All object should be modeled or converted to Subdivision with Quad polygons.
Why, because all the industry is doing it.
It's simple and efficient.
All materials should be made using textures map, not procedural.
Texture placement should be burn on the point of the polygons.
If you follow this, your creation will always works perfectly on any 3D
software.
Jean-Sebastien Perron
www.CombadZ.com
On 10-07-29 11:54 PM, mengil...@gmx.net wrote:
Yeah, I too would say that RS3Ds greatest strenght is its modelling
capabilities, and in general its straight-forward approach for the basic tools.
The problem here, as I see it, is a not so good interoperability of RS3D.
Exporting polygon geometry is pretty easy - until you want to export a model
with a UV map. I´ve never gotten that done.
Exporting NURBS is possible if you got the IGES (?) im-/exporter plugin, but
than again there are not that many renderers that support that.
Exporting CSG-Booleans then is nigh-impossible, for the most part perhaps
because there are so very few other 3D-packages that support CSG.
Then you also have the option of converting your geometry to polygon geometry -
but not if you use CSG-booleans.
So you end up "caught inside RS3D" where problems like the one with GI affect
you. You either use the application to it´s full potential OR remain interoperability
with other software like named standalone renderers.
RS3Ds greatest benefits are in part also its greatest flaws, because they set
the software appart in a way that other software can´t keep up or simply does
things in a totally different way.
If you look at unbiased renderers for example, the material parameters are
pretty exactly the same in every renderer.
If RS3D featured a "physically based material" that featured all theses
parameters, it would be not that much work to make an exporter for Luxrender, Maxwell,
Fryrender and the likes. Well, as long as you sticked to polygon meshes and left out
procedural textures.
And if there was something like an "auto-mesh" tool for CSG that converted CSG
geometry to polygon geometry, you could use CSG-Booleans in RS3D without worrying about
how to get the data out to another program, should the need arise.
"Converting" CSG in such a way even is already possible if you do it by hand. By taking a mesh and
using the "collision detection" setting with the move and scale tools, you already can
"shrinkwrap" a mesh around a CSG-boolean quite pleasingly - only that this can take quite some time.
Integrating a feature that did the work automatically would make RS3D more open.
So in the end you would have the choice to either use RS3Ds own rendering
engine, or to convert/export your scene to another renderer, whatever type of
geometry you used.
Thinking again about the NURBS-im/export.
I guess this will mostly be used to get data out of other (specialized)
software into RS3D for building a scene to render a still or to animate it.
In this case exporting or convertion capabilities won´t matter much.
Instead here it would be most important to increase the packages own
capabilities, perhaps most of all it´s GI rendering capabilities.
So, in the end you would get around doing that.
Greetz, Martin
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
Datum: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:04:15 +0300
Von: "Jouni Hätinen"<jouni.hati...@iki.fi>
An: user-list@light.realsoft3d.com
Betreff: Re: RS is way too much flexible and powerful for it\'s users.
I think Realsoft's strengths are modeling and user interface. And that
it's available on Linux. It's also very cheap on Linux.
If you do only one thing and you find a program that does it very
well, then it's probably the best to use that. But Realsoft does many
things. If you want to buy the best program for every different task,
it's going to be very expensive.
The only thing that really bugs me in Realsoft is their release plan,
or lack of it, especially for Linux.
-Jouni
2010/7/29 Jean-Sebastien Perron<j...@neuroworld.ws>:
You are right Martin.
I agree with everything you just wrote.
If you look on my website you will realize that I do exactly the
opposite of
what I wrote.
RS needs to open to the world and lower it's price.
And they should simplify RS or redesign it completely.
I don't know if a 3D software can be as simple as Strata and Powerful as
Houdini at the same time?
Stand alone modelers, stand alone renderers, stand alone texture
painting,
standalone character animation ...
Are all doing better than full application at a lower price combined
together.
What is the most important thing about RS? Modeling, Rendering,
Animation or
FX?
Jean-Sebastien Perron
www.NeuroWorld.ws
On 10-07-28 04:56 PM, mengil...@gmx.net wrote:
@Jean-Sebastien:
Thing is simple: Time is money.
RS comes at something around 600 Euros. Lightwave for example comes at
around 900 Euros.
If I have to experiment dozens of hours just to get the GI done for a
few
scenes, I could as easily buy another program that spares me this work.
When seen as an investment, this becomes even more important - why
should
one go for RS3D with the prospect of having significantly more work to
do,
instead of simply spending some additional hundret bucks to get a
solution
that gets the work done more quickly?
Of course discovering the possibilities of a program is nice, but
HAVING
to "discover" a needed possibility isn´t.
So slogans like "Don't blame the car, blame the driver." sound pretty
cynical to me.
Yes, "we" are getting left behind, as Jason wrote.
Especially when there are already a bunch of FREE standalone renderers
that do better.
Kerkythea, Sunflow, Luxrender, Yafray... I surely even forgot some.
In its newest edition, Blender even has volumetrics in. And rendering
volumetric clouds is even much easier here, compared to RS3D.
The features that set RS3D apart from other 3D-packages get less every
year.
Blender just had to implement NURBS surfaces and CSG, and the ice would
be
getting real thin for RS3D.
Cause, according to my knowledge of RS3D, these are the two things that
set RS3D apart from most other 3D-apps.
(Now i see that Stefan Klein already mentioned those things. So. He´s
right. ;-)
BTW @ Stefan: Pleeeaaase... don´t put your message at the bottom of
the
huge block of cited messages but ON TOP of it. At first I even thought
the
email to be some accidentally sended chunk of text from the lists
server.
Greetz, Martin
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
Datum: Sat, 24 Jul 2010 22:51:10 -0400
Von: Jean-Sebastien Perron<j...@neuroworld.ws>
An: user-list@light.realsoft3d.com
Betreff: RS is way too much flexible and powerful for it\'s users.
The maxwell renderer demo reel says it all : beautiful images,
noanimation.
And the few animations have noises moving around.
RS must offer a way to use stand alone renderers (that is
reallyimportant).
For now there is not one "efficient" standard way of communicating
witha
renderer.
All of them use all sorts of undocumented SDL (scene
descriptionlanguage)
or worst : binary or .dll
But I don't agree that the RS renderer is not good enough.
It is perfect, just not what some need right now.
What is needed is a "perfect GI" button or template scene
(Seriously)like
Strata3D.
Strata3D do all the setup for you with predefined scenes.
Procedural materials will always have AA problems, textures never
will.
The problems found in RS are the same encounter in Renderman.
Pixar renderman generate a lot of lighting glitches that need to
becorrected by hand for example.
Contrary to Renderman, all these small (look at me) stand
alonerenderers
are not production ready.
To create beautiful images with renderman you need a lot of work.
In renderman there is no GI, only the mathematical function to code
ityourself inside your shaders.
By reading and experimenting a lot with Renderman, I found that it
hasa
lot
of similarities with RS.
RS can make images as beautiful as any other renderer on the market.
For that you need to understand rendering, lighting, shading and RS
alittle
deeper.
And that is what most RS users are not ready to invest time in.
Don't blame the car, blame the driver.
It's not fair to compare RS to other renderers. RS is a pure
Raytracer.
Like any methods there are pros and cons.
Contrary to many other 3d app, RS does not offer decent scene setup
andmaterials right from the start : you have to do it all from
scratch.
Prepare for the flames and the usual offended : )
Jean-Sebastien Perron
www.NeuroWorld.ws
