Just ONE renderer is enough!

Blender's renderer and external renderer export

Moderators: jesterKing, stiv

mpan3
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 7:16 pm

Just ONE renderer is enough!

Post by mpan3 »

Well, I think Blender should only implement 1 (yes, ONE) renderer. The reason being:
1. One renderer is WAY easier to manage for the coders as well as the end user.
2. No more capatibility issues between rendering engines. (no more "ops, x function doesn't work under x renderer." :wink: )
3. We can implement the a good raytracer (any open source GOOD raytracer out there?)engine INTO blender and basically use that as our own.


Just my 2cents.

levon
Posts: 0
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 6:06 am
Location: adelaide

Post by levon »

but blender has a raytracer in it already. and sence people like to use yafray with blender i dont think they should be stoped from using it.

removing features from blender is not an improvement

ideasman
Posts: 0
Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2003 2:37 pm

Post by ideasman »

I agree for the most part, blenders internal rendered has become very good.

Was a bit disappointing, we get yafray intergration and at the same time blender gets raytracing, AO etc.

Yafray development seems to have slumped a bit (just looking at the web site)
but that dosent mean its not a good renderer.

with Foofs distributed rayreacing (soft shadows, blury reflections and DOF) I think yafray will be even less necessary.

In saying all of this Im going to contridict myself by saying that Renderman output is a good thing.
Thats because PRman/Renderman renderers in the pipeline of many film companies and this puts blender in a position to be used in these applications as a drop in replacement for maya/softimage.

- Cam

matt_e
Posts: 410
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2002 4:32 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Just ONE renderer is enough!

Post by matt_e »

mpan3 wrote:Well, I think Blender should only implement 1 (yes, ONE) renderer. The reason being:
1. One renderer is WAY easier to manage for the coders as well as the end user.
Maintenance on the renderers is being done by different people - Ton manages the internal renderer and Jandro and Eeshlo work on the yafray interation. It's not a matter of having to divide time between the two efforts. The end user doesn't have to 'manage' anything, I don't know what you mean by that - yafray is an optional extra, you know.
2. No more capatibility issues between rendering engines. (no more "ops, x function doesn't work under x renderer." :wink: )
So your solution for (for example) full pathlight GI working in yafray but not Blender is to remove the option to have caustics at all? That's not very clever - the disadvantages due to confusion are FAR outweighed by the utility of having these advanced features available to use at a user's choice.
3. We can implement the a good raytracer (any open source GOOD raytracer out there?)engine INTO blender and basically use that as our own.


Oh can WE? Are you volunteering? The current situation is great - few renderers are great for every purpose. The Blender internal renderer is aimed at speed and tight integration, while Yafray provides much more advanced features, for those who are prepared to tweak a bit more. If Blender's internal renderer was, say, replaced with Yafray (totally disregarding the impossibilities and incompatibilities of just taking a hunk of source code, pasting it into Blender, and expecting it to work - it doesn't), then there would be no solution for people wanting something fast, like the current internal renderer.

levon
Posts: 0
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 6:06 am
Location: adelaide

Re: Just ONE renderer is enough!

Post by levon »

mpan3 wrote: 3. We can implement the a good raytracer (any open source GOOD raytracer out there?)engine INTO blender and basically use that as our own.
yes i know a good open source raytracer. its called yafray :P

leope
Posts: 0
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 1:26 pm

Post by leope »

Two for me.
One Artistic and One the most physically correct as possible. Don't matter they are inconsitstent.

Monkeyboi
Posts: 251
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 1:24 pm
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Contact:

Post by Monkeyboi »

I do agree that it is frustrating how some features only work in Blenders internal renderer while others work only in Yafray. I think the integration could be improved by using the same settings in areas like AA, Motion Blur etc. Why can't we turn off shadows in lamps?

As much as possible, if a feature is added to both renderers, the controls should be the same. And, stuff like the lighting brightness could be leveled some more.


But, that doesn't mean I don't like Yafray either...


PS
Would just like to add that I reckon a lot of confusion could be removed by adding a system to grey out features that are not supported by the current renderer, so that you don't expect stuff like the Ramp shaders to work in Yafray etc.

mpan3
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 7:16 pm

Post by mpan3 »

English is not my first language so bear with me:
My point is that 2 renderer do cause confusion because some feature only works under a specific renderer (GI, AO for example) so it's best to have only 1 full featured, very capable, totally awsome renderer that does everything.

I am not into coding so I don't know if it's possible to basically get rid of Blender's internal ray-tracer and use YafRay's?

mpan3
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 7:16 pm

Post by mpan3 »

Monkeyboi wrote:
PS
Would just like to add that I reckon a lot of confusion could be removed by adding a system to grey out features that are not supported by the current renderer, so that you don't expect stuff like the Ramp shaders to work in Yafray etc.
Brilliant Idea :!:

matt_e
Posts: 410
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2002 4:32 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Post by matt_e »

mpan3 wrote:
Monkeyboi wrote:
PS
Would just like to add that I reckon a lot of confusion could be removed by adding a system to grey out features that are not supported by the current renderer, so that you don't expect stuff like the Ramp shaders to work in Yafray etc.
Brilliant Idea :!:
And an idea that's been had by many people , many times before. However, as I'll say again, there doesn't seem to be a nice simple (as in, won't add tons of hackish complexity) way to do this within the current UI code systems. We all know this would be nice, but it's just not on the horizon - there are more feasible and important things to worry about right now.
so it's best to have only 1 full featured, very capable, totally awsome renderer that does everything.
No, it's not best becasue "1 full featured, very capable, totally awsome renderer that does everything" does not exist and is bordering on the theoretical and impossible. Different renderers are good at different things. Even the most expensive harcore commercial renderers like PRMan and Mental Ray have their own advantages and disadvantages, and their own target markets. Unless of course, you're proposing to code the one true be-all and end-all renderer with perfect integration with Blender, that is.

I'd also like to make a reminder that YafRay is of course still very young (hasn't even reached version 0.1 yet!) and still developing. It's not reasonable to expect that it will instantly support all the features of Blender, which has been worked on for many, many years. The tighter integration is steadily coming, (see eeshlo's latest code commits here and here for things like yafray support for Ortho cameras, yafray raytraced depth-of-field integration, etc), but it's not going to happen overnight.
Last edited by matt_e on Sat Jul 24, 2004 3:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

Monkeyboi
Posts: 251
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 1:24 pm
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Contact:

Post by Monkeyboi »

broken wrote: And an idea that's been had by many people , many times before. However, as I'll say again, there doesn't seem to be a nice simple (as in, won't add tons of hackish complexity) way to do this within the current UI code systems. We all know this would be nice, but it's just not on the horizon - there are more feasible and important things to worry about right now.
Too bad...


Giving it some more thought I do think there is some point to what mpan3 is saying. Comparing to Maya wich has loads of renderers with advantages/disadvantages and different features, Softimage XSI sure is nicer IMO with one hell of a good renderer completely integreated with everything. However, this is an open source world, and it just won't make sense to remove any of Blenders current rendering engines.

matt_e
Posts: 410
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2002 4:32 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Post by matt_e »

Monkeyboi wrote:Giving it some more thought I do think there is some point to what mpan3 is saying. Comparing to Maya wich has loads of renderers with advantages/disadvantages and different features, Softimage XSI sure is nicer IMO with one hell of a good renderer completely integreated with everything. However, this is an open source world, and it just won't make sense to remove any of Blenders current rendering engines.
Of course there's a point to what he said, just as there would be a point if I said "I think Blender should be perfect and have every modelling tool under the sun and render Lord of the Rings scenes in 5 seconds by clicking a button". It's still just wishful dreaming though.

It's not even a matter of being open source, just that these things take a lot of work - it's absolutely possible for someone to code, say, a Mental Ray export that's perfectly integrated with Blender, it's just a hell of a lot of work that would take teams of people years to accomplish. XSI was built from the ground up to work with Mental Ray, a task that took many years and initially cost Softimage|3d many users from the lack of development on it. Compare the Mental Ray integration in Maya (a program that wasn't designed to work with it) - it's taken two Maya releases (with teams of coders paid to do this boring grunt-work for hours) to get to the level that they are at, and the integration still has a a fair bit to be desired.

levon
Posts: 0
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 6:06 am
Location: adelaide

Post by levon »

mpan3 wrote:I am not into coding so I don't know if it's possible to basically get rid of Blender's internal ray-tracer and use YafRay's?
it would be possible, but i think it would be stupid as well.

zlop
Posts: 0
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 7:32 pm

Post by zlop »

I like Blender internal renderer, I have no experience in coding or other software programmation I would like to know if it is possible to improve this renderer (maybe the development of a renderer is very complex I don't know). :?:

solmax
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2002 2:47 am
Contact:

Post by solmax »

And an idea that's been had by many people , many times before. However, as I'll say again, there doesn't seem to be a nice simple (as in, won't add tons of hackish complexity) way to do this within the current UI code systems. We all know this would be nice, but it's just not on the horizon - there are more feasible and important things to worry about right now.
well we have that already built in - when switching to yafray additional controls appear, when switching back they disappear. this could be extended to every interface part related, e.g. the material buttons show an additional Yafray tab and so on. it would be like yablex, but split up in blender-centric sections (materials, textures, world, camera etc.) and integrated into the code rather then a py-script.

i agree that the one uber-renderer isn't there and this shouldn't be anything to bother about at the moment. i wouldn't wanna miss the speedy internal renderer either, which saved my commercial ass many times during the past two years and made me hit the well-known tight deadlines.

Post Reply