for v-ray to be a true mass succes

[dalomar_cg]

Re: for v-ray to be a true mass succes

I think the idea of converting the standard Rhino materials is good. We currently have a similar setup with SU, so it shouldn't be too much of an issue. Personally I never really used the Rhino materials, but I can definitely see how it would be useful.

The checkbox for fresnel might be a little easier, but personally I wouldn't use it (I actually don't use it vfMax either...I always use the fresnel map).

Material from object sounds good.

With the arroway materials all of the maps should be applied in the Fresnel Color Map of the Fresnel Texture (hope that makes sense). The reason why they are within the Fresnel Map as opposed to out on their own is that they won't vary with your viewing angle unless the map is in Fresnel. The only reflection map that I've ever had trouble with is reflection glossiness. All the other ones I know for fact work, so if you have a specific issue getting that working put up a post.

I think we all agree that we need to step up the UI, so we have that on our radar and we are working towards it. Obviously its not one thing, but a number of things, so its not something to be take lightly or done with haste. This means that it won't be in the upcoming service release, but that doesn't mean we haven't been working on it or that it isn't on our minds. For me, there is a smaller and smaller gap between vfr/su and vfmax, so as the two get closer and closer we can move towards making sure that all of this functionality work better for the users.

In regards to C4D and Maya, those platforms are a different landscape then Rhino. C4D is practically built on plugins and Maya has been around for quite a while. I'm not saying that Rhino isn't a good platform (those who know, know I love rhino), but having a render plugin is a completely new thing for them. That means that there are things that just aren't there in rhino that are in the other programs that are built for visualization.

[ALTO]

Re: for v-ray to be a true mass succes

I think the idea of converting the standard Rhino materials is good. We currently have a similar setup with SU, so it shouldn't be too much of an issue. Personally I never really used the Rhino materials, but I can definitely see how it would be useful.

This would be for sure extremely usefull.
First because switching from different render engines the only material that can be read correctly is the basic rhino material.
Also i use a lot the "simple" rendered viewport for some viz works and if i need to do "real rendering" some materials are not converted correctly in vray , for example shader with alpha map and transparent (glass) materials.

With the arroway materials all of the maps should be applied in the Fresnel Color Map of the Fresnel Texture (hope that makes sense). The reason why they are within the Fresnel Map as opposed to out on their own is that they won't vary with your viewing angle unless the map is in Fresnel.

Thanks Damien, ... i'm not really sure about the result, but i will try!

For me, there is a smaller and smaller gap between vfr/su and vfmax

The gap isn't so smaller, a lot of basic features don't exists in VfR (VrayOverrideMtl, VRayMtlWrapper, other kind of VRayLights, other kind of AA filters, VRayToon,VRayShadow, Render Elements are incomplete, IBL, Vrayproxy, Vrayfur, per object controls (GI-displacement-hide from camera ecc..) VRayDirt... should i continue?)
and workflow especially in material creation is totally different, as you said for a simple refl map i need to open 3 windows instead of dragging textures from explorer to mat editor slot (and the result could be unexpected!)

....That means that there are things that just aren't there in rhino that are in the other programs that are built for visualization.

This is why the RDK (ex rcm) was created, ok you don't want to use it, but at least, please, give us a valid alternative A.S.A.P....
I'm sorry to sound rude but i've convinced (a lot of time ago) one of the companies i work for, to buy VfR and we have use it only for a pair of works because of mentioned limitations; we have requested (me, Micha and other users) many times for basic features that need to be implemented and the answer was always: ...yes, sound interesting, we will look into this...
I know you are a small company and i know you have found some problems with SketchUp, but, just a question, why have you started porting the plugin to another software without "finish" the Rhino version?

Really hope to see some interesting improvements soon.

Thanks

[dalomar_cg]

Re: for v-ray to be a true mass succes

This is why the RDK (ex rcm) was created, ok you don't want to use it, but at least, please, give us a valid alternative A.S.A.P....

In my opinion RDK doesn't give nearly enough functionality to 3rd party render engines. I can list several major things that are supported directly through Max that we don't have in Rhino (decent mapping, the ability to do complicated wrapping with manipulating UVs, UV unwrap, volumetric lighting, render management (backburner), texture baking, a long list of procedurals, advance light parameters, camera objects, per object controls, AA filters, several material types, and the list goes on). There is functionality that we use from RDK (without RDK we probably wouldn't have a sun), we could use more, but the things that we could add would me minor. We don't use things like the Material Editor because thats a core element of V-Ray, so we wanted to have one that we could bring to apps like SU and Revit/ArchiCAD that don't have a substantial enough material editor (if one at all). There is allot to catchup with on Rhino's part, but the main issue there is that its not their goal to be on top of the rendering world...so where does that leave us. We have looked at developing some of those things ourselves, but as you already know, we are small so we have to choose our battles.

The gap isn't so smaller, a lot of basic features don't exists in VfR

At the time we release the first SR and vfr4 there were a number of things that weren't in the SDK that currently are (thats what I've been told). So basically its functionality that we are currently in a position to add were we weren't before. I agree that those things would be great to have (dirt, override mat) and I want to get all of those in vfr as soon as we can. There were allot of major things that made it to the last service release that make me feel that we're closer (physical sun/sky, physical camera, displacement...) but we will always be working towards getting things closer. Several of those things that you asked for (per object, proxies, fur) are not trivial things to add, both from a pure functionality stand point and as the UI goes as well. We have also had a number of significant things on our plate such as making sure our software works on Vista and reworking our liscensing.

why have you started porting the plugin to another software without "finish" the Rhino version?

Thats one I really won't touch, but personally almost every single one of my projects I don't consider "done". I know no one in the office considers vfr "done"

[Micha_cg]

Re: for v-ray to be a true mass succes

... and the answer was always: ...yes, sound interesting, we will look into this...

Sorry that I write this, but if I read this answer, than I could cry, because I read it to often without implementation. At the old beta times I have seen an implementation within a few weeks, but now ... . Often I feel, Joe can not enough focus his energy to the Rhino plugin. The times between SR, bug fixes are very long.

Basic features - for example I don't understand, why it is so difficult to add the feature, that invisible lights are visible at reflections. It's important, but missing since a very long time. Or what is a physical camera without DOF?

Or an other request was to get a Tutorial forum like at the chaosgroup, but no answer and no reaction. It's not for me, it's for the other user. I don't want to see the same questions all the days again, like "why are emitters black?". It could be so easy, if new user could read all post at the tutorial section.

Vray is the fastest Rhino renderer with a great quality. I wish, the plugin could be bugfree and polished, than it will be render engine number one for Rhino.

[ALTO]

Re: for v-ray to be a true mass succes

Regarding RDK, it offers not enough funcionality also because of your fault (i mean ALL render plugin developers not only you ASGVIS!).

Andy le Bihan have asked from the first time to all developers to use and evaluate RDK:
This is what everytime he write when a new version is out:

...This release of the RDK Rendering Platform for Rhino 3.0 and 4.0 is substantially complete and includes a near-final SDK. We are still open to SDK change requests from plug-in developers, but this process will end within the next month. We strongly recommend you evaluate the RDK feature set if you are developing rendering plug-ins for Rhino during the next month to ensure that your comments are taken into consideration when the final SDK is released. ...

And this is a part of discussion between Micha and Andy on Rhino Newsgroup:

Hello Andrew,

since a long time a few bugs makes that the work with the RCM makes no fun
allways. Do you know this bug thread at the Vray forum?
http://www.asgvis.com/index.php?opti...90&topic=924.0
Is it possible to talk about improvements of the mapping tool. I use it
daily and would be very happy to see a progress of the developing.

Regards,
Micha

__________________________________________________ ____________
Micha

No - I don't watch that forum, but I will take a look. I think I asked
ASGVIS to send me the bug report and sample models, but never got anything.
Any help on this stuff would be very useful.

As a simple user i can make some requests but for sure a developer voice is more considered, so if you have some wish regarding RDK try to ask to Andy....

(PS: have you seen that the new version support HDR preview in viewport?)



There is something that i don't understand from what you said in the past regarding Material Editor...

From an old discussion Joe wrote:

....All I can say to kinda wrap this up is - we're a young product. We didn't start off expecting we'd actually make a material editor / texture editor. We took it to a level where it was as functional as possible within our time and resource restraints. ...

and you Damien:

...Remember that we do copy the options set up, and also that VrayforMax uses Max's native material editor (and maya's uses the native one too I believe). So basically we were kind of out on our own once we got to Rhino. ....

Now you are saying:

....We don't use things like the Material Editor because thats a core element of V-Ray, so we wanted to have one that we could bring to apps like SU and Revit/ArchiCAD that don't have a substantial enough material editor (if one at all). ...

So if your idea of building plugins for these kind of applications was here from the beginning, a Material Editor should had a priority.... ???

Vray is the fastest Rhino renderer with a great quality. I wish, the plugin could be bugfree and polished, than it will be render engine number one for Rhino.

Totally agree with this, i'm so critic (i hope in constuctive mode) because i want to see a best quality plugin for a best quality renderer!

[dalomar_cg]

Re: for v-ray to be a true mass succes

First of all, Andy's post from the newsgroup was months ago, and I ask you...How many changes in RDK have you seen in the last 2 releases? Have the mapping issues been cleared up? Have any of the functionality that I mentioned above been remotely implemented? The answer is no. Andy's feeling is exactly what he writes; he feels that RDK, and therefore Rhino's capability for 3rd party renderers, is fine. But all he, or anyone has to do is open up Max, Maya, Lightwave, XSI, or C4D and see what is readily available within those programs...then we'll see how much needs to get done. Even if all he does is read our RCM thread or some of the wishes on the Rhino Newsgroup then he'd realize there is still work to be done. Micha's on the newsgroup asking for stuff, I'm there, and others (vray or other renderers) are there asking for things. So I hope the development for RDK doesn't stop because that means that at best we'll have to wait for v5 for some important features, if they even make it into v5 (which right now we don't have any indication that it would).

On a related note, its just me, but I don't think its too hard to keep track of the 2-3 forums of the renders that RDK supports. I'm not saying checking in on a daily basis, but once a week doesn't seam too much to ask.

(PS: have you seen that the new version support HDR preview in viewport?)

Neither Jeff LaSor or David Rutten said anything about HDR-viewport support when I talked to them at SIGGRAPH. If I missed that, then its news to me. I think thats great, but to me thats a grain of sand on the beach (okay not a beach, but at least a large handful ;D)


So to clear up somethings about the material editor. Back when we initially started developing for Rhino there really wasn't a material editor that had the capabilities that we needed. So we had to make our own. Once we started working on SU we had the same issue, so we brought it over. Now, having a single material editor is proving to be useful because documentation is easier with the same elements, and we are looking at the same situation in the programs I mentioned. Hopefully that makes more sense now.

Vray is the fastest Rhino renderer with a great quality. I wish, the plugin could be bugfree and polished, than it will be render engine number one for Rhino.

Totally agree with this, i'm so critic (i hope in constuctive mode) because i want to see a best quality plugin for a best quality renderer!

There is nothing I want more, and I do all I can to help V-Ray be a better renderer. I, however, am in the same situation as you. I'm not a programmer, so I can't help out (hopefully you guys knew that...I write scripts at best). I really wish I could because I could actually say more about things. All I can do is physically bug Joe by nagging him day in and day out, taping him to his chair, or giving him an IV of coffee.

Alto...your comments are constructive. Its good to hear feedback from users who care, even if it isn't singing our praises and glory. I have to boast about vray so much I tend to forget that we still have a long way to go.

[Travis Serio_cg]

Re: for v-ray to be a true mass succes

I would just like to point out that I did a demo on brazil for rhino almost 3.5 years ago. That same weekend I gave a glimpse of Flamingo 2.0. Since then I've had several version of Vray within 1 year and it keeps getting better with each release. I still don't have a very functional Brazil or Flamingo 2.0. I think the saying is "Rome wasn't built in a day"

I don't think anyone at asgvis is sitting on their asses while we suffer with known issues. It's a matter of putting out fires as fast as they can and also working with the developers at chaos group as well as developers at McNeel that have to lay ground work first before any effort from asgvis can be made.

So just look at the amount of time VFR has been around compared to these other engines and then let's compare results.

There's always Tucan! wo0t. :-X

[ALTO]

Re: for v-ray to be a true mass succes

Damien,
first of all mapping is no more part of RDK and Andy already said that some fix&improvements will be out with Rhino SR2, and yes i can see some nice changes in the last RDK releases...
Regarding comunication problems i've asked him directly for different things and now are present in RDK, other will be added soon....if you want i will try to ask for more (but this is not my work! ) As i said a technical request from another developer will be for sure more considered than a simple wish from a simple user!

I don't think anyone at asgvis is sitting on their asses while we suffer with known issues.

Travis, no one here are saying that asgvis isn't working, but what i see is that if something is not already present in Rhino (or in RDK) it's not integrated in VfR (or with serious difficulty), for example have you seen all kind of customized lights that Brazil have? or the env image preview in Maxwell (also in Brazil now)? or the "fake" reflections and sun shading in Maxwell? Have you seen their Material Editors? ...and also why is Vray the ONLY renderer that doesn't have a per-object panel ?

So just look at the amount of time VFR has been around compared to these other engines and then let's compare results. ...

I don't know the exact time they start porting each renderer into Rhino, but i can see here that the "VFR Pre_Release_Build 2" was released on nov 2005, the "Brazil WIP 1.0" was in may 2005....well for sure Vray is production ready while Brazil is not, but try to compare the workflow between the two, and since they are also available in 3dStudio, if you can, try to see the differences between the Rhino versions and the originals in Max.

The point here is that now VfR is more limited than Vray in other platforms (not only my opinion, a lot of people saw that on SIGGRAPH) and unfortunately it's not so well integrated like other rhino renderers. I will wait for the next major update hoping that it will be released soon.

All I can do is physically bug Joe by nagging him day in and day out, taping him to his chair, or giving him an IV of coffee.

;D ;D ;D
if you need more than a simple coffee let me know... ;D

[joe_b]

Re: for v-ray to be a true mass succes

I apologize if you feel the workflow of our product holds you back. We are working to improve it. However, we need to solve our workflow problems for our existing and future products. So unfortunately, the wholesale adaptation of everything RDK isn't going to solve all of my problems. I can't take RDK with me to any other platform.

Sadly, at the moment, new releases of RDK break our plugin and Andy needed to pull the functionality that we do use out so we could access it specially. Since RDK is a WIP we, technically, are not even supposed to be using it since we are a released product. Andy was cool enough to help us out so we can continue using it.

Is VfR limited? - I would say that the differences between VfR and V-Ray for Max are the differences between Rhinoceros and 3dsMax for the most part. The other missing V-Ray features just need to be translated over.

Anyway - I'm proud of what we, as a very small company at the start, have accomplished with our products. Are they perfect? Far from it. But find me one piece of software that is. All we can do is try to make it better, and to that end I appreciate your suggestions.

Oh - and I am more than willing to accept caffeine donations

[dalomar_cg]

Re: for v-ray to be a true mass succes

But find me one piece of software that is.

MineSweeper, FreeCell, Solitaire...Thats all I've got for now. ;D

[Travis Serio_cg]

Re: for v-ray to be a true mass succes

solitare is pretty rock solid.... free cell aint to dang shabby either when it comes to up time.

[ALTO]

Re: for v-ray to be a true mass succes

So unfortunately, the wholesale adaptation of everything RDK isn't going to solve all of my problems. I can't take RDK with me to any other platform.

Hi Joe, thanks for your response,
you're totally right about other platforms but at the moment, from my point of view, this "idea" is slowing down the rhino plugin development...
What i think is that an universal plugin, for all applications you have in mind, is quite impossible to create, yes you can create a cross-platform Material Editor and Options Dialogs, (remember that SU and Archicad are also available on OSX!) but what about all other things like mapping, procedural maps, mix and blend materials, type of lights, safe frame, environment background, ecc...
Rhino (with RDK) can offer MORE than SketchUp, Revit, Archicad, so why we can't get benefit from that?

RDK will support also RPC content and Curve rendering, also i'm pretty sure that the code of displacement plugin can be used like the 3dMax displacement modifier and/or for something like vrayfur... and the RDK FrameBuffer offers some nice post effect features like Fog, Glow, Dof, Glare, Wireframe, actually in Max we can choose between standard FrameBuffer and VFB, the same could be done here! (it's a common attitude to apply Glow Effect in Max also with VRay renders)

I'm sorry but what i see is that VfR need more attention than other plugins!

Just my 0.02$.

... The other missing V-Ray features just need to be translated over.

...sound quite simple... so could you please give us an estimated time for this translation? :P

Thanks

[josh_dannenberg]

Re: for v-ray to be a true mass succes

has there been any update to volumetric lighting? i know there have been a few mentions of this on the VFR wish-list thread, but no reply as to whether or not it's being worked on. any idea of when we might expect it?

[dalomar_cg]

Re: for v-ray to be a true mass succes

Still on the wish list. We've been focusing on expanding things that have become available to us within the V-Ray SDK. Volumetric lighting is something we're going to have to pin down ourselves, so it will be worked in at some time in the future. I don't know when exactly that will be though...sorry.

[ALTO]

Re: for v-ray to be a true mass succes

Any news on Material Editor / General UI improvements?


I quote myself with this OLD post...

.....
in the meantime can we have the actual material editor linked to the RDK one?
I mean something like in Fryrender:

At last we can have a material browser and we can drag materials to objects!
....

I use the RDK MatEd also for standard Rhino materials, but (with the last RDK version and VfR SR1) if vray is the selected renderer i get this error:
"The Material Editor is not supported by the current render plug-in"
any chance to fix it?

Thanks