Page 2 of 2

Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 10:37 am
by joeri
Maya has a nice way to draw plug-in specific buttons in the interface.
Python in blender cannot solve this because the buttons in blender are all c. Also it pretty hard for blender to save non-blender data.
This could be an area to look at and make some improvements, but I suspect that's 3.0 work.

A "clumsy" midway could be to have phony buttons that are named by a (python) plug-in. This would mean only 1 or two plug-ins, but buttons on the "right" spot for setting values that the plug-in (or script exporter) might need. Say 3 buttons per panel? (/me looks at Matt and hides).

Posted: Thu Jul 07, 2005 1:14 pm
by lotw
SirDude wrote:While I do think it would be great for blender to support the renderman specification as an option for external rendering, I think that removing
the internal renderer would be a mistake. Even if there were no further
development on the current system I would still use it, its fast and it produces great results for what I use it for.

This is also an open source project, people work on what they want to/ are interested in working on.

By your logic, yafray should not exist. There were lots of other renderer's out there one of which is blender's.
Should the yafray team have not done their project and just worked on one of those instead?

I do think the yafray integration is a great first step and integrating external renderer's using the renderman API. I also think things will improve in the future, we'll have to wait and see.
I agree. The internal renderer is great and should be improved. The problem with going to an external renderer is that you need to figure out how to get your texture, plugins, and other things over to them so that they look the way the user wants. Right now using Blender 3d v2.37a and Yafray v0.0.7 there is a great difference in the two results, mainly the loss of textures and having to change lighting set ups a lot. Blender 3d should not have to rely on someone else for the rendering.

Posted: Sat Aug 13, 2005 12:15 am
by konrad_ha
Instead of dropping a renderer (like the internal one) I'd rather have Yafray-like integration of more renderers into Blender. They all seem to have benefits and drawbacks, but choice seems to be one of the most important aspects of OS. There's a couple of interesting OS-renderers out there.

Thich makes me wonder how the process of unifying and passing along rendering-data can be simplified. Most renderes seem to take very different approaches on how to expect their data (geometry and textures). It might be interesting to research ways of passing this data along in more consistant ways, therefor making it easier to adopt renderers to Blender and vice-versa.

Posted: Sun Aug 14, 2005 1:07 am
by Sutabi
I dont think any more renderer's should be added to blender, for the sake of insanity, rather increase the python api within blender to allow access things that other renders are designed for. Blender has troble with large scene, while Renderman doesn't even break a sweat. Pixie has things like LOD, shader rate per object and plenty of other features what was built for massive rendering. I think these feature should be hardcoded into blender even if its not that great of an improvement, but it will allow user to create scripts to export to other renderers, with being such a demand on creating their own gui to allow such features.

Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 10:55 pm
by coltseaver
I am for a renderman integration yes (long, long request), but i don't agree about anihilate the internal engine.

Using renderman has a lot of advantages:
- better quality (scalable)
- better computing of geometry
- Easier way to extract render's datas (eg:shadows, lights, etc...)
- solid sharder language (close to C)

Yes all user aren't able to write a shader, but newbie can't even use correctly Yafray and however Yafray is on the road. In another way, nothing avoid to make some GUI to simplify some task.

Blender will be more complexe, it's obvious, it's a fact and newbie will have as many difficult as now thus...
It's not a reason to private advanced users cause noob can't render his super envmapped "glowed" sphere. :)
Moreover noobs don't understand current and new features so...

CGI is difficult or rather complex, it's a fact.

Now i agree about some Aqsis or Pixie flaws, but it's mainly because there are no tools to handle it and thus no feedback. And indeed, don't speak about python SCRIPT :p

i mainly agree with author's thread, but not about disable internal engine.

[Important note]
Damn, stop to think user are idiot.
[/note]

cheerz

Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2005 10:01 pm
by Smb
To me, it would be interesting to hear what Ton thinks about all this :D

Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2005 11:10 am
by fearandloathing
Smb wrote:To me, it would be interesting to hear what Ton thinks about all this :D
He will probably not like the idea of ripping out the internal renderer.
I'm not even sure I agree with myself on this one, there's so much more important things to improve in blender before doing something like this (like improving the animation tools).
Although a new motionblur method is desperately needed in Blender's internal renderer, the multipass method just won't cut it for faster movements (too many passes required for acceptable resuts, and each pass is a full pass).

It's my understanding that there were some difficulties getting Blender to export the nescessary data to get deformation motionblur for the Renderman exporter in Tuhopuu 2, and it was abandoned.

Hey I thought this thread was dead, I abandoned it in June.

Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2005 11:37 am
by joeri
fearandloathing wrote:Hey I thought this thread was dead, I abandoned it in June.
Hooray for plug and play php modules :)

I don't like the idea of ripping out things.
In my opinion blender should stay a suite.
Full 3d package in a single download.

Posted: Wed Aug 24, 2005 9:23 am
by GusM
I am with joeri in this: please, keep the full suite.