Re: Anybody still using mental ray?
nk a lot of users out there still use Mental Ray >> effectively and I consider anything that can strengthen the XSI community >> valuable, so by all means release your stuff. >> >> My two cents - peace >> Morten >> >> >> >> > Den 28. maj 2016 klokken 21:55 skrev Matt Lind > > <mailto:speye...@hotmail.com>>: >> > >> > >> > The people who complain the most about mental ray tend to be the ones who >> > never took the time to learn to use it properly. >> > >> > If you read the manuals, mental images states some modes are more taxing >> > than others for rendering. For example, Segmented shadow mode incurs 15% >> > additional rendering time vs. the default shadow computation mode, and is >> > less stable inside of material shaders. Segmented shadows is currently set >> > as the default shadow computation mode. If you do most of your rendering >> > in >> > passes, then you likely do not need segmented shadows and can revert to >> > what >> > is now labeled "normal" shadow mode to regain some performance and >> > stability. If your render pass doesn't need lighting, then turn shadows >> > off >> > completely. That's just one example. >> > >> > For XSI v1.0 thru XSI v5.11, the default settings Softimage chose for >> > mental >> > ray were fairly efficient, but users commonly complained about black spots >> > when doing renderings involving lots of reflection or refraction (because >> > they didn't increase ray depth) or anti-aliasing wasn't super smooth >> > (because they didn't set filter to 'lanczos' or 'mitchell' instead of >> > default 'box', or didn't adjust the adaptive sampling properly). In >> > essence, most complaints were due to user error - because users didn't take >> > the time to learn how to use the renderer >> > >> > To alleviate support issues, Softimage redefined the default mental ray >> > settings in XSI v6.0 to what they are now - which effectively activates a >> > bunch of stuff you don't need majority of the time and does a lot of extra >> > work that never shows up in the final rendered image. This change can >> > often >> > be blamed for inducing crashes and slower render times because many users >> > do >> > not tweak the settings. >> > >> > If you learn to use the renderer properly instead of using a 3DSMax >> > mentality of pushing a button and walking away, you'll get better >> > performance and stability. Much of that also involves strategy for setting >> > up the scene before sending it to the renderer - another area users make >> > gross mistakes because they don't take the time to understand the rendering >> > process. >> > >> > Matt >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 09:25:06 +0200 >> > From: Mirko Jankovic > > <mailto:mirkoj.anima...@gmail.com>> >> > Subject: Re: Anybody still using mental ray? >> > To: "softimage@listproc.autodesk.com >> > <mailto:softimage@listproc.autodesk.com>" >> > >> > *1. I don't want to throw away a expensive CPU based renderfarm.* >> > >> > It will be obsolete soon anyway so just make good planing for next render >> > tool, CPU or GPU road. >> > >> > >> > >> > *2. mental ray still has more shaders. It's slow sometimes but it is >> > rathergood when you want to do non physically based things. A bit like >> > Softimageitself, the all-purpose, swiss knife.* >> > >> > First time I heard something like this for MRay. Mostly it is in line I >> > wanna puke or quit 3d completely due to rendering part :) >> > When I discovered Arnold and then even more Redshift that is when a big >> > issue I had with SI, ie rendering was solved and 3d was fun again. >> > MRay was PAIN non stop! Swiss knife.. yea could say that, got ton of things >> > but nothing good for most of things :) >> > >> > Redshift saved my 3d ;) >> > >> > -- >> > Softimage Mailing List. >> > To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com >> > <mailto:softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com> with "unsubscribe" in the >> > subject, and reply to confirm. >> -- >> Softimage Mailing List. >> To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com >> <mailto:softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com> with "unsubscribe" in the >> subject, and reply to confirm. >> >> >> >> -- >> -- >> Juhani Karlsson >> 3D Artist/TD >> >> Talvi Digital Oy >> Tehtaankatu 27a >> 00150 Helsinki >> +358 443443088 >> juhani.karls...@talvi.fi <> >> www.vimeo.com/talvi <http://www.vimeo.com/talvi> >> >> -- >> Softimage Mailing List. >> To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com >> <mailto:softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com> with "unsubscribe" in the >> subject, and reply to confirm. > > -- > Softimage Mailing List. > To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com with > "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm. -- Softimage Mailing List. To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.
Re: Anybody still using mental ray?
My two cents - peace
Morten
> Den 28. maj 2016 klokken 21:55 skrev Matt Lind <speye...@hotmail.com>:
>
>
> The people who complain the most about mental ray tend
to be the ones who
> never took the time to learn to use it properly.
>
> If you read the manuals, mental images states some
modes are more taxing
> than others for rendering. For example, Segmented
shadow mode incurs 15%
> additional rendering time vs. the default shadow
computation mode, and is
> less stable inside of material shaders. Segmented
shadows is currently set
> as the default shadow computation mode. If you do most
of your rendering in
> passes, then you likely do not need segmented shadows
and can revert to what
> is now labeled "normal" shadow mode to regain some
performance and
> stability. If your render pass doesn't need lighting,
then turn shadows off
> completely. That's just one example.
>
> For XSI v1.0 thru XSI v5.11, the default settings
Softimage chose for mental
> ray were fairly efficient, but users commonly
complained about black spots
> when doing renderings involving lots of reflection or
refraction (because
> they didn't increase ray depth) or anti-aliasing wasn't
super smooth
> (because they didn't set filter to 'lanczos' or
'mitchell' instead of
> default 'box', or didn't adjust the adaptive sampling
properly). In
> essence, most complaints were due to user error -
because users didn't take
> the time to learn how to use the renderer
>
> To alleviate support issues, Softimage redefined the
default mental ray
> settings in XSI v6.0 to what they are now - which
effectively activates a
> bunch of stuff you don't need majority of the time and
does a lot of extra
> work that never shows up in the final rendered image.
This change can often
> be blamed for inducing crashes and slower render times
because many users do
> not tweak the settings.
>
> If you learn to use the renderer properly instead of
using a 3DSMax
> mentality of pushing a button and walking away, you'll
get better
> performance and stability. Much of that also involves
strategy for setting
> up the scene before sending it to the renderer -
another area users make
> gross mistakes because they don't take the time to
understand the rendering
> process.
>
> Matt
>
>
>
>
> Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 09:25:06 +0200
> From: Mirko Jankovic <mirkoj.anima...@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Anybody still using mental ray?
> To: "softimage@listproc.autodesk.com"
>
> *1. I don't want to throw away a expensive CPU based
renderfarm.*
>
> It will be obsolete soon anyway so just make good
planing for next render
> tool, CPU or GPU road.
>
>
>
> *2. mental ray still has more shaders. It's slow
sometimes but it is
> rathergood when you want to do non physically based
things. A bit like
> Softimageitself, the all-purpose, swiss knife.*
>
> First time I heard something like this for MRay. Mostly
it is in line I
> wanna puke or quit 3d completely due to rendering part
:)
> When I discovered Arnold and then even more Redshift
that is when a big
> issue I had with SI, ie rendering was solved and 3d was
fun again.
> MRay was PAIN non stop! Swiss knife.. yea could say
that, got ton of things
> but nothing good for most of things :)
>
> Redshift saved my 3d ;)
>
> --
> So
RE: Anybody still using mental ray?
Hey Matt, Sorry for my late response, just getting around to reading this thread. Matt, I can tell by your reply to my post, my words were received in a way I didn't intend. I certainly didn't mean you were saying "you're not smart enough to use software X". Didn't mean that at all. But I've been at this for some time, and in the past many tech providers really played off the "high-end" mystic. Not interested in getting into a conversation about who those providers were, but will say I've always felt it was an excuse to not invest time & resources toward training, documentation, and support. I don't know if that can be denied, as it has always been present in this industry. Anyway... I should have used better wording. Sorry about that. Cheers! -- Softimage Mailing List. To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.
Re: Anybody still using mental ray?
The quality of Softimage productions stood out with Arnold and it was for me clear moment when Softimage actually became great for rendering. For many years MR was the bottleneck imo. Other products had plenty of more capable third party renderers at the time. Now everyone is doing more or less similar stuff so it dosen`t matter that much. - J On 1 June 2016 at 11:48, Morten Bartholdy wrote: > I understand what you are saying Matt about learnign how to properly use > tools beore complaining, but I am one of those who have used MR extensively > in production for animation all the way back from when it was released for > Softimage 3D and onwards, ie. many, many years. I had to learn how to use > it in depth to get what I wanted, and the last years I used it I really > hated it for wasting so much of my time with technical issues. > > It was a blessing for Softimage 3D (having used the old built-in raytracer > since 1992) and it continued for quite a while to be a strong player in the > field until Mental Images somehow managed to drop the ball. > > I would say it is (still) a very good renderer for still frames - great > integration with XSI and lots of good shaders and utilities. They never > manged to make Final Gathering really good for animation though, and GI was > just plainly a pain to use. FG combined with motionblur and DOF is pretty > much not possible for production in MR. I can't even begin to count the > hours I have spent trying to fix stuff that would not render properly, > crash, render with ugly artifacts, or find some sort of workaround for > issues caused by MR, and then all the layers I have had to create to make > useful motion vector passes for scene with a lot of depth and stuff in them. > > I hated MR for years, found some relief in 3Delight along the way and > found Arnold absolutely liberating, making it fun again to shade, light and > render stuff, not looking back once. > > Nowadays with offerings like Arnold, Redshift and several others (Vray I > consider a bastard halfway between the bliss of Arnold and the dragging > mess of Mental Ray) I would never consider using Mental Ray except perhaps > for baking textures, because those tools really work well and Solid Angle > never really gave it much attention. > > All this said, I think a lot of users out there still use Mental Ray > effectively and I consider anything that can strengthen the XSI community > valuable, so by all means release your stuff. > > My two cents - peace > Morten > > > > > Den 28. maj 2016 klokken 21:55 skrev Matt Lind : > > > > > > The people who complain the most about mental ray tend to be the ones who > > never took the time to learn to use it properly. > > > > If you read the manuals, mental images states some modes are more taxing > > than others for rendering. For example, Segmented shadow mode incurs 15% > > additional rendering time vs. the default shadow computation mode, and is > > less stable inside of material shaders. Segmented shadows is currently > set > > as the default shadow computation mode. If you do most of your > rendering in > > passes, then you likely do not need segmented shadows and can revert to > what > > is now labeled "normal" shadow mode to regain some performance and > > stability. If your render pass doesn't need lighting, then turn shadows > off > > completely. That's just one example. > > > > For XSI v1.0 thru XSI v5.11, the default settings Softimage chose for > mental > > ray were fairly efficient, but users commonly complained about black > spots > > when doing renderings involving lots of reflection or refraction (because > > they didn't increase ray depth) or anti-aliasing wasn't super smooth > > (because they didn't set filter to 'lanczos' or 'mitchell' instead of > > default 'box', or didn't adjust the adaptive sampling properly). In > > essence, most complaints were due to user error - because users didn't > take > > the time to learn how to use the renderer > > > > To alleviate support issues, Softimage redefined the default mental ray > > settings in XSI v6.0 to what they are now - which effectively activates a > > bunch of stuff you don't need majority of the time and does a lot of > extra > > work that never shows up in the final rendered image. This change can > often > > be blamed for inducing crashes and slower render times because many > users do > > not tweak the settings. > > > > If you learn to use the renderer properly instead of using a 3DSMax > > mentality of pushing a button and walking awa
Re: Anybody still using mental ray?
I understand what you are saying Matt about learnign how to properly use tools beore complaining, but I am one of those who have used MR extensively in production for animation all the way back from when it was released for Softimage 3D and onwards, ie. many, many years. I had to learn how to use it in depth to get what I wanted, and the last years I used it I really hated it for wasting so much of my time with technical issues. It was a blessing for Softimage 3D (having used the old built-in raytracer since 1992) and it continued for quite a while to be a strong player in the field until Mental Images somehow managed to drop the ball. I would say it is (still) a very good renderer for still frames - great integration with XSI and lots of good shaders and utilities. They never manged to make Final Gathering really good for animation though, and GI was just plainly a pain to use. FG combined with motionblur and DOF is pretty much not possible for production in MR. I can't even begin to count the hours I have spent trying to fix stuff that would not render properly, crash, render with ugly artifacts, or find some sort of workaround for issues caused by MR, and then all the layers I have had to create to make useful motion vector passes for scene with a lot of depth and stuff in them. I hated MR for years, found some relief in 3Delight along the way and found Arnold absolutely liberating, making it fun again to shade, light and render stuff, not looking back once. Nowadays with offerings like Arnold, Redshift and several others (Vray I consider a bastard halfway between the bliss of Arnold and the dragging mess of Mental Ray) I would never consider using Mental Ray except perhaps for baking textures, because those tools really work well and Solid Angle never really gave it much attention. All this said, I think a lot of users out there still use Mental Ray effectively and I consider anything that can strengthen the XSI community valuable, so by all means release your stuff. My two cents - peace Morten > Den 28. maj 2016 klokken 21:55 skrev Matt Lind : > > > The people who complain the most about mental ray tend to be the ones who > never took the time to learn to use it properly. > > If you read the manuals, mental images states some modes are more taxing > than others for rendering. For example, Segmented shadow mode incurs 15% > additional rendering time vs. the default shadow computation mode, and is > less stable inside of material shaders. Segmented shadows is currently set > as the default shadow computation mode. If you do most of your rendering in > passes, then you likely do not need segmented shadows and can revert to what > is now labeled "normal" shadow mode to regain some performance and > stability. If your render pass doesn't need lighting, then turn shadows off > completely. That's just one example. > > For XSI v1.0 thru XSI v5.11, the default settings Softimage chose for mental > ray were fairly efficient, but users commonly complained about black spots > when doing renderings involving lots of reflection or refraction (because > they didn't increase ray depth) or anti-aliasing wasn't super smooth > (because they didn't set filter to 'lanczos' or 'mitchell' instead of > default 'box', or didn't adjust the adaptive sampling properly). In > essence, most complaints were due to user error - because users didn't take > the time to learn how to use the renderer > > To alleviate support issues, Softimage redefined the default mental ray > settings in XSI v6.0 to what they are now - which effectively activates a > bunch of stuff you don't need majority of the time and does a lot of extra > work that never shows up in the final rendered image. This change can often > be blamed for inducing crashes and slower render times because many users do > not tweak the settings. > > If you learn to use the renderer properly instead of using a 3DSMax > mentality of pushing a button and walking away, you'll get better > performance and stability. Much of that also involves strategy for setting > up the scene before sending it to the renderer - another area users make > gross mistakes because they don't take the time to understand the rendering > process. > > Matt > > > > > Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 09:25:06 +0200 > From: Mirko Jankovic > Subject: Re: Anybody still using mental ray? > To: "softimage@listproc.autodesk.com" > > *1. I don't want to throw away a expensive CPU based renderfarm.* > > It will be obsolete soon anyway so just make good planing for next render > tool, CPU or GPU road. > > > > *2. mental ray still has more shaders. It's slow so
RE: Anybody still using mental ray?
Infinite lights with texture control? That's flipping amazing. With the words of Morris Day: Release it!!! sven -Original Message- From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Matt Lind Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2016 1:16 AM To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com Subject: RE: Anybody still using mental ray? Thanks for the endorsement, Pierre. However, don't get too excited. Majority of the shaders were written between 2001-2004 with the idea of creating a utility node library to expose features softimage was not exposing in their own shaders. Basically, I wanted to expose what shader writers commonly use in their code so they wouldn't have to write code anymore to prototype shaders. I also wanted to homogenize workflow in the render tree to be more consistent with functions you find outside the render tree. For example, applying a texture to a light and be able to control projection method, tiling, repeats, flip/swap uv, etc.. just like you do with textures applied to geometry, and have it work on any type of light (point, spot, infinite, ..) Most of my more ambitious efforts are owned by my former employers. Matt Date: Sun, 29 May 2016 17:18:51 -0500 From: Pierre Schiller Subject: RE: Anybody still using mental ray? To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com @Sven's got some really deep honest points regarding mr. @Matt Lind, any MR shaders you develop help a lot of people, who read this but can't participate either because they're not part of the list or this (will be) a cached google page. In representation of them: I vote YES, we do use MentalRay. To this day I'm still contacted by peop?e who says: MR toon shader is the best out there. Softimage toon shader is the best. And that'd my personal use of MR: toon shading, normals, world normals... you know stuff that requires more of a compositor's cheme to arm a scene for cartoon renders. I'm interested on advanced shaders because less parameters deal with the same amount of settings regarding out of the box MR shaders. Plus we all have seen your page over thr years, Matt, who are we kidding, really great tutos and SI help from you all these years. :) Release the kra...(wait)... release the MR shaders... Cheers. -- Softimage Mailing List. To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm. -- Softimage Mailing List. To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.
RE: Anybody still using mental ray?
Thanks for the endorsement, Pierre. However, don't get too excited. Majority of the shaders were written between 2001-2004 with the idea of creating a utility node library to expose features softimage was not exposing in their own shaders. Basically, I wanted to expose what shader writers commonly use in their code so they wouldn't have to write code anymore to prototype shaders. I also wanted to homogenize workflow in the render tree to be more consistent with functions you find outside the render tree. For example, applying a texture to a light and be able to control projection method, tiling, repeats, flip/swap uv, etc.. just like you do with textures applied to geometry, and have it work on any type of light (point, spot, infinite, ..) Most of my more ambitious efforts are owned by my former employers. Matt Date: Sun, 29 May 2016 17:18:51 -0500 From: Pierre Schiller Subject: RE: Anybody still using mental ray? To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com @Sven's got some really deep honest points regarding mr. @Matt Lind, any MR shaders you develop help a lot of people, who read this but can't participate either because they're not part of the list or this (will be) a cached google page. In representation of them: I vote YES, we do use MentalRay. To this day I'm still contacted by peop?e who says: MR toon shader is the best out there. Softimage toon shader is the best. And that'd my personal use of MR: toon shading, normals, world normals... you know stuff that requires more of a compositor's cheme to arm a scene for cartoon renders. I'm interested on advanced shaders because less parameters deal with the same amount of settings regarding out of the box MR shaders. Plus we all have seen your page over thr years, Matt, who are we kidding, really great tutos and SI help from you all these years. :) Release the kra...(wait)... release the MR shaders... Cheers. -- Softimage Mailing List. To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.
Re: Anybody still using mental ray?
I haven't read much of the above, but I'm still happy using MR. Should I have switched!? On 29 May 2016 at 23:18, Pierre Schiller wrote: > @Sven's got some really deep honest points regarding mr. > > @Matt Lind, any MR shaders you develop help a lot of people, who read this > but can't participate either because they're not part of the list or this > (will be) a cached google page. In representation of them: I vote YES, we > do use MentalRay. > > To this day I'm still contacted by peopñe who says: MR toon shader is the > best out there. Softimage toon shader is the best. And that'd my personal > use of MR: toon shading, normals, world normals... you know stuff that > requires more of a compositor's cheme to arm a scene for cartoon renders. > > I'm interested on advanced shaders because less parameters deal with the > same amount of settings regarding out of the box MR shaders. Plus we all > have seen your page over thr years, Matt, who are we kidding, really great > tutos and SI help from you all these years. :) > > Release the kra...(wait)... release the MR shaders... > > Cheers. > On May 29, 2016 10:08 AM, "Sven Constable" > wrote: > >> What you say about update cycles is absolutly valid. In fact mental >> images did updates quite frequently. Not as often as chaos group with vray >> but at least several per year. I had a better and newer link including >> dates of bugfixes but I can't find right now. Heres an older list by AD: >> >> http://docs.autodesk.com/MENTALRAY/2012/ENU/mental%20ray%203.9%20Help/files/relnotes/relnotes.html >> >> >> >> A lot of fixes quite frequently as it seems. But since most of the >> costumers didn't use the standalone but the integrated version by its DCC >> developer the bugfixes were incorporated only once per year. Leaving >> costumers a year with a bug, that got adressed by mental images possibly >> just a week later. >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto: >> softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] *On Behalf Of *Derek Jenson >> *Sent:* Sunday, May 29, 2016 3:36 PM >> *To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com >> *Subject:* RE: Anybody still using mental ray? >> >> >> >> I think the biggest problem with the stability of MR was with the concept >> of only releasing a single update once a year which was tided to the 3D >> program. That was unrealistic idealism. There was also pressure to give >> customers the lastest and least tested version of MR with each yearly DCC >> update. 3D is too bleeding edge for that release model to be stable. Being >> XSI's only renderer option for a long time, stability certainly became an >> issue. >> >> If MR updates were released with the frequency (and flexibility of >> rollbacks) like all 3rd party engines, everyone would have fonder memories >> of the software. >> >> The developers of MR also worked in complete isolation with regard to >> communication with their customer base. The RS guys have bent over backward >> to educate and update their clients, and I really appreciate the support. >> IMO, you can only partially point the finger at users for not using a >> software as intended. With information/training being so easily accessible >> now the "you're not smart enough to use software X" mentally of the early >> years is void. If a whole user base is struggling with a technology... then >> something with that tech is flawed; not the other way around. >> >> The flexibility of MR and 3delight are unmatched (in XSI), but the speed >> demands forced on this biz make Redshift indispensable for keeping pace. >> -- >> >> From: mirkoj.anima...@gmail.com >> Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 22:00:28 +0200 >> Subject: Re: Anybody still using mental ray? >> To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com >> >> there are some good points in there BUT if better results can be achieved >> faster and learn faster on another engine does it make sense to waste time >> learning inferior render engine instead? >> >> >> >> also I do know much more experience people with MRay that even with >> knowing a lot more still had to spend wake nights waiting for crashes and >> issues on critical rendering that ofc needs to be done tomorrow morning :) >> >> >> >> On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 9:55 PM, Matt Lind wrote: >> >> The people who complain the most about mental ray tend to be the ones who >> never took the time to learn to use it pro
RE: Anybody still using mental ray?
@Sven's got some really deep honest points regarding mr. @Matt Lind, any MR shaders you develop help a lot of people, who read this but can't participate either because they're not part of the list or this (will be) a cached google page. In representation of them: I vote YES, we do use MentalRay. To this day I'm still contacted by peopñe who says: MR toon shader is the best out there. Softimage toon shader is the best. And that'd my personal use of MR: toon shading, normals, world normals... you know stuff that requires more of a compositor's cheme to arm a scene for cartoon renders. I'm interested on advanced shaders because less parameters deal with the same amount of settings regarding out of the box MR shaders. Plus we all have seen your page over thr years, Matt, who are we kidding, really great tutos and SI help from you all these years. :) Release the kra...(wait)... release the MR shaders... Cheers. On May 29, 2016 10:08 AM, "Sven Constable" wrote: > What you say about update cycles is absolutly valid. In fact mental images > did updates quite frequently. Not as often as chaos group with vray but at > least several per year. I had a better and newer link including dates of > bugfixes but I can't find right now. Heres an older list by AD: > > http://docs.autodesk.com/MENTALRAY/2012/ENU/mental%20ray%203.9%20Help/files/relnotes/relnotes.html > > > > A lot of fixes quite frequently as it seems. But since most of the > costumers didn't use the standalone but the integrated version by its DCC > developer the bugfixes were incorporated only once per year. Leaving > costumers a year with a bug, that got adressed by mental images possibly > just a week later. > > > > > > *From:* softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto: > softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] *On Behalf Of *Derek Jenson > *Sent:* Sunday, May 29, 2016 3:36 PM > *To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com > *Subject:* RE: Anybody still using mental ray? > > > > I think the biggest problem with the stability of MR was with the concept > of only releasing a single update once a year which was tided to the 3D > program. That was unrealistic idealism. There was also pressure to give > customers the lastest and least tested version of MR with each yearly DCC > update. 3D is too bleeding edge for that release model to be stable. Being > XSI's only renderer option for a long time, stability certainly became an > issue. > > If MR updates were released with the frequency (and flexibility of > rollbacks) like all 3rd party engines, everyone would have fonder memories > of the software. > > The developers of MR also worked in complete isolation with regard to > communication with their customer base. The RS guys have bent over backward > to educate and update their clients, and I really appreciate the support. > IMO, you can only partially point the finger at users for not using a > software as intended. With information/training being so easily accessible > now the "you're not smart enough to use software X" mentally of the early > years is void. If a whole user base is struggling with a technology... then > something with that tech is flawed; not the other way around. > > The flexibility of MR and 3delight are unmatched (in XSI), but the speed > demands forced on this biz make Redshift indispensable for keeping pace. > -- > > From: mirkoj.anima...@gmail.com > Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 22:00:28 +0200 > Subject: Re: Anybody still using mental ray? > To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com > > there are some good points in there BUT if better results can be achieved > faster and learn faster on another engine does it make sense to waste time > learning inferior render engine instead? > > > > also I do know much more experience people with MRay that even with > knowing a lot more still had to spend wake nights waiting for crashes and > issues on critical rendering that ofc needs to be done tomorrow morning :) > > > > On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 9:55 PM, Matt Lind wrote: > > The people who complain the most about mental ray tend to be the ones who > never took the time to learn to use it properly. > > If you read the manuals, mental images states some modes are more taxing > than others for rendering. For example, Segmented shadow mode incurs 15% > additional rendering time vs. the default shadow computation mode, and is > less stable inside of material shaders. Segmented shadows is currently set > as the default shadow computation mode. If you do most of your rendering > in > passes, then you likely do not need segmented shadows and can revert to > what > is now labeled "normal" shadow mode t
RE: Anybody still using mental ray?
o offer both. In this scenario, Autodesk is like your local reseller - they're intended to solve your problems, but actually just get in the way. If you want better support per your complaints, you can purchase directly from mental images and get mental ray standalone and more frequent updates. It's the same rendering technology, but unhindered by the overhead of the DCC which translates to faster performance and more stability - especially at load time when integrations suffer the most. Your DCC also only exposes options to rendering features which the DCC supports, but Mental Ray has many additional features beyond that - some of which would solve problems many complain about. All those check boxes, sliders, and menus you access in your DCC are command line flags you can activate with the mental ray standalone, but mental ray has additional flags. I have used both integrated and standalone rendering with mental ray quite a bit over the years, and have also written a considerable number of shaders. standalone is by far more stable, faster, easier to debug/troubleshoot, and scales very well. No it's not perfect, but for pure rendering it beats integrated rendering hands down. A lot of that is due to the integration, not the renderer itself. So about your whole 'user base is struggling' comment that's back to my earlier point of not taking the time to learn. when I started using mental ray back in the 1990s, I was just an artist/animator. I didn't know how to code. I was working in games and had to make cinematic sequences for a game called "SnowCrash" that never made it to market. I had to do a lot of futuristic stuff on a budget and thought mental ray would be a good medium for generating special effects with the OZ shaders and rendermap. Unfortunately, I didn't know how to use mental ray and the Softimage|3D documentation was less than useful as Softimage's concept of materials, lighting, and other techniques were often backwards. That's when I cracked open the mental images written documentation for mental ray and began reading. While some of the documentation was terse or organized in a way I didn't exactly consider user friendly, the programming documentation was very logical, straightforward and to the point which actually made it all make sense. The coded examples were very well written for the purpose of being informative how the renderer actually works. that in turn gave me insight how to use mental ray inside of Softimage|3D, and inspired me to learn to code so I could write shaders to enhance my artistic experiences. that effort to learn how the renderer worked paid dividends later in my career and prompted me to pursue a computer science degree. RedShift is in a different league of renderer, being hardware based, and is justifiable in the context of this discussion as it offers a very significant benefit over mental ray. My main argument is refuting the idea of using a competing renderer n the same class at additional cost when it has negligible advantages in the holistic context such as Arnold or 3Delight. Sure each renderer has it's pros and cons, but to spend money on them and claim they're easier to learn when you haven't taken the time to learn the renderer you already have and paid for - that's not a solid argument. I'm not saying there aren't situations where a move to another renderer is warranted. Matt Date: Sun, 29 May 2016 06:35:48 -0700 From: Derek Jenson Subject: RE: Anybody still using mental ray? I think the biggest problem with the stability of MR was with the concept of only releasing a single update once a year which was tided to the 3D program. That was unrealistic idealism. There was also pressure to give customers the lastest and least tested version of MR with each yearly DCC update. 3D is too bleeding edge for that release model to be stable. Being XSI's only renderer option for a long time, stability certainly became an issue. If MR updates were released with the frequency (and flexibility of rollbacks) like all 3rd party engines, everyone would have fonder memories of the software. The developers of MR also worked in complete isolation with regard to communication with their customer base. The RS guys have bent over backward to educate and update their clients, and I really appreciate the support. IMO, you can only partially point the finger at users for not using a software as intended. With information/training being so easily accessible now the "you're not smart enough to use software X" mentally of the early years is void. If a whole user base is struggling with a technology... then something with that tech is flawed; not the other way around. The flexibility of MR and 3delight are unmatched (in XSI), but the speed demands forced on this biz make Redshift indispensable for keeping pace. -- Softimage Mailing List. To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.
RE: Anybody still using mental ray?
What you say about update cycles is absolutly valid. In fact mental images did updates quite frequently. Not as often as chaos group with vray but at least several per year. I had a better and newer link including dates of bugfixes but I can't find right now. Heres an older list by AD: http://docs.autodesk.com/MENTALRAY/2012/ENU/mental%20ray%203.9%20Help/files/ relnotes/relnotes.html A lot of fixes quite frequently as it seems. But since most of the costumers didn't use the standalone but the integrated version by its DCC developer the bugfixes were incorporated only once per year. Leaving costumers a year with a bug, that got adressed by mental images possibly just a week later. From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Derek Jenson Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2016 3:36 PM To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com Subject: RE: Anybody still using mental ray? I think the biggest problem with the stability of MR was with the concept of only releasing a single update once a year which was tided to the 3D program. That was unrealistic idealism. There was also pressure to give customers the lastest and least tested version of MR with each yearly DCC update. 3D is too bleeding edge for that release model to be stable. Being XSI's only renderer option for a long time, stability certainly became an issue. If MR updates were released with the frequency (and flexibility of rollbacks) like all 3rd party engines, everyone would have fonder memories of the software. The developers of MR also worked in complete isolation with regard to communication with their customer base. The RS guys have bent over backward to educate and update their clients, and I really appreciate the support. IMO, you can only partially point the finger at users for not using a software as intended. With information/training being so easily accessible now the "you're not smart enough to use software X" mentally of the early years is void. If a whole user base is struggling with a technology... then something with that tech is flawed; not the other way around. The flexibility of MR and 3delight are unmatched (in XSI), but the speed demands forced on this biz make Redshift indispensable for keeping pace. _ From: mirkoj.anima...@gmail.com Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 22:00:28 +0200 Subject: Re: Anybody still using mental ray? To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com there are some good points in there BUT if better results can be achieved faster and learn faster on another engine does it make sense to waste time learning inferior render engine instead? also I do know much more experience people with MRay that even with knowing a lot more still had to spend wake nights waiting for crashes and issues on critical rendering that ofc needs to be done tomorrow morning :) On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 9:55 PM, Matt Lind wrote: The people who complain the most about mental ray tend to be the ones who never took the time to learn to use it properly. If you read the manuals, mental images states some modes are more taxing than others for rendering. For example, Segmented shadow mode incurs 15% additional rendering time vs. the default shadow computation mode, and is less stable inside of material shaders. Segmented shadows is currently set as the default shadow computation mode. If you do most of your rendering in passes, then you likely do not need segmented shadows and can revert to what is now labeled "normal" shadow mode to regain some performance and stability. If your render pass doesn't need lighting, then turn shadows off completely. That's just one example. For XSI v1.0 thru XSI v5.11, the default settings Softimage chose for mental ray were fairly efficient, but users commonly complained about black spots when doing renderings involving lots of reflection or refraction (because they didn't increase ray depth) or anti-aliasing wasn't super smooth (because they didn't set filter to 'lanczos' or 'mitchell' instead of default 'box', or didn't adjust the adaptive sampling properly). In essence, most complaints were due to user error - because users didn't take the time to learn how to use the renderer To alleviate support issues, Softimage redefined the default mental ray settings in XSI v6.0 to what they are now - which effectively activates a bunch of stuff you don't need majority of the time and does a lot of extra work that never shows up in the final rendered image. This change can often be blamed for inducing crashes and slower render times because many users do not tweak the settings. If you learn to use the renderer properly instead of using a 3DSMax mentality of pushing a button and walking away, you'll get better performance and stability. Much of that also involves strategy for setting up the scene before sending it to the renderer -
RE: Anybody still using mental ray?
I have to admit, since MR is a old renderer it has its flaws. I work with it since 1999 and I would say I know it quite well, even I never programmed shaders for it. One issue is DTR/ distributed tile rendering, it simply doesn't work reliable. Mental images/nvidia solved the memory overflow problem some versions ago (slave machines ran out of memory and crashed), but there still seems to be a problem when using satellite rendering together with BSP2. In some cases, the rendering hangs at 100%, not written to disk and you have to kill the process. It seems to not happen with BSP1 but since it's much slower especially when using displacement, it's not an option to use BSP1 just because of having satellite rendering to work. This happens with the render region as well as with batch rendering. I cannot say if this is entirely a MR bug or a softimage-MR thing or maybe a windows network issue. However, it works with batch rendering when not using more than one satellite machine. The render farm here is set up this way (I'm probably one of ten ppl in the world who uses mental ray satellite rendering on a farm). It would be nice though to have rock solid distributed rendering when dealing with large print resolution for example. I don’t think there is an internal limit in MR regarding the amount of machines. Of course its not unlimited, at some point Amdahl's law will kick in. The limitation of using five machines was simply a business/licensing decision, I guess. Imagine, beeing at a company with a larger render farm that artists can use interactivly. Would cause a bit of network traffic, yes but the workflow would be improved. It's even practical if the farm is rendering regular render jobs simultaniously. I once did some tests and the raysat.exe will use a higher priority than the batch.exe by default. There would be only peaks of CPU utilization on the farm when an artist draws a render region, so the delay for normal renderjobs would be negligible. A potential problem would be, that artists, having vast amount of render power, they'll put shitload of stuff in the scenes thats simply not renderable in the final animation. But I disgress. Another issue probably is GI for animations, as it was discussed many times over the years. Even you can have flicker free GI in animations, it depends heavily on the scenario. The classroom scene, for example. Seems an easy scene,no? Well it's not. Add a skylight system and animate the sun from sunrise to sundown. I did many, many tests with FG and even with irradiance particles. At sundown you will have only a few, very bright spots that have to lit the entire room. Therefore you need an insane high amount of FG rays to capture the light an even then it will produce splotches in the last few frames. IP adresses this problem by analyzing the screen space, firing more IP rays towards bright spots. Similar to portal lights. It is great in terms of general light distribution and does not produce light leaks. But since it's also screenspace dependent, it will create problems where a lit surface is not directly seen by the camera. In this case, at certain areas at the window frames at sunrise. Btw. while testing Redshift with the classroom scene I noticed a bug when using caustics. Nothings perfect. (However, the GI solution was blazingly fast and super clean). All in all, I use MR in production successfully and I like it, but I would not say I love it :) sven From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Mirko Jankovic Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2016 9:25 AM To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com Subject: Re: Anybody still using mental ray? 1. I don't want to throw away a expensive CPU based renderfarm. It will be obsolete soon anyway so just make good planing for next render tool, CPU or GPU road. 2. mental ray still has more shaders. It's slow sometimes but it is rather good when you want to do non physically based things. A bit like Softimage itself, the all-purpose, swiss knife. First time I heard something like this for MRay. Mostly it is in line I wanna puke or quit 3d completely due to rendering part :) When I discovered Arnold and then even more Redshift that is when a big issue I had with SI, ie rendering was solved and 3d was fun again. MRay was PAIN non stop! Swiss knife.. yea could say that, got ton of things but nothing good for most of things :) Redshift saved my 3d ;) On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 1:16 AM, Sven Constable wrote: I use mental ray almost exclusively for any project so far, even I'm evaluated arnold, redshift and maxwell. Maxwell is so far the most accurate renderer I've seen so far in terms of light distribution in a scene and nothing comes close to it in my opinion. It's amazing if you do product rendering only. But it lacks in shader variety, so
RE: Anybody still using mental ray?
I think the biggest problem with the stability of MR was with the concept of only releasing a single update once a year which was tided to the 3D program. That was unrealistic idealism. There was also pressure to give customers the lastest and least tested version of MR with each yearly DCC update. 3D is too bleeding edge for that release model to be stable. Being XSI's only renderer option for a long time, stability certainly became an issue. If MR updates were released with the frequency (and flexibility of rollbacks) like all 3rd party engines, everyone would have fonder memories of the software. The developers of MR also worked in complete isolation with regard to communication with their customer base. The RS guys have bent over backward to educate and update their clients, and I really appreciate the support. IMO, you can only partially point the finger at users for not using a software as intended. With information/training being so easily accessible now the "you're not smart enough to use software X" mentally of the early years is void. If a whole user base is struggling with a technology... then something with that tech is flawed; not the other way around. The flexibility of MR and 3delight are unmatched (in XSI), but the speed demands forced on this biz make Redshift indispensable for keeping pace. From: mirkoj.anima...@gmail.com Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 22:00:28 +0200 Subject: Re: Anybody still using mental ray? To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com there are some good points in there BUT if better results can be achieved faster and learn faster on another engine does it make sense to waste time learning inferior render engine instead? also I do know much more experience people with MRay that even with knowing a lot more still had to spend wake nights waiting for crashes and issues on critical rendering that ofc needs to be done tomorrow morning :) On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 9:55 PM, Matt Lind wrote: The people who complain the most about mental ray tend to be the ones who never took the time to learn to use it properly. If you read the manuals, mental images states some modes are more taxing than others for rendering. For example, Segmented shadow mode incurs 15% additional rendering time vs. the default shadow computation mode, and is less stable inside of material shaders. Segmented shadows is currently set as the default shadow computation mode. If you do most of your rendering in passes, then you likely do not need segmented shadows and can revert to what is now labeled "normal" shadow mode to regain some performance and stability. If your render pass doesn't need lighting, then turn shadows off completely. That's just one example. For XSI v1.0 thru XSI v5.11, the default settings Softimage chose for mental ray were fairly efficient, but users commonly complained about black spots when doing renderings involving lots of reflection or refraction (because they didn't increase ray depth) or anti-aliasing wasn't super smooth (because they didn't set filter to 'lanczos' or 'mitchell' instead of default 'box', or didn't adjust the adaptive sampling properly). In essence, most complaints were due to user error - because users didn't take the time to learn how to use the renderer To alleviate support issues, Softimage redefined the default mental ray settings in XSI v6.0 to what they are now - which effectively activates a bunch of stuff you don't need majority of the time and does a lot of extra work that never shows up in the final rendered image. This change can often be blamed for inducing crashes and slower render times because many users do not tweak the settings. If you learn to use the renderer properly instead of using a 3DSMax mentality of pushing a button and walking away, you'll get better performance and stability. Much of that also involves strategy for setting up the scene before sending it to the renderer - another area users make gross mistakes because they don't take the time to understand the rendering process. Matt Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 09:25:06 +0200 From: Mirko Jankovic Subject: Re: Anybody still using mental ray? To: "softimage@listproc.autodesk.com" *1. I don't want to throw away a expensive CPU based renderfarm.* It will be obsolete soon anyway so just make good planing for next render tool, CPU or GPU road. *2. mental ray still has more shaders. It's slow sometimes but it is rathergood when you want to do non physically based things. A bit like Softimageitself, the all-purpose, swiss knife.* First time I heard something like this for MRay. Mostly it is in line I wanna puke or quit 3d completely due to rendering part :) When I discovered Arnold and then even more Redshift that is when a big issue I had with SI, ie rendering was solve
Re: Anybody still using mental ray?
there are some good points in there BUT if better results can be achieved faster and learn faster on another engine does it make sense to waste time learning inferior render engine instead? also I do know much more experience people with MRay that even with knowing a lot more still had to spend wake nights waiting for crashes and issues on critical rendering that ofc needs to be done tomorrow morning :) On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 9:55 PM, Matt Lind wrote: > The people who complain the most about mental ray tend to be the ones who > never took the time to learn to use it properly. > > If you read the manuals, mental images states some modes are more taxing > than others for rendering. For example, Segmented shadow mode incurs 15% > additional rendering time vs. the default shadow computation mode, and is > less stable inside of material shaders. Segmented shadows is currently set > as the default shadow computation mode. If you do most of your rendering > in > passes, then you likely do not need segmented shadows and can revert to > what > is now labeled "normal" shadow mode to regain some performance and > stability. If your render pass doesn't need lighting, then turn shadows > off > completely. That's just one example. > > For XSI v1.0 thru XSI v5.11, the default settings Softimage chose for > mental > ray were fairly efficient, but users commonly complained about black spots > when doing renderings involving lots of reflection or refraction (because > they didn't increase ray depth) or anti-aliasing wasn't super smooth > (because they didn't set filter to 'lanczos' or 'mitchell' instead of > default 'box', or didn't adjust the adaptive sampling properly). In > essence, most complaints were due to user error - because users didn't take > the time to learn how to use the renderer > > To alleviate support issues, Softimage redefined the default mental ray > settings in XSI v6.0 to what they are now - which effectively activates a > bunch of stuff you don't need majority of the time and does a lot of extra > work that never shows up in the final rendered image. This change can > often > be blamed for inducing crashes and slower render times because many users > do > not tweak the settings. > > If you learn to use the renderer properly instead of using a 3DSMax > mentality of pushing a button and walking away, you'll get better > performance and stability. Much of that also involves strategy for setting > up the scene before sending it to the renderer - another area users make > gross mistakes because they don't take the time to understand the rendering > process. > > Matt > > > > > Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 09:25:06 +0200 > From: Mirko Jankovic > Subject: Re: Anybody still using mental ray? > To: "softimage@listproc.autodesk.com" > > *1. I don't want to throw away a expensive CPU based renderfarm.* > > It will be obsolete soon anyway so just make good planing for next render > tool, CPU or GPU road. > > > > *2. mental ray still has more shaders. It's slow sometimes but it is > rathergood when you want to do non physically based things. A bit like > Softimageitself, the all-purpose, swiss knife.* > > First time I heard something like this for MRay. Mostly it is in line I > wanna puke or quit 3d completely due to rendering part :) > When I discovered Arnold and then even more Redshift that is when a big > issue I had with SI, ie rendering was solved and 3d was fun again. > MRay was PAIN non stop! Swiss knife.. yea could say that, got ton of things > but nothing good for most of things :) > > Redshift saved my 3d ;) > > -- > Softimage Mailing List. > To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com > with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm. > -- Mirko Jankovic *http://www.cgfolio.com/mirko-jankovic <http://www.cgfolio.com/mirko-jankovic>* Need to find freelancers fast? www.cgfolio.com Need some help with rendering an Redshift project? http://www.gpuoven.com/ -- Softimage Mailing List. To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.
Re: Anybody still using mental ray?
The people who complain the most about mental ray tend to be the ones who never took the time to learn to use it properly. If you read the manuals, mental images states some modes are more taxing than others for rendering. For example, Segmented shadow mode incurs 15% additional rendering time vs. the default shadow computation mode, and is less stable inside of material shaders. Segmented shadows is currently set as the default shadow computation mode. If you do most of your rendering in passes, then you likely do not need segmented shadows and can revert to what is now labeled "normal" shadow mode to regain some performance and stability. If your render pass doesn't need lighting, then turn shadows off completely. That's just one example. For XSI v1.0 thru XSI v5.11, the default settings Softimage chose for mental ray were fairly efficient, but users commonly complained about black spots when doing renderings involving lots of reflection or refraction (because they didn't increase ray depth) or anti-aliasing wasn't super smooth (because they didn't set filter to 'lanczos' or 'mitchell' instead of default 'box', or didn't adjust the adaptive sampling properly). In essence, most complaints were due to user error - because users didn't take the time to learn how to use the renderer To alleviate support issues, Softimage redefined the default mental ray settings in XSI v6.0 to what they are now - which effectively activates a bunch of stuff you don't need majority of the time and does a lot of extra work that never shows up in the final rendered image. This change can often be blamed for inducing crashes and slower render times because many users do not tweak the settings. If you learn to use the renderer properly instead of using a 3DSMax mentality of pushing a button and walking away, you'll get better performance and stability. Much of that also involves strategy for setting up the scene before sending it to the renderer - another area users make gross mistakes because they don't take the time to understand the rendering process. Matt Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 09:25:06 +0200 From: Mirko Jankovic Subject: Re: Anybody still using mental ray? To: "softimage@listproc.autodesk.com" *1. I don't want to throw away a expensive CPU based renderfarm.* It will be obsolete soon anyway so just make good planing for next render tool, CPU or GPU road. *2. mental ray still has more shaders. It's slow sometimes but it is rathergood when you want to do non physically based things. A bit like Softimageitself, the all-purpose, swiss knife.* First time I heard something like this for MRay. Mostly it is in line I wanna puke or quit 3d completely due to rendering part :) When I discovered Arnold and then even more Redshift that is when a big issue I had with SI, ie rendering was solved and 3d was fun again. MRay was PAIN non stop! Swiss knife.. yea could say that, got ton of things but nothing good for most of things :) Redshift saved my 3d ;) -- Softimage Mailing List. To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.
Re: Anybody still using mental ray?
*1. I don't want to throw away a expensive CPU based renderfarm.* It will be obsolete soon anyway so just make good planing for next render tool, CPU or GPU road. *2. mental ray still has more shaders. It's slow sometimes but it is rathergood when you want to do non physically based things. A bit like Softimageitself, the all-purpose, swiss knife.* First time I heard something like this for MRay. Mostly it is in line I wanna puke or quit 3d completely due to rendering part :) When I discovered Arnold and then even more Redshift that is when a big issue I had with SI, ie rendering was solved and 3d was fun again. MRay was PAIN non stop! Swiss knife.. yea could say that, got ton of things but nothing good for most of things :) Redshift saved my 3d ;) On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 1:16 AM, Sven Constable wrote: > I use mental ray almost exclusively for any project so far, even I'm > evaluated arnold, redshift and maxwell. Maxwell is so far the most accurate > renderer I've seen so far in terms of light distribution in a scene and > nothing comes close to it in my opinion. It's amazing if you do product > rendering only. But it lacks in shader variety, softimage integration and > general tweaking, as mental ray has and allows. Arnold may be a killer for > big projects, heavy scenes but its expensive. Redshift is affordable,has > good GI for animations and the best integration in Softimage besides mental > ray (I'm still wondering how they managed to get the round corners shader > into RS! I was thinking it's a mental images/NVIDIA patent) > There are only two things that stopped me switching from mr to RS: > 1. I don't want to throw away a expensive CPU based renderfarm. > 2. mental ray still has more shaders. It's slow sometimes but it is rather > good when you want to do non physically based things. A bit like Softimage > itself, the all-purpose, swiss knife. > > So yes, I use mental ray. > sven > > -Original Message- > From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com > [mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Matt Lind > Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2016 12:28 AM > To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com > Subject: Anybody still using mental ray? > > While on the subject of nostalgia and recent release of various tools for > XSI. > > I have a selection of mental ray shaders I wrote long ago still perfectly > valid as they're utility nodes for accessing renderer preferences, lights, > performing math, or other basic features missing from the native shader > library. Some have unique features, but also limitations due to mental > ray's architecture. If released, would anybody actually use them other > than > for tinkering? As in, does anybody still use mental ray in a serious > production context where you'd benefit from such shaders? > > Don't say yes because you want free digital swag. > > Matt > > -- > Softimage Mailing List. > To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com > with > "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm. > > -- > Softimage Mailing List. > To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com > with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm. > -- Mirko Jankovic *http://www.cgfolio.com/mirko-jankovic <http://www.cgfolio.com/mirko-jankovic>* Need to find freelancers fast? www.cgfolio.com Need some help with rendering an Redshift project? http://www.gpuoven.com/ -- Softimage Mailing List. To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.
RE: Anybody still using mental ray?
I use mental ray almost exclusively for any project so far, even I'm evaluated arnold, redshift and maxwell. Maxwell is so far the most accurate renderer I've seen so far in terms of light distribution in a scene and nothing comes close to it in my opinion. It's amazing if you do product rendering only. But it lacks in shader variety, softimage integration and general tweaking, as mental ray has and allows. Arnold may be a killer for big projects, heavy scenes but its expensive. Redshift is affordable,has good GI for animations and the best integration in Softimage besides mental ray (I'm still wondering how they managed to get the round corners shader into RS! I was thinking it's a mental images/NVIDIA patent) There are only two things that stopped me switching from mr to RS: 1. I don't want to throw away a expensive CPU based renderfarm. 2. mental ray still has more shaders. It's slow sometimes but it is rather good when you want to do non physically based things. A bit like Softimage itself, the all-purpose, swiss knife. So yes, I use mental ray. sven -Original Message- From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Matt Lind Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2016 12:28 AM To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com Subject: Anybody still using mental ray? While on the subject of nostalgia and recent release of various tools for XSI. I have a selection of mental ray shaders I wrote long ago still perfectly valid as they're utility nodes for accessing renderer preferences, lights, performing math, or other basic features missing from the native shader library. Some have unique features, but also limitations due to mental ray's architecture. If released, would anybody actually use them other than for tinkering? As in, does anybody still use mental ray in a serious production context where you'd benefit from such shaders? Don't say yes because you want free digital swag. Matt -- Softimage Mailing List. To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm. -- Softimage Mailing List. To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.
Anybody still using mental ray?
While on the subject of nostalgia and recent release of various tools for XSI. I have a selection of mental ray shaders I wrote long ago still perfectly valid as they're utility nodes for accessing renderer preferences, lights, performing math, or other basic features missing from the native shader library. Some have unique features, but also limitations due to mental ray's architecture. If released, would anybody actually use them other than for tinkering? As in, does anybody still use mental ray in a serious production context where you'd benefit from such shaders? Don't say yes because you want free digital swag. Matt -- Softimage Mailing List. To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.
