Page 2 of 3

real-time boolean

Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 7:40 am
by justizin
OpenCSG, a library specifically for displaying the result of boolean operations interactively, in real-time, using OpenGL, works with all except radeon 9000 of recent nvidia and ati cards, even down to tnt2, and is licensed under the GNU GPL v2 (or later, I presume).

http://www.opencsg.org/

more info:

http://www.nigels.com/research/

Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 9:49 pm
by Zarf
Money_YaY! wrote:
Sigh, you take things to seriously theeth. Any post that does not lead to development is useless mostly. As anything goes more developers are needed still, but then again whatever,
I don't think he takes things too seriously at all, considering the way you denegrate the efforts of blenders coders in these forums and others across the internet (yes, people DO take notice.)

But then again maybe I take things too seriously.....

Regards,
Xarf

Posted: Tue May 31, 2005 5:35 am
by bfvietnam
Money_YaY! wrote:Dude do you even have all of the settings turned on ?

Those screenshots dont do it justice. But yeah get in line with everyone else n blenders verrrry slow acceptance to use current opengl standards...
Yeah that's pretty much all the settings.. I guess the Nvidia's can
do more, but the radeons are considered to be more standard, NVidia
does a lot of tricks to get good results.

I've thought about getting an NVidia card, but the ATI's seem to be more
stable than the NVidias I had in the past.

To: Ton, Martin, Joeri, etc.

If the new OpenGL with pixel shaders exists, I would assume that blender
already supports pixel shaders, as OpenGL is just a library, and I would
assume that it conforms to previous versions of OpenGL, or they would
lose a lot of support. Since blender is a rendering package, adding more depth and detail should just be a matter of flipping a switch and giving OpenGL access to more (okay it does involve more but fundamentally you can flip a switch in the libary).. There would need to be pixel shaders in place that emulate the features of blender as pixel shaders. It may be that OpenGL still doesn't support pixel shaders, or that blender doesn't
support the latest DirectX libraries (I don't blaim you, its Microsoft).. Also possible that methods of accessing the frame buffer to the graphics card are non-standard, making it tough to support.. But the advantage to using a graphics card to render out frames is quick creation of flipbooks. Other things is designing objects for video games.. But I think with this new Orange film project, maybe as part of the creation of the film you can develop pixel shaders to address some of the creative challenges and work these changes into a blender release.

Posted: Tue May 31, 2005 10:14 am
by joeri
Not to start a whole discussion on realtime rendering again (there are alot of topics on this forum about that) but...
There are more pressing issues on the list than pixel shaders. That's just it. No dislike, unwantingness or sometime like that, just lack of time and people to implement it.

Posted: Tue May 31, 2005 12:13 pm
by ideasman
As far as I see it its quite simple-
* add whatever you like to blenders realtime display
* Make it optional.

Im not a big fan of lightwave, but I recall there where some options you could use for nice display of fog and flares that slowed down older PC's.

Personaly I dont realy care about special shaders through they could be nice to have, there are lots more usefull stuff out there tho- a lot of the development in the rendering directly more usefull, then a pretty 3d preview.
- Cam

Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 3:25 am
by Money_YaY!
Egh, I tirewd to think of a good example that was fool proof but no outline is fool proof so I will just say this instead.

Make a sphere sphere uv map it, Add a material to it. Then use the Texture baker script in the scripts that come default with blender. Render that onto the mesh and add it to the mesh as a uv texture. Thats it.
Example:
Image

And shadows in preview window Before shadows and after
http://aprilcolo.com/oh/blenders/preradio.png
http://aprilcolo.com/oh/blenders/sanradio.png

The only thing to it is live updateing whan adjusting the slider bars. It save minutes upon minutes of constant re-rendering tests minutes of the day that keep adding up. That is the basic idea and basic everyday use. But that in itself is a HUGE time saver. All of the other stuff OpenGL can do like realtime particules and more could be later... Thats it that all. Of course a user would need a basic card that can run pixel shaders 2.0 but that is a given if they play newish games today like unreal of half life.

Like others said just turn off the feature by default if someone does not have a card that can run it.

Yeah that's another use..

Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2005 8:25 am
by bfvietnam
To see shading in realtime is a good thing, but it also would change
the way movies are done (with blender), it would encourage people to make more and better stuff faster.. People who spend all their time trying to perfect shots, would be able to do it faster and thus would be challenged to make whole movies.. You make basic rendering faster, you improve the quality of the content and the speed that its generated. Remember what it was like before dedicated flip-book machines with gigs of ram (like Pixar used) to test animations? It's what seperated the professionals from those with VCR's with flying erase heads.. This is a similar advance..

Of course, scientists that first looked at Mosaic didn't see the web,
they saw a new way of publishing TeX documents.. They really didn't get it.. And continued to use FTP/Gopher..

Anyhow.. I didn't mean to compare you to those guys that didn't get it,
but its how blender is perceived to those with other packages that think they "get it".. Thus blender looks older the less features it supports that are expected (at least) of others..

Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2005 10:26 am
by joeri
I agree that better preview leads to better and or more work.
I don't agree that how the images look are the most important part of animations.

And I don't think pixel shaders are very important to the film professionals.
If you want we can have a discussion on that.

But they are important to the little professionals, the tv studio animators.

They are most important to game developers, and then we get into a tricky situation: NaN spend alot of time and money attracting the attention from game developers, now that they have the attention, blender starts to focus on animation again...

Re: Yeah that's another use..

Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2005 3:50 pm
by Money_YaY!
bfvietnam wrote:To see shading in realtime is a good thing, but it also would change
the way movies are done (with blender), it would encourage people to make more and better stuff faster.. People who spend all their time trying to perfect shots, would be able to do it faster and thus would be challenged to make whole movies.. You make basic rendering faster, you improve the quality of the content and the speed that its generated. .
This is a bAD thing!?! I want to be able to move faster and get something done faster!.. I Mean shesh you dont want speed,... Erghh.... What about users that use it to make money with.. They need product faster..

Aw buttons.

Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 8:35 am
by bfvietnam
joeri wrote:I agree that better preview leads to better and or more work.
I don't agree that how the images look are the most important part of animations.

And I don't think pixel shaders are very important to the film professionals.
If you want we can have a discussion on that.
How about if the openGL stuff was made into a optional renderer
like Yafray..
But they are important to the little professionals, the tv studio animators.

They are most important to game developers, and then we get into a tricky situation: NaN spend alot of time and money attracting the attention from game developers, now that they have the attention, blender starts to focus on animation again...
Don't think "pixel shaders" = game development.. Think
in terms of production and pre-production. Storyboarding.
I think it would be sorry to consider blender a production to
post-production tool, its not complex enough or detailed enough
to compete in the finished-product area.. It was used in Spiderman
for storyboarding. Its best area is in the speed of turning an
idea into something one can see on screen with little expertise..
Some people may prefer to make complete movies without
fine-tuning as either the final product or as a step toward
obtaining funding. This can be used in other areas like litigation,
storytelling, demonstration of an invention, realtime A-B roll effects, time-critical rendering (projects that are late or overdue).
The better looking the effects, the more attractive.

Also, sometimes the way things look and move can have an effect
on the process. There is a certain value to interacting with
content in realtime, like the ability to try different lights, shaders,
camera motion..

Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 1:25 pm
by joeri
Al nice and stuff. But....
Have you seen/heard the commentairy on "the incredibles" ?
How the hair was "post", the masks where "post". Almost everything was post. I do agree that it would have been easier for the animators if that al was not post, but I don't agree that "the incredibles" *needed* pixel shaders. The movie was made just fine without them.

As to blender not being good as a production tool but only as a pre-production tool:
I find that nonsens. In most production animation work there are no characters; they are to expensive for the client (no matter what software is being used). It's explmostly aining how a this and that works. And blender is excellent for doing that. Far "better" then Maya. I don't mind debating the image quality, specialy if it's time vs quality.

Sure realtime rendering can mean a big step forward towards finnishing animations fast. And specialy blocking animations fast. But,... the more a blocking looks like the final animation the more customers will be confused. "I thought we saw this 2 weeks ago?"

Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 3:25 pm
by Money_YaY!
joeri wrote:Al nice and stuff. But....
Have you seen/heard the commentairy on "the incredibles" ?
How the hair was "post", the masks where "post". Almost everything was post. I do agree that it would have been easier for the animators if that al was not post, but I don't agree that "the incredibles" *needed* pixel shaders. The movie was made just fine without them.

As to blender not being good as a production tool but only as a pre-production tool:
I find that nonsens. In most production animation work there are no characters; they are to expensive for the client (no matter what software is being used). It's explmostly aining how a this and that works. And blender is excellent for doing that. Far "better" then Maya. I don't mind debating the image quality, specialy if it's time vs quality.

Sure realtime rendering can mean a big step forward towards finnishing animations fast. And specialy blocking animations fast. But,... the more a blocking looks like the final animation the more customers will be confused. "I thought we saw this 2 weeks ago?"
Dude where is this coming from?

the whole point of blocking in, is to find something that works then post process it. NOT to have a final from the 3d view. All this does is reduce the number of preview renders to see how a material will look or how a bit of shding from lights will strike out. THATS all. That will save days of starting tweak work.

Now when the system gets better we could possibly use it as a Gelato system to render a bit faster via hardware. But for the most part it is JUST an update to the current old 1.2 opengl 3d view. At this point in time it is not new at all and blender would just be playing catch up, but wow what a catch up it would be if it was in.

Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 8:54 am
by bfvietnam
joeri wrote:Al nice and stuff. But....
Have you seen/heard the commentairy on "the incredibles" ?
How the hair was "post", the masks where "post". Almost everything was post. I do agree that it would have been easier for the animators if that al was not post, but I don't agree that "the incredibles" *needed* pixel shaders. The movie was made just fine without them.
The incredibles was practically all toon (which is post).. Whereas Toy Story was not toon.. It had more shader design, and used pixel shaders, and renderman is where all this pixel shader stuff started anyway..

As to blender not being good as a production tool but only as a pre-production tool:
I find that nonsens. In most production animation work there are no characters; they are to expensive for the client (no matter what software is being used). It's explmostly aining how a this and that works. And blender is excellent for doing that. Far "better" then Maya. I don't mind debating the image quality, specialy if it's time vs quality.
You are saying most clients can only afford flying logos so why try for anything more? So you are saying settle for second best because people
can't afford first-rate.. Look, if youa re selling a client on an animation, you could start out rough and work your way up.. If you create a animated character and the client really likes it and uses it, they will want more animation from you.. I doubt I will see blender being used for something like the Geico Gecko, but I doubt you even know what I'm talking about.. The Gecko probably started as a simple test animation, but its become their mascot, and the animator that did it is probably getting repeat business due to it.. If you use a flying logo, you may get repeat business, but if you have a cartoon character, you will more likely get repeat business, because (bingo) you are the only one with the model, and the only one that can make it move that way, and because of your cutting edge fast rendering, you can do it faster than your competition, with less post-production work. Softimage uses hybrid shaders, where you can use the same shader for a realtime render as you can for a render. Alias' gee-wiz shaders were half-post-production, like the glow-overs, but
you can do pixel-shaders either during or after the render, the z-buffer is available for both. Just as it is in blender's rendering.. I'm sure you are just afraid that if people are able to do realtime renders, they would lose interest in blender's non-realtime rendering.. This is called obseletion, get used to it, technology improves, your work is rendered worthless, you have to catch up..
Sure realtime rendering can mean a big step forward towards finnishing animations fast. And specialy blocking animations fast. But,... the more a blocking looks like the final animation the more customers will be confused. "I thought we saw this 2 weeks ago?"
Yeah clients can be rather stupid but if you need to make it look ugly and rudimentary to offset their expectations, you can do that just by replacing the characters with boxes or lower subdivision settings.. Tell them you need to work on the details, make animations of key frames, etc.. If they want it the way it is, then let them have it, let their supervisors burn them for their own shallowness..

Joeri, I think your comments are more excuses than explanations..

Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 10:04 am
by joeri
Money_YaY! wrote: Dude where is this coming from?
Interaction with clients.
Do you know anything about that or are you an animator at Pixar?
bfvietnam wrote: Joeri, I think your comments are more excuses than explanations..
What is your point here?
I work on daily basis with Maya, in a company with two 3d animators.
(What was it that you do again?)
bfvietnam wrote: The incredibles was practically all toon
Besides this being nonsens it's not what I'm was talking about.
The animators did not see the hair untill the went to the cinema.
All animation was done on solid shaded boxes.
For the animation proces, the story telling part of a movie, the pixel shaders are pointless. That's no excuss, it's focus. The technical part of any animation is not the most important part of it.
Sure pixel shader started at Pixar, man how many useless projects do they have in a year, just to get the siggraph filled? Lots!

For shader programmers (yuck!) it must be nice to see what there code does. But don't tell me it's usefull in creating good animations.

So I repeat:
There are more pressing issues on the list than pixel shaders.

Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2005 3:47 am
by Money_YaY!
bfvietnam wrote: I'm sure you are just afraid that if people are able to do realtime renders, they would lose interest in blender's non-realtime rendering.. This is called obseletion, get used to it, technology improves, your work is rendered worthless, you have to catch up..

Joeri, I think your comments are more excuses than explanations..
Dude! Your my hero!

Joeri get over the fact that tech has to move on and not wait for slower hold on to's. Art in it's purest form is freedom and action. Something that is sorley dragged on to long when F'#$%$ing with pre render after pre render.

I have a million and half projects that just diee since I cant get renders out fast enough. Dam just try and move something in 3d flash actionscript...

Anyways this talk is great and helpful, but how can it turned into actual code diagrams for a developer ?? Over at OpenGL.org there are tons of little newbies tinkering in this work already, how can we glue that work over to here ???