Please add per object (material) visibility options ...

[Travis Serio_cg]

Re: Please add per object (material) visibility options ...

Yes, I think we will probably see simple reflections on/off first (not sure if they will make sr1?) and then more complex tabs with scene object linking later down the road.

[Micha_cg]

Re: Please add per object (material) visibility options ...

I'm curious.

[Micha_cg]

Re: Please add per object (material) visibility options ...

One month later: yesterday I installed Maxwell v1.6, because I'm curious ... and yes it is slow, but ... :-\



Also yesterady seen, this example of a product shot - the front surface dosn't reflect the ground. That's it, what I need very often: the camera looks from an upper view and the side surfaces should not show reflections of the white ground only

[Micha_cg]

Re: Please add per object (material) visibility options ...

Attribute "visibility" "integer camera" [1] 
Attribute "visibility" "integer shadow" [0] 
Attribute "visibility" "integer trace" [0] 
Attribute "visibility" "integer indirect" [0]

I know Vray isn't Renderman, but maybe Vlado could enhance the SDK, so not every plugin programmer must discover new methods.

Damien, last you wrote, it's not so easy to implement this visibility stuff. Only I know, that it is very easy per renderman standard. I suppose so, Vlado could support something like this per SDK. What do you think? Could you ask Vlado? It's needed often.

[schultzeworks]

A possibly easier solution

Some renderers will allow you to assign each object (or several) in the scene to different layers, much like the alpha channels is a separate "layer" of data. I believe strata even generates a Photoshop file with the layers all separated for super easy compositing.

Imagine if your product/object, ground plane, and background were rendered to three separate layers and you could save that straight to Adobe Photoshop. Wow. Its a dream, but maybe someone will share it with me.

[Travis Serio_cg]

Re: Please add per object (material) visibility options ...

I'm with ya Dave. I requested this about 6 months ago.

The PNG format can actually be used to save layer data as well. I would love to see all objects on their own layers. Especially object alpha information.

[ALTO]

Re: Please add per object (material) visibility options ...

This is an intersting Object Properties Panel in Vray for Cinema

Add to Object Buffer - Use this options to specify up to 10 object buffer IDs for the object. These object channels correspond to the object channels defined in the Multi-Pass setting’s Channel menu. If you subsequently define an object channel in the Multi-Pass settings with an ID of 1, an alpha channel will be created that matches the object. This method can be used to create any number of alpha channels. An ID of 1 can also be assigned to other objects, letting you combine a wide variety of objects that can be output as alpha channels. Refer to the Multi-Pass description for more details.

That to give an alternative method to mask objects, since in the Vray SDK objectID is not antialiased .

[ALTO]

Re: Please add per object (material) visibility options ...

Oh and this is a mockup i made with my very first post in this forum: LINK

[Micha_cg]

Re: Please add per object (material) visibility options ...

... I try to forget this wish, but every render day remember me on it. Rendering could be so easy ... :'(

I suppose so, an easy solution for antialiased masks could be the wire frame color output based on the object Rhino color. I have the feeling, the VfR development is catched in a slow motion time loop ... : ... :'( ... motion blur ... :'( ...

[dalomar_cg]

Re: Please add per object (material) visibility options ...

We haven't forgot about this wish. It is very much on the list of things to implement right behind things like proxies. The reason why this wish isn't as simple as it looks, because implementing per object properties requires doing checks within the raytracing engine of just about every aspect of the renderer. I don't even know to what extent to which this wish truly reaches, so please don't chalk this up to "we don't care about it". With getting involved in all the raycasting, there's also much more damage that could happen, so its not something that just gets thrown in either. I want this this just as much as you, but we can't just add everything in a day, expect it to do what it needs to, be reliable, and be stable.

[Micha_cg]

Re: Please add per object (material) visibility options ...

From a users limited view the Cinema plugin is quite young and from my renderman language experience I know, that the SDK is important for a good render plugin. So, it's a pity, that the plugin developer must do the work of render engine team and code a half of a render engine. It's so unbeliveable easy to add this function to a renderman render plugin, because it are simple commands, like I wrote above. Why does the SDK not support complex features? At this road VfR will never meet Vf3dsmax. Is this not the goal anymore?

[dalomar_cg]

Re: Please add per object (material) visibility options ...

Contrary to your impression, being on par with the features available within vfMax is an important goal for us. We have quite a lot, but the stuff that is left is not the easy stuff, its the hard stuff.

AFAIK, the SDK is structured to allow for maximum flexibility, but of course there is a trade off with that. Also keep in mind that the render man language has been around for more than a decade, so its most likely significantly more developed than the Vray SDK (which started being developed when we started doing vfr).

To me there's no sense in discussing how easy or hard it is to do this because neither one of us really knows. Even though I've looked at the SDK I'm only able to process a small aspect of what its saying. I have no idea if you've looked through it, but either way neither of us has seen the vfr code. Basically, your posturing that it should be easy, I'm posturing that its not. Both of us can't make it work, and both of us will be very happy the day that its in there.

[Micha_cg]

Re: Please add per object (material) visibility options ...

Is the "clamp output level" option realy hard stuff too? The jagged edges are a pain often.
I can't belive, that Joe is working 8h per day 5 days the week on VfR. I remember me, that the Maxwell plugin was in an equal situation, the plugin development was extrem slow. Than JDHill starts, and I suppose so he was working full time on it, and he created a impressiv plugin with many nice special Rhino features like a solution for motion blur without Bongo or to show the HDRI environment at the viewport or ... .

Sidenote: the renderman language is very old, but it's open for everybody. And you say, the SDK is young, than I wonder me, that Vray for Cinema show this "hard stuff" features. VfC is started later than VfR, if I'm right informed.

Maybe it's all crap, what I wrote here and I expect to much. If I'm the only user with this thoughts, than I must be the problem and anything is fine. If I'm not the only one, than I suppose so it's better to talk about it.

[dalomar_cg]

Re: Please add per object (material) visibility options ...

I don't know how easy or hard things are to do. Some of them I look at myself and think that they are easy as well, but they are still not there. Its not that Joe doesn't know about what needs to be done. These wishes aren't burned while we laugh at the users who request them, their recorded and prioritized.

I'm not keeping track of Joe. I'm not his keeper and he's not mine. What he does is his responsibility. He isn't working on VfR the whole time because VfR isn't our only product. Many times he's working with core development (ie things that can be used within both vfr and vfSU) and much of what your asking for is core functionality, not Rhino specific.

My guess as to why VfC4d has all that stuff is that it was built from the ground up with those things in mind. Remember, vfr has been around for 3 years, and that whole time the SDK has been growing (mostly because we keep requesting Vlado add things). This means that the structure of the whole program is already written and that any new features have to work with this existing structure and most importantly not disturb it. This is a very different task than building everything from the ground up with all of the features that are now available. Thats my best speculation for that, but again, its useless because I haven't seen the code for either plugin or the SDK.

I have no problem with you expecting the things that you do. Many of your wishes I am right there with, am completely on board with adding, and will welcome the day they become available. At this point though its not about making the wish known. They've been requested, and they are on the projected list of new features for the next major release.

To me though, its frustrating to have to defend our development process because I'm not a part of it. I'm not developing anything, I'm just answering people's questions as best I can and testing new builds when they come available to me. I try to give as much information to the developers as possible, but beyond that there isn't too much else I can do because I can't program anything for vfr.

You know I'm up for having a discussion about things, but I'm not sure what we're discussing here. The wish has been made, recorded, and put on the development schedule. Until there's something to test, I'm not sure what's left to discuss on this except how long its taking.

[merlik585]

Re: Please add per object (material) visibility options ...

"Until there's something to test, I'm not sure what's left to discuss on this except how long its taking."


Well to me that is the problem,it is taking too long,the development is slow.Some progress has been made,but there is still lots of wishes left to implement,may be there is too much on ASGVIS plate.
I don't know when the next major released is scheduled for,let's hope it is not too far...

Renee