Just ONE renderer is enough!

Blender's renderer and external renderer export

Moderators: jesterKing, stiv

xand
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2002 9:46 am

Post by xand »

if you can't afford two or more renderers (don't forget the aqsis/renderman export), don't care about yafray.
if, one time, you achieve all the possibilities of the internal renderer,try another one.


+++

macouno
Posts: 0
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2003 3:37 am

Post by macouno »

I agree that it's confusing and that sometimes it seems like too much time is put into adding lots of little bits to blender (like yafray and rib export) in stead of expanding on the things already in there.

Just to nag: I'd personally much rather have a good edge function or DOF system in the internal renderer than rib export.

But we don't tell the coders what to do... they make up their own minds. And I think it's going to get more confusing rather than less.

The thing that bugs me about the way things seem to be going is that to get everything out of blender you need to install more and more software. Blender/yafray/python... what's next???

By now I simply don't bother with yafray and python anymore... there's enough to do in blender internally. And that seems like a whaste of coding.

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

Post by solmax »

with growth comes complexity. and i don't see what's wrong with different softwarepackages you need - this is the usual way it goes.

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

Post by levon »

but with out python we would not have all those awsome scripts make human, Lsystem, we would not be able to export or import any other 3D file formats, alot of stuff in the game engine would also not be possible and lots of other stuff.

i cant see many bad points of the python part, it allows you to do alot of stuff that would other wise not be possible.

pgregory
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2002 11:09 pm

Post by pgregory »

macouno wrote: ... there's enough to do in blender internally. And that seems like a whaste of coding.
What to you seems like important things to do, to others seem unncessary. You must remember that this is a community project, intended to satisfy a wide audience with a wide ranging set of requirements. You say...
macouno wrote: Just to nag: I'd personally much rather have a good edge function or DOF system in the internal renderer than rib export.
...well there are others to whom DOF in the internal renderer is completely unimportant, while RIB export is imperative. Especially given that most Renderman renderers can do DoF out of the box, with much better results than Blenders internal renderer could achieve.

One more thing, Blender is Open Source, which means if there is a feature you want/need, then you can always pick up a text editor and code it yourself, as I did.

Cheers

PaulG

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

Post by ideasman »

You can have your cake and eat it too.
DOF is being worked on for blenders Internal renderer. Check out Ray Willis's patch (aka f00f) It does soft shadows, blury reflections and can be used to impliment DOF too.

People will code what they want on projects like this, its not a waisted effort since there are many uses for a 3d app.

Its not like 10 ppl are being payed to code full time and there hours are alotted to set things.

I code in area that interest me, or that need doing a lot, I suspect others are similar.

Dont get me started on why blender needs Python.
1- its not realy a dep since it comes with Blender as a DLL (in windows) and Python is standard with Linux/ (and OSX?)

2- How many 3d apps use a REAL scripting language?? LWScript (Lightwave), Maxscript (3DS MAX).
Python is a good language even if you prefer C, its quick to write in and can be used for many other applications then blender.
Also, its possible to import functions unrelated to blender so as to be able to intergrate blender with other things.

- Python is used in the game engine as well as the blender api.

- Cam

katharos
Posts: 0
Joined: Thu May 08, 2003 2:19 am

Post by katharos »

The crux of the issue is integration, both internally and externally. Developing a plugin/exporter is fine, and I think that having options is always good. As it provides flexibility to the user to choose the best tool. However, there is no point in having that option if it doesn't work well, or lacks integration. Take a render engine integration, if it only exports geometry and no surface or lighting material, whilst fine for testing, is almost useless for general use. Take further, being able to export 60% of settings for a light, but not attenuation method or spot size makes that integration poor. So on that note, integration, IMHO, is the key. Having the ability to seamlessly and transparently work, taking all Blender settings, and producing similar results. In that, one doesn't need to change light intensity (there will always be tweaking...), and all Blender light types are supported, as well as all material settings. The Yafray integration, in my limited use of it, has mixed results, and with the various developments in the internal rendering, the need need to use Yafray for special rendering techniques diminish. It is true that Yafray is still very infant. And I fully support its continual integration into Blender, but I think that a tighter integration is need. Anyway, just my thoughts.

Post Reply