Thank you Mark. What you write about VSL is what I ment in my first reaction on Jason's question about a Fryrender plugin. On the other hand VSL is not the only way to create procedural materials. With Vray I can build procedural very easily. So procedurals won't be the problem. What I wanted to say about VSL in general is that it lacks visual feedback. It's all lines of code which doesn't give any visual idea about what you're doing. Maybe that's how programmers work, but that's not what I'm used to.
Booleans is a real problem in polygon based apps. Well only in round objects of course. Arjo. > Nice one Arjo! An image of that quality would probably take hours for > RS, requiring high raycount and low blur... > > Many projects of mine rely heavily on procedural VSL materials, external > renderers are out of the question. My cellar is Boolean, the tiles are > procedural to avoid repetition (still some remnants of your code in > there Arjo!). It often takes me only a few minutes to set up a new VSL > procedural material as long as no new unfamiliar stuff is involved. > I like the RS renderer except its slow GI and difficulty in rendering > complex scenes (plants). I hope to run RS on a 8-core 64bit workstation > with 16 gig RAM some day. > > By the way, did anyone notice large improvements in the V7 renderer? I > tried the demo but still cannot render complex, old plants - that same > error "cannot allocate ... bytes" pops up :( > > > my 2 cts, > Mark H > > >> But to give an idea about Vray: the attached image, rendered with very >> low gi settings rendered in less than two minutes on my computer (dual >> Xeon 5570). An image like that as I showed yesterday renders in about 7 >> minutes at high quality settings. How does this compare to Fry or >> Octane? Do Fry or Octane support full animation with flicker free GI? >> Not that I'm too keen on changing again as each renderer will take quite >> some time to get used to. But I'm still very interested in reviews and >> experiences of other 3D software users. >> > >
