosbrain
Posts: 356
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 7:39 pm

How is Renderman support progressing?

Postby Pablosbrain » Mon Feb 17, 2003 9:43 pm

Just wondering...
How is Renderman support progressing? With 2.26 finally out and the steady rebuilding of Blenders insides... Would this be something that could possibly make it into a demo build or something? No real hurry... just wondering.
Paul

green
Posts: 81
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2002 8:04 pm

Postby green » Mon Feb 17, 2003 10:49 pm

Its going great

The code is allways in tuhopuu(aka funblender, aka evil tree, aka evil blender) and its allways up to date since I allways submit the changes after I do something new.

The code is not in the main blender cvs. I have nothing todo with the main cvs and I dont know when or if it will ever be in the main cvs.

So you can check it out anytime by downloading and building tuhopuu.

Its not usable for big projects yet, but its comming along nice.

wavk
Posts: 255
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2002 9:58 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Postby wavk » Tue Feb 18, 2003 10:28 am

Nice to hear! I checked the tuhopuu tree, and tried rendering to 3Delight. It failed though. "Cannot find entry point of procedure g_RI in 3Delight.dll." is what it says. Tried it with 3Delight 1.0.0 beta and win2k.

green
Posts: 81
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2002 8:04 pm

Postby green » Tue Feb 18, 2003 11:39 am

wavk wrote:Nice to hear! I checked the tuhopuu tree, and tried rendering to 3Delight. It failed though. "Cannot find entry point of procedure g_RI in 3Delight.dll." is what it says. Tried it with 3Delight 1.0.0 beta and win2k.


Sounds like a faulty 3delight install. Not something I would have controll over.

Can you render any of the example .ribs from 3delight?

wavk
Posts: 255
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2002 9:58 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Postby wavk » Tue Feb 18, 2003 12:33 pm

Hm weird, you're right. Just before I checked out the renderman rendering in blender, I thought I'd replace my old 3delight with the new version. It must have downloaded corrupt. Hm no that's not it either. I downloaded it a second time now and it still doesn't work, guess it's because it's still beta. Now downloading the old version again. Yep that solved the problem.

It works! Great, now it's testing time :)

green
Posts: 81
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2002 8:04 pm

Postby green » Tue Feb 18, 2003 1:44 pm

versions older then 1.0.0 beta is not supported.
dont know what will happen if you try to use an older version

wavk
Posts: 255
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2002 9:58 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Postby wavk » Tue Feb 18, 2003 2:40 pm

It does render, after clicking away several hundred of error messages :D

green
Posts: 81
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2002 8:04 pm

Postby green » Tue Feb 18, 2003 2:42 pm

ah :)

1.0.0 beta has some really nasty bugs in it (like raytracing being broken)

i'm hoping the final 1.0 version will be better

thornae
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2002 11:53 am

Postby thornae » Wed Feb 19, 2003 2:13 pm

green wrote:1.0.0 beta has some really nasty bugs in it (like raytracing being broken)


Huh. So that's why I can't get it to do reflection/refraction...
I know, I know, RTFM...
(=

Green, any thoughts on the "non-standard renderman" charges levelled at 3delight? As in, are you targetting 3delight specifically with your work, or going for standard rm output that can then be tweaked to specific renderers?
...because I can!

green
Posts: 81
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2002 8:04 pm

Postby green » Wed Feb 19, 2003 2:30 pm

thornae wrote:
green wrote:1.0.0 beta has some really nasty bugs in it (like raytracing being broken)


Huh. So that's why I can't get it to do reflection/refraction...
I know, I know, RTFM...
(=

Green, any thoughts on the "non-standard renderman" charges levelled at 3delight? As in, are you targetting 3delight specifically with your work, or going for standard rm output that can then be tweaked to specific renderers?


I am going to use the non standard tags.

But it will not be a problem with other renderers since the code is designed in such a way that it is not aimed at one specific renderman renderer.

So it can support some features that one has bot not the others.

But 3delight is the first renderer to get supported. After that prman. (then I am satisfied, if someone wants to add support for aqsis thats fine with me. I dont care about it since I think blenders renderer is better then aqsis, so implementing support for it is pointless)

pgregory
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2002 11:09 pm

Postby pgregory » Thu Feb 20, 2003 2:36 am

green wrote: I dont care about it since I think blenders renderer is better then aqsis, so implementing support for it is pointless)

In what way do you feel Blender's renderer is better than Aqsis? If I know where you feel Aqsis lacks I can make efforts to improve those areas.

I'm particularly interested in why you feel that 3Delight and prman qualify as better enough than Blender's built in renderer but Aqsis does not.

Cheers

PaulG

green
Posts: 81
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2002 8:04 pm

Postby green » Thu Feb 20, 2003 11:58 am

pgregory wrote:
green wrote: I dont care about it since I think blenders renderer is better then aqsis, so implementing support for it is pointless)

In what way do you feel Blender's renderer is better than Aqsis? If I know where you feel Aqsis lacks I can make efforts to improve those areas.

I'm particularly interested in why you feel that 3Delight and prman qualify as better enough than Blender's built in renderer but Aqsis does not.

Cheers

PaulG


Before starting to implement renderman support into blender I wrote a python exporter
for blender called BlenderMan. It originaly had support for prman, entropy and bmrt.
Users implemented support for 3delight and aqsis, whats to say the same thing
couldnt happen now?

The biggest reason I see for using aqsis is its license. It fits very well
with the bpl (which I helped to create).
But should your choice of renderer be dictated by license?
Should it not be dictated by cost/value?
If so what added value does aqsis provide over 3delight?
The ability to directly change the source is the only one I can think of.

But still. If someone wants to use aqsis over 3delight who am I to tell them
not to do that. I am mearly creating an export option for blender so that
I can use 3delight and prman. Why should I implement support for a
renderer that I dont plan on using?

In the end if I do implement support for prman(which I plan on using legaly since my
school has 2 licenses). I think changing the source to support aqsis will be
possible to do in under an hour. So its very possible that I in a spur of
creativity will decide to add support for aqsis.

If you, the developers of aqsis wants to see aqsis
a supported renderer of this project, why not download the tuhopuu source and
make the changes to the source yourself? Is that not how opensource development
shows its biggest strength? If you can create a renderer, then I am sure you
can add a few if then else conditions to the code.


But to answer your question:

Multiplatform:
You need Irix compiled binaries, if these dont
exists the support for aqsis might not make it into
the official blender version at all.

Raytracing:
There is very little incentive to use an external renderer without raytracing
(reflections, refractions, gi, occlusion etc..). Basicly the only thing
users want to be added to the internal renderer is raytracing.
Things such as displacement shaders, dof and fast motionbur is nice
but its allready possible to do within blender, though its not as intuitive
as just pushing a button.

Reliability:
Blenders internal renderer, 3delight and prman have all been tested under big
projects for a long time. The user can rest secure that they wont bend under pressure.
Can they be sure about that for aqsis? The answer to that question will probibly
come after it has gained a large userbase that has tested it for a while.

Speed:
I have only tested the example files that come with aqsis due to lack of exporter :).
But I think its fast enough. However, I keep hearing from users that they want it to be
faster. This might be worth looking in to.



But still. these are only my opinions. I want to stress that if aqsis support were to be
added by any other then me, it would probibly get added to the main source.

pgregory
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2002 11:09 pm

Postby pgregory » Thu Feb 20, 2003 1:22 pm

green wrote:But to answer your question:

Multiplatform:
You need Irix compiled binaries, if these dont
exists the support for aqsis might not make it into
the official blender version at all.

Raytracing:
There is very little incentive to use an external renderer without raytracing
(reflections, refractions, gi, occlusion etc..). Basicly the only thing
users want to be added to the internal renderer is raytracing.
Things such as displacement shaders, dof and fast motionbur is nice
but its allready possible to do within blender, though its not as intuitive
as just pushing a button.

Reliability:
Blenders internal renderer, 3delight and prman have all been tested under big
projects for a long time. The user can rest secure that they wont bend under pressure.
Can they be sure about that for aqsis? The answer to that question will probibly
come after it has gained a large userbase that has tested it for a while.

Speed:
I have only tested the example files that come with aqsis due to lack of exporter :).
But I think its fast enough. However, I keep hearing from users that they want it to be
faster. This might be worth looking in to.

I don't want this discussion to go on any longer than necessary, but I'd like to glean as much information as possible.

Can I presume from your anwer then, that the things that make Blender's built in renderer 'better' than Aqsis are...
  • Aqsis doesn't support Irix.
  • Aqsis is not proven in production.

Blender (unless I'm mistaken doesn't natively support raytracing, and you said Aqsis is fast enough. Have I missed anything, or misunderstood anything?

Cheers

PaulG

green
Posts: 81
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2002 8:04 pm

Postby green » Thu Feb 20, 2003 1:37 pm

I think the problem is in pov.
You look at it from the renderer pov I look at it from a usability pov.

Only if I implement all of the features of blenders renderer will aqsis have a possibility of being better then blenders renderer (possibly better, depends on how good the user is)

But as it is now. I will not implement everything.

I dont think you should take my statement as blenders renderer being better then aqsis as statement of technology.

it is a usability statement.

in no way can a user get better use of aqsis then with blenders renderer.
Blenders renderer is better then aqsis.
Use.

Blender is not a technological experiment app.

It is an application used for actuall work

To the end user (I allways take the pov of what is best for the end user, allways) blenders renderer is better then aqsis . And it is doubtfull even if i implement complete support for total export if aqsis would be better. Why would an end user want to render with aqsis instead of blenders internal renderer?

And even if you defeat that.

Why would a user want to render with aqsis instead of 3delight?

If a user has prman why would they want to render with 3delight? (I dont allways have acess to prman)

You see how this goes?

The end user pov is allways king when you work on an end user product.


Return to “Rendering”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests