FinalRender SP2 out - with LOTS of presets - HINT ChaosGroup

[simmsimaging]

I'm sure Still, there is a lot of stuff that makes more sense from a "programmer/coder" sort of viewpoint that is less penetrable from a simple user viewpoint.

out of curiosity: as one example, why not just call subdivisions "quality", and then in the documentation explain that it is in fact subdivisions? It seems to me you could do that pretty much everywhere the term comes up and it would actually be simpler to understand it's purpose as a new user.

/b

[rivoli]

I wouldn't find it fair, if from now on new users had to spend less time than it took to me to learn vray

[super gnu]

thats a slippery slope there.. it frustrates me that people dont have to learn realistic lighting with only omnis and spots , and measure off paper plans with a scale ruler, but you just have to accept it.. these things are getting easier. notice how many people on the forum are using the "universal settings" these days? if youve got 5 dual quads and 24 gig of ram who needs to optimise?

[dmf-123]

I wouldn't find it fair, if from now on new users had to spend less time than it took to me to learn vray

Haha, I'm with Rivoli. In fact, I'd suggest making settings more confusing, to offer us a bit of job security...

I'd imagine Vray probably scares off some portion of the market, by being too technical. Seems to me if settings were simpler, they could sell more licenses to people who might otherwise be intimated. That's not to say vray should go to presets, only that I'm surprised they haven't already.

But personally, I don't think I would use presets (mostly out of a desperate need to believe hours learning by tweaking individual settings, was time well spent).

[glorybound]

I saw an image come though my office this morning. It was from the office of the only client I fired, and it was horrific! You can give someone a pad of paper and a pencil, but it doesn't mean they can draw. The image was wrong on so many levels and it just made them look very unprofessional. I am sure it satisfied their immediate need, but it did their project, or their firm, no favors.

The Bowling Alley render I recently did almost took an immediate turn for the worse. My client, the architect, trusts that I'll produce an outstanding image and he lets me do my job, but this time his client got involved. The architect's client, who was a developer, wanted me to raise the camera up about 25' and bring the sun behind the camera so everything is in light. Basically the developer wanted a SE isometric, that every CAD Tech seems to think is a great view, and I wouldn't do it.

There is a need for SE isometrics and there is a need for architectural illustrations. We, as people who need to make a living, have to decide what kind of work we will do. We also need to know what our work is worth and figure out a way to make a profit. The Bowling Alley took me about 3 days and I was paid $750.00. You charge for more than the image, you charge for your expertise, your reliability, the trust your client has in you, and many other things.

Anyway.... learn the software before you worry about presets, IMO.

[MoonDoggie]

I'm sure Still, there is a lot of stuff that makes more sense from a "programmer/coder" sort of viewpoint that is less penetrable from a simple user viewpoint.

out of curiosity: as one example, why not just call subdivisions "quality", and then in the documentation explain that it is in fact subdivisions? It seems to me you could do that pretty much everywhere the term comes up and it would actually be simpler to understand it's purpose as a new user.

/b

My purposed list of renamed things:

Antialiaser: "the no more Jagged edges thing"
GI On: "the 'ooooh pretty' checkbox"
Brute Force for secondary bounces: "DON'T EVER USE ME"
Anisotropy: "Brushed Metal look"

Any more?

[super gnu]

youre forgetting the "make picture" button we use all the time.

[MoonDoggie]

I like Brett's idea but if you don't rename them as suggested, at least make the tooltip give a good explanation of their function. imo.

[AJ Jefferies]

I like Brett's idea but if you don't rename them as suggested, at least make the tooltip give a good explanation of their function. imo.

I was just about to suggest this. Renaming settings to match their function would be a logistical nightmare - I don't think changing 'Caustics' to 'Pretty Light Patterns' would help anyone

But the option for tooltips that give a brief summary of what each setting does could be a big help for those that are new to the software.

Of course the downside to this is that so many features & settings are interdependent that a 'simple' explanation may be more of a hindrance.

[Morne]

My original post was from a business point of view, not from an artistic one.
For sales of VRay, which you think makes more sense marketing wise?

A) The best and greatest render engine ever. You won't find any better anywhere. Gives best results. Takes years to master unless you're an expert already or in an office surrounded by experts.

OR

B) The best and greatest render engine ever. Produce the best and quickets results. So easy to master your grandmother can do it.

[joconnell]

Exactly - we learned a lot by trying to explain LWF and since there's so many different ways to explain the damn thing they seemed to tangle each other up and add to the confusion rather than solve it.

[Drawehn]

Well, maybe Solidrocks should close a deal with Chaosgroup and be included in every release form now on?

I don't agree that presets stop people from understanding settings. They might in some cases, but for me they merely speed things up. With Solidrocks I have a decent-looking image which renders fast and then I tweek the settings from there to achieve the result I am after. No preset is ever going to work perfectly for your image but it gives you a good start without typing too many numbers.

[simmsimaging]

I was just about to suggest this. Renaming settings to match their function would be a logistical nightmare - I don't think changing 'Caustics' to 'Pretty Light Patterns' would help anyone

But the option for tooltips that give a brief summary of what each setting does could be a big help for those that are new to the software.

Of course the downside to this is that so many features & settings are interdependent that a 'simple' explanation may be more of a hindrance.

I understand that changing names now would be... painful.. for existing experienced users and Chaos. Still, sometimes you have to take a harder side-step in order to advance.

I also get that it can be hard to come up with good labels, and that it's not always possible to improve on the existing ones. All that said, there are simply many functions that are completely opaque to new users, or even reasonably seasoned users, and whose name gives *zero* indication of what they might be for. Seriously: why not call "subdivisions" "quality"? I just don't see it, but maybe I'm just missing something there.

While some people feel it's okay to expect someone to spend days/months/years working it all out, I think that's overly simple. Right now there is no choice, and it's still worth it, but time is money, and I, for one, would rather spend that time trying to make some money.

/b

[joconnell]

Yeah it's a tough one alright - I think there's a lot of people that don't want to invest the time reading manuals either so some good introduction material might help things along. Francescos book is pretty comprehensive but I can imagine a lot of people that aren't really into 3d software would find it a bit daunting

[simmsimaging]

Daunting is a good word for it I think the fact that you can write a book of that size and density that just explains how the tools work, never mind how to use them in combination to make nice pictures, is a good measure of how tough the program can be to learn. Anything that makes it easier would help.

/b