@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" <sixsi_l...@imagefront.de> 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 <speye...@hotmail.com> 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 <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 ;) > > ------ > 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. > > ------ > 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.
