[HN Gopher] Cycles X ___________________________________________________________________ Cycles X Author : Tomte Score : 275 points Date : 2021-04-23 16:08 UTC (6 hours ago) (HTM) web link (code.blender.org) (TXT) w3m dump (code.blender.org) | vjeux wrote: | When I was working on a ray tracer, I found that interpolating | the color from neighboring points instead of leaving it blank for | in-progress elements was a huge improvement for quickly seeing | what the scene is going to look like. In the video examples it | doesn't seem like they're doing it. I'm interested to know the | rationale. | | (See "Progressive Rendering" section for an example: | https://blog.vjeux.com/2012/javascript/javascript-ray-tracer... ) | zamadatix wrote: | Cycles works a bit differently but the same general idea is | supposed to be implemented via "CPU viewport rendering with | Open Image Denoiser" which live denoises the rendering in a | more advanced way. Unfortunately the video for that section | doesn't seem to be set up correctly so you can't actually see | it in action. | amelius wrote: | I wondered about the same thing. But look at the other videos. | In some of them, the entire viewport is drawn at once and then | incrementally improves. | gmueckl wrote: | What do you mean by blank pixels? Cycles is a MC path tracer. | This means that it will always trace some paths that don't find | high contributions to the final image. When this happens for | the first couple of iterations when rendering progressively, | these pixels stay darker than the rest. This is just how the | algorithm works. You could try to apply a denoiser, but then | you're not using the computational power to shoot more rays and | you're replacing noise with bias. | whoisthisguy wrote: | I used Cinema 4D for years and a few months ago I gave a try to | Blender. I have to say I was extremely impressed. I did some | digging and it turns out Blender has an amazing product focused | management thats main goal is to serve the users. Extremely well | executed product management. | monkmartinez wrote: | Awesome!!! Those initial test results are darn impressive. Good | to see they are working directly with Intel, AMD and Nvidia. | dogma1138 wrote: | For GPU rendering anything but NVIDIA wasn't even a second | class citizen on Cycles for a long long time. | | Cycles X will likely be OptiX only and then OptiX first for | quite a while until a true cross vendor cross platform stack | appears. | zlsa wrote: | In the linked article, benchmarks are shown for CUDA as well. | Of course that's also nVidia-only like OptiX. | | And antecdotally, OptiX is around 1.5-3x faster than CUDA | with Cycles rendering. | ravenstine wrote: | I've kept an eye on Blender for the last 15 years and tried it | again recently after having almost exclusively used Maya. It's | continually improved in just about every way, is relatively easy | to use with just a trackpad, and it performs really well. | | In contrast, Maya is has more features overall but is... a piece | of shit in many ways. It doesn't matter what hardware I've used; | it's a rule that Maya has to crash randomly when doing basic | things. I used to be able to just _open the Hypershade_ , but | with Maya 2020 merely opening it causes the entire application to | crash. | | So I've decided to ditch it for Blender. I'm not doing character | animation anymore, but I still enjoy modeling and rigging some | things I want to conceptualize in 3D space, as well as create 3D | printables, and Blender is absolutely up to the task. | | It kind of baffles me how little interest the motion picture and | television industries have had in Blender. Big studios are still | using Maya, which I _know_ also crashes for them and has | performance issues. They could pour all their money into | improving Blender and eventually not have to pay Autodesk anymore | for licenses for poorly managed software that seems to rarely | receive bug fixes. | gmueckl wrote: | Maya was an amazing piece of software once. It is falling | behind only because Autodesk seems to be content to just let it | slowly rot. | | The funny thing is that there are litanies of complaints about | many core Autodesk products that echo the same chorus: the | software is poorly maintained, bugfixes are promised "for the | next released" (paid upgrade, of course) and yet, they never | appear. Customer feature requests are completely ignored and | each release feels like it's just a version number bump with a | few token changes here and there so that sales can act as if | they created a meaningful new release. | raverbashing wrote: | Well the cash cow keeps making them money and the Studios are | happy to keep giving them money so why bother | | It's the same with Sports games, "corporate software" etc etc | mroche wrote: | Some of us admins in the field like to joke that Autodesk | isn't a software vendor, they are a licensing company. And to | be honest some of their changes with regards to Named User | Licensing is going to be a PITA for many studios. | | I've gotten the chance to have a few conversations with some | on the Maya team before, and they are great people. But they | are fairly hamstrung by a company focused on sales and growth | than development, one where M&E is less than 10% of their | company revenue[0] (those numbers, which are an increase in | revenue, can likely be attributed to the forcing of | subscriptions), and having to cover a lot of ground re- | architecting an application with a ton of technical and | legacy debt. The historical idea of Maya being a Fraken-app | exists for a reason. | | [0] https://investors.autodesk.com/static- | files/749abc95-16be-4c... | gmueckl wrote: | Media & Entertainment being a tiny part of their revenue | fits with the general wisdom that the market for general | purpose 3D software is virtually non-existent. The software | is costly to build and maintain and combined with a small | customer base and thus high licencing prices, this is a | killer. | packetslave wrote: | I mean, ultimately Autodesk doesn't give a damn about any of | their other products as long as the AutoCAD money firehose | continues. | | Maya continues to be the industry leader because VFX studios | have spent 20 years integrating it with their pipelines. | Blender could beat Maya feature for feature, and places like | ILM and Weta _still_ won 't adopt it because of the effort | required to fit it into their pipelines. | qwertox wrote: | I learned Maya on Irix, then purchased a License for Plug In | development on Windows around 2004, which was pre-Python | support. I really got to knew the DAG very well, as well as | rendering custom helper tools in the viewport. It was extremely | flexible to extend. | | I've also kept an eye on Blender since then, and no other piece | of OSS causes me so much joy to see the improvements it makes | version after version, specially because they are usually | linked to small movies which demonstrate the capabilities. | | But the few times I've taken a look at the Python SDK, I've | felt a bit turned off. It somehow felt a bit like Cinema4D, | where you had this huge API to code against, but never ended up | with small modules (DAG nodes) which were pretty much stand- | alone utilities which you could then connect to anything Maya | had to offer. | | I've seen that Blender lately has something which feels a bit | similar, but it appears to be limited to shading pipelines | (Shader Nodes). | | There are no such transform, group, deformer nodes and stuff | like that which allows you to manipulate geometry, correct? | | I mean, in Maya I'd build a simple data node (in C++) which had | an input, and I'd route the xyz of an object to the xzy-input | of my data node, and then apply particle physics to that object | and hit play, and the data node would then obtain a "data | stream" in its xyz-input representing the object's position, as | a very trivial example. Even vertices could be "streamed" into | such data nodes. How would I do such a thing in Blender (with | Python)? | kroltan wrote: | In addition to Geometry Nodes [0], and the "Everything Nodes" | initiative [1], you might be interested in Sverchok [2] too, | which implements this kind of graph-based | parametric/procedural modeling technique. | | [0]: https://docs.blender.org/manual/en/latest/modeling/geome | try_... | | [1]: | https://wiki.blender.org/wiki/Source/Nodes/EverythingNodes | | [2]: http://nortikin.github.io/sverchok/ | haldean wrote: | There's Geometry Nodes now which let you write smaller | procedurals that you can combine together the way you're | describing: https://docs.blender.org/manual/en/latest/modelin | g/geometry_... | | They're extremely new (2.92 I think) so the framework is | there but there aren't many nodes yet; 2.93 introduced a | whole bunch of new nodes though. | qwertox wrote: | Excellent! The fact that there's something as basic as the | Boolean Math node [1] kind of shows that this is something | evolving into that direction. I will definitely look at it | and search for the C-code on GitHub. Thanks. | | [1] https://docs.blender.org/manual/en/latest/modeling/geom | etry_... | | Edit: Hmm, it appears to not have a C++ API. | weinzierl wrote: | > is relatively easy to use with just a trackpad | | The last time I tried Blender - which admittedly is a while - | it was practically unusable with a trackpad. Has this changed? | wlesieutre wrote: | One major change is that it now defaults to select with left | click, which should help things. | | There's also an official Pie Menus add-on that lets you fit | more controls in a smaller laptop keyboard. Numpad is the | normal way to switch between view directions, but having them | in a radial menu keeps it reasonably usable. | | Lack of middle-mouse drag could be awkward and I don't know | the solution off the top of my head, but I imagine there's | something. You need to have both pan and zoom, I'd guess one | is via two-finger scrolling and the other adds a modifier | key? | DonHopkins wrote: | Pie menus are actually build into Blender now, but there's | also a great Pie Menu Editor add-on that lets you easily | build you own pie menus and other user interface widgets | without coding in Python! Which is very important for | making efficient custom workflows. | | https://blendermarket.com/products/pie-menu-editor | | Alias (and now Autodesk) has been abusing the patent system | and spreading FUD about marking/pie/radial menus being | patented for decades, which inhibited 3dsmax and Blender | from supporting them for many years. But now Blender has | excellent support for pie menus, and they're not encumbered | by patents. | | Autodesk Advertisement About "Patented Marking Menus": | | https://miro.medium.com/max/534/1*3C79dFnlhN__OJ3XmEjN9A.pn | g | | http://images.autodesk.com/adsk/files/aliasdesign10_detail_ | b... | | Pie Menu FUD and Misconceptions: Dispelling the fear, | uncertainty, doubt and misconceptions about pie menus. | | https://donhopkins.medium.com/pie-menu-fud-and- | misconception... | | >The Alias Marking Menu Patent Discouraged the Open Source | Blender Community from Using Pie Menus for Decades | | >Here is another example that of how that long term | marketing FUD succeeded in holding back progress: the | Blender community was discussing when the marking menu | patent would expire, in anticipation of when they might | finally be able to use marking menus in blender (even | though it has always been fine to use pie menus). | | >As the following discussion shows, there is a lot of | purposefully sewn confusion and misunderstanding about the | difference between marking menus and pie menus, and what | exactly is patented, because of the inconsistent and | inaccurate definitions and mistakes in the papers and | patents and Alias's marketing FUD: | | https://blenderartists.org/t/when-will-marking-menu- | patent-e... | | >"Hi. In a recently closed topic regarding pie menus, | LiquidApe said that marking menus are a patent of Autodesk, | a patent that would expire shortly. The question is: When ? | When could marking menus be usable in Blender ? I couldn't | find any info on internet, mabie some of you know." | wlesieutre wrote: | Even better! | ravenstine wrote: | Try using Maya or Cinema 4D with just a trackpad and you'll | realize how well Blender works with a trackpad. ;) | | With Blender, it's not only a matter of learning the key | combos, but it even has on-screen controls by default so you | can at least use that. Maya _used_ to have something similar, | but they pretty much got rid of it. It 's possible to | configure Maya to make it easier to use with a trackpad, but | the configuration for doing so is horribly obtuse and messes | with mouse usage. | blensor wrote: | I admit I am a bit of a masochist in that area but I am | almost exclusively using blender on my laptop for many years | and once you get used to it and have setup your keys | correctly, it works | rideontime wrote: | It's surprisingly good on a Mac trackpad, with support for | lots of multi-touch gestures. Can't speak for other OSes. | 127 wrote: | Yes, Blender is an amazing project and great 3D production | software for being free. However there are many issues that | remain unresolved after years. Viewport performance being one | of them. There seems to be at least to an extent a mode of | development where fun new things get done but old, boring, more | critical issues will not. | | I give all credit to Blender developers for doing the old, | boring and important things. It's just very frustrating waiting | for years and realizing that what was the vision a couple of | years ago, very few things actually got done. | mattnewton wrote: | Presumably this happens because it's mostly volunteer labour | right? Hiring a person to solve those boring old but | important-to-your-business issues seems like it could pay off | at a certain number of maya licenses. | | My guess is it mostly doesn't happen because these shops | aren't in the software business and don't want to be, so | don't know how to value engineers and don't want to spend | money on engineering they aren't sure will pay off in this | fiscal year. | edflsafoiewq wrote: | Blender is mostly developed by paid devs I think. | rguetzkow wrote: | I think there are quite a lot more developers | contributing to the project than those employed by the | Foundation or supported by developer grants [0]. However, | the complex changes on the roadmap of Blender's | development are planned and implemented by the core team. | | [0]: https://www.blender.org/about/credits/ | mkaic wrote: | Viewport performance is one of the several major improvements | demoed in the linked video by Brecht! | packetslave wrote: | A friend of mine in the industry who is now switching from | Maya to Blender for concept art once said: "yeah, Blender is | free... if you don't count the $200 in add-ons you need to | buy to get anything done." | | I wonder what percentage of Blender enthusiasts DON'T have | Boxcutter and HardOps installed at a minimum. | jpm48 wrote: | I think one of the main issues for Big studios is the whole | pipeline is based around Maya / Houdini and it is easy to get | artists who know these tools. It's hard to switch and takes | time (see how many studios are still using Python 2.x as a | switch to 3 will break so much). I know a lot of people are | beginning to look at blender (mainly due to cost and the new | licensing models from Autodesk). It is really expensive for | studios to use now. | dagmx wrote: | Blender has a lot of things lacking however: | | * It too is crash happy just in different ways. However Maya | scales better with large scenes than Blender does and that's | key | | * Blenders licensing is a deterrent. Very few people want to | deal with GPL. | | * Blender is not good for extensibility if you're looking for | performance. The API is unstable and exposed only via Python. | Studios need to extend the DCCs and Blender doesn't allow for | it in the way they need unless they fork the whole app. | | *Blender has no professional support contract. This is very | important for studios. | | I think Blender is awesome, but a lot of the stuff that makes | it appeal to freelancers doesn't appeal to big studios. In some | cases like the licensing, it pushes them away. | semi-extrinsic wrote: | Just as a counterpoint: in computational fluid dynamics there | are many large commercial companies that use GPL softwares, | and there are also commercial companies that offer paid | support contracts for those GPL tools. Once it catches on in | the community that these tools are good quality, there is no | legal risk, and there is good support if you want to pay for | that, they tend to spread rapidly. | dagmx wrote: | I think what you're saying is very much in line with my | initial comment, if we skip out on extensibility for a | second. | | If the Blender foundation offered paid support, such that | studios used it like a black box (e.g like Maya etc), then | the GPL part doesn't matter. They can get someone else to | take on the burden and supply them with builds. | | Blender however doesn't offer that and I think it's a | missed opportunity. | | However even if that were the case, extensibility is | important. And unfortunately, blender doesn't have any API | other than Python, and its API is GPL too. Studios need a C | like API for performance reasons, and using the API | shouldn't affect the licensing of their own code. | thomastjeffery wrote: | > Blenders licensing is a deterrent. Very few people want to | deal with GPL. | | I see this claim taken seriously all over the place, and I | just don't get it. How in the world is the GPL _actually_ an | issue? | | The GPL does not apply to anything _made with_ Blender; only | changes _made to_ Blender. You can very trivially use Blender | without ever dealing with the GPL. | | Do studios really think they need to make changes/extensions | to Blender itself, _then keep those changes totally private | and proprietary_? How absurd! | | I just can't for the life of me think of a scenario where the | GPL would actually inconvenience a studio. The only potential | problems I can imagine are beaurocratic FUD like having a | legal team arbitrarily demand every tiny piece of work be | owned by the studio. What a silly reason not to use better | tools. | berkut wrote: | When you write plugins (which VFX studios write a lot of | for various DCCs like Maya, Nuke, Katana, Houdini) for GPL | software, are the plugins then derived works? Does | Blender's License have an opt-out clause for that? | | Sometimes (but not often) these plugins do need to be | shared with other studios (or even the vendor - Netflix is | starting to get fairly aggressive in asking for copies of | the source work, but that doesn't really work well with | every studio having a custom pipeline and different ways of | doing rigging / deforming), but it looks like it's going | that way. In this scenario, is "sharing" "distributing" | from the license point-of-view? | | Large VFX/Animation studios are not going to open source | critical plugins that given them potential edges. They want | them to be totally private and their IP. | | The large studios have a lot of research / IP stuff going | on as well, they are basically tech houses (hundreds of | software devs), and they really care about IP (both | software and the client's material). | dagmx wrote: | It's not absurd that corporate entities would make changes | to their software without a desire to release those changes | as code. It has serious implications on patents etc... | | If Blender had a stable C API that was dual licensed, you'd | see a lot more studio uptake IMHO. Heck, even libc is dual | licensed. | | This all comes down to the GPL not being well received by | most tech corporations. People can argue whether that's got | merit or not. However it's a long standing fact that tech | companies do not like having dependencies on GPL code that | can "infect" their code base. Entertainment studios are the | same. They're largely tech companies at their core that | create art. | berkut wrote: | This. | | Blender has some rather embarrassing performance choke-points | even doing relatively simple things in some cases, that | software like Maya and Houdini don't have to the same degree. | | GPL code (even if you're not distributing anything) is more | of a problem than people would think, especially for places | working on very strongly defended IP content (Marvel), where | the content owners _need_ to have guarantees that the | software used is fully-licensed (there have been quite a few | incidents in the industry where unlicensed commercial | software was used, which causes surprising issues, like films | being delayed), and similarly they need to know the software | licenses for non-commercial software used doesn 't have | "surprises" in (some software has weird additions to | licenses, like "must provide credits", and even the artists / | developers working on the show for the studio don't | necessarily get that). | | Extensibility is really the key thing: you wouldn't believe | how much custom code is written for glue wrapping around | stuff for integration - still mostly Python2, although 3's on | the way for the industry, but the fact Blender only supported | Python3 when the industry as a whole was still happy with | Python2 (they don't really care about unicode, they would | have loved the GIL to be removed though) meant it was a non- | starter. Similarly, custom plugins (in C++ for performance) | are required in huge numbers for various different things, | modifiers, deformers, proxy drawing code, etc, etc, and | Blender doesn't expose anything like that. | | Again, support: Autodesk are far from perfect, but they will | fix critical bugs for key customers when they insist - i.e. | there aren't work-arounds (often within a week). | actinium226 wrote: | > * Blenders licensing is a deterrent. Very few people want | to deal with GPL. | | Why would a studio care about this? A tech firm would | certainly care, but the entertainment industry? They probably | don't know what GPL is and would probably just associate it | with "free" | MattGaiser wrote: | GPL may as well mean radioactive as far as legal is | concerned. | | A friend worked at a company where they banned GIMP as they | feared that editing logos and other trademarks in it could | invalidate them. | | Even working for a tech company, I don't think I would | suggest using anything GPL as it would cause a fuss. | ziftface wrote: | I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty certain that's not how | the GPL works. It has no effect on the content you create | using the tool. It places restrictions on redistribution | of the code itself. I don't think there are any limits on | what you do with gimp or blender, unless you are | modifying its code and redistributing it. | dagmx wrote: | Yes the GPL doesn't apply to work created by GPL | software. I've heard people in companies be worried about | it though because they misunderstand "using GPL | libraries" as applying to work created as a product of | them, rather than strictly software. | rguetzkow wrote: | The Blender Foundation is quite upfront about this though | to prevent misunderstandings. It's directly addressed on | the page that explains the license: | https://www.blender.org/about/license/ | dagmx wrote: | The case in point here though was GIMP not Blender. I'm | not sure whether they provide or provided such | clarification. | rguetzkow wrote: | They do in their FAQ: | https://www.gimp.org/docs/userfaq.html#can-i-use-gimp- | commer... | crazygringo wrote: | That is correct, but there are plenty of lawyers who | interpret things incredibly overly-conservatively to save | their own ass, just in case. | | If you're a senior enough manager and have a legitimate | business reason then you can often push back enough and | get them to give in, but it's really a question of | whether it's worth your time and effort internally. | jandrese wrote: | There are definitely management types that see "free" | software as "I can't yell at the vendor if something goes | wrong." I've seen this many times in government contracts. | It's a CYA move IMHO. Even if the vendor is never going to | fix the bugs you find, you can at least blame them for not | delivering on time. | | Of course it's even more silly when you consider that | you're never going to be making patches to Maya, so in | theory nothing is lost on the Blender side here. | dagmx wrote: | Maya has support licenses (as do most commercial DCCs). | Studios can get Autodesk to patch Maya for you and give | you custom builds. | dagmx wrote: | Studios are very much tech firms themselves. | | Quite a few have released commercial software, share | proprietary software with partner/vendor companies , or | contribute to OSS. | | As with any tech company, the GPL is a very unwelcome | license for fear of how far reaching it can be. | mroche wrote: | I can assure you that legal teams in studios are just as | aware as those in the tech field, even with the (for the | most part) distinct lack of apparent software distribution. | | Even if it's just for internal consumption, legal likes to | know what's going on and where it might impact them later. | | However, the GPL and other copyleft software will not for | the most part have much of an effect on studios unless they | sharing some of their IP they've created with the broader | community, partners, and/or proprietary software vendors. | packetslave wrote: | Studios write a LOT of custom code for their pipeline and | tools. If you were to go to ILM or Dreamworks or WDAS and | watch someone use Maya there, it would look COMPLETELY | different from what you see at home. | | Given that, I'm not surprised that the (not-always- | technical) lawyers are worried about GPL. | bredren wrote: | Thanks for this feedback. Maya has been around forever. I think | I had the initial release crash on me when in the late 90s. I | figured it was the warez back then! | | Would you mind sharing what kind of character work you've done | previously (hobby or pro) and what types of topics or projects | drive you to use Blender for conceptualization? | ravenstine wrote: | Probably not because it was warez. I know people who work | with Maya in productions; everybody knows that Maya is crash | prone to varying extents. It's the least reliable software | I've ever used. It does a TON, and it's otherwise pretty | awesome, but it's embarrassingly buggy. | | I never really got to work with it in a professional space, | but before software development I wanted to do character | animation and went to school for it. Outside of assignments, | I did a bunch of hobby projects both with just animation and | sculpting. I was particularly interested in mixing CGI with | live action, and there were some things I did with modeling | and rigging things like monsters, filming footage, resolving | camera motion, and compositing rendered animation into the | video. Was both a lot of fun and horribly difficult. These | days I it's much easier since software for resolving camera | motion has improved by orders of magnitude. | | There was a studio I worked at briefly, but it was a pretty | crappy deal and I decided to just ditch that field for | software development, which I am much better at anyway. | bredren wrote: | :) It was hard to tell what was what back then. | | Thanks for sharing those notes on your character animation | background. | | I'm curious what drove you to be interested in mixing CGI / | live action. Jurassic Park, perhaps? | | When I was a kid Roger Rabbit and Cool World were amazing | to me. JP's CGI seemed different, as though the dinosaurs | were real. | ravenstine wrote: | Oh, I also didn't catch this: | | > what types of topics or projects drive you to use | Blender for conceptualization? | | So I often have hobby projects (that I sometimes | complete, heh) where I would rather sketch it out in | Blender so I could more easily figure out what it is I | want to build. Sure, I could be using something like | Solidworks, but I've just never felt like I needed a full | on CAD suite to do what I need. The process helps me | design physical objects and decide what parts I'll need | to either buy or 3D print. | | One such example is a 16mm film scanner I've been meaning | to build. I have a 16mm projector and collect 16mm films, | and some films you can find on eBay are kind of obscure. | So I thought it would be fun to build something to scan | them since it would use my programming talent and involve | controlling stepper motors. | | That was actually where I gave up on Maya completely. I | had used Blender for some things already so the | transition was pretty easy, but I have more experience in | Maya overall. After having it crash on something _basic_ | , not even potentially weird operations like booleans | (which _every_ other 3D software package gets right), I | decided to abandon Maya entirely and hopefully I won 't | ever have to look back. | ravenstine wrote: | It was The Incredibles. That and my father was and still | is an animator. But The Incredibles really got me | interested because it was both pretty advanced for its | time and had what I still consider to be a more mature | storyline than even most animated films today. I | definitely know what you mean about Roger Rabbit! | monkmartinez wrote: | Just an observation and a point of discussion regarding the big | studios. Disclaimer, I am not in this space professionally, but | I listen to a LOT of podcasts about VR/AR which spills into all | of these topics. | | Do you see a push away from Maya and 3DS max for a more | platform agnostic modeling environment? Blender seems to be | mentioned all over the place for beginners. From what I am | hearing on podcasts, Unreal Game engine is making a big push | into film/animation production in addition to its impressive | game credits. As long as you can export an FBX file UE4/5 | should be a great pipeline, or do I have it wrong? | gmueckl wrote: | The problem with UE4 in film/animation is about the the place | it should occupy in the pipeline. Being a game engine at its | core, it's fundamentally designed to ingest models and render | images. So its natural place is at the end of the pipeline. | There's no really good roundtrip capabilties that let you | e.g. export a scene that was created in UE for use in other | tools. So despite the interactivity that would let you e.g. | block out a scene with awesome real time feedback, there's no | good way to get the data out into a different animation or | lighting tool for final touchups before it goes to an offline | renderer. This is why some big animiation studios have | invested a lot of effort into in-house realtime preview | renderers that attach to their tool pipelines with less | friction. | ravenstine wrote: | That's an excellent point about why they would rather write | their own in-house software. Of course they then get | saddled with having to support all of that software and may | struggle to do so, which is another problem in itself. | ravenstine wrote: | I'm not in the field myself, though animation was my original | career and I know people who work in feature animation. | | To answer your question, the field has been _sloooowly_ | diversifying in some ways, as you say with Unreal | (particularly since Unreal 's engine is fast and good for | real-time previews), but I don't see a huge push for moving | away from does-it-all packages like Maya or 3DS Max. The | economic incentive isn't there. Studios have figured out how | to make their money and are comfortable with the pipelines | that they already have. This isn't to say their pipelines are | _good_. In fact, many of you would be shocked at just how bad | most animation pipelines are at big studios. Not only are | they way too vendor-locked (as is kind of the case with | Maya), but they don 't want to pay an adequate salary for | qualified software engineers who can build better pipelines | and write more software that's agnostic. Of course, I'm | making sweeping generalizations, but this is the kind of | story I've heard more often than not. Pixar is known for | having good practices and they write (and sell) their own | software, but I don't closely know anyone who has worked | there. | | It's going to take a decline in the field of animation before | studios realize that they're basically stuck in 2006 in terms | of how their artists are working to make their content. I | won't mention them here, but people at certain major studios | have been trying to get things like Unreal for 10+ years and | never get approval to receive licenses for it and they never | do because higher ups don't believe they'd see a monetary | return on investment. Their content is so profitable that the | people in charge don't really give a fuck. | | In case I didn't make it clear, I'm pretty much an outsider | at this point, so I'm sure there may be some more relevant | viewpoints here that would contradict mine. I don't intend to | be authoritative. | lattalayta wrote: | In my opinion, most of the 3D software and renderers are | starting to align in their workflows and set up. If you've | spent enough time in a 3D package and have your | fundamentals down, then a reasonably experienced 3D artist | could make something look good in Maya, Blender, Cinema 4D, | UE4, 3ds Max, Modo, or slightly more specialized programs | like Katana, Mari, Nuke, etc. Most of the "learning curve" | is just finding out what a particular program calls one | tool or another. I think this video starts to illustrate | what I mean | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkvRBvKHFek | | Also, at studios, you tend to hear about the "main" | pipeline where the majority of the work flows through. | There are often secondary, smaller pipelines where they | evaluate new tools and workflows before committing to | entire rewrites. I would agree that small to medium sized | studios don't have the resources or luxury to do as much | exploration | ethbr0 wrote: | > _Their content is so profitable that the people in charge | don 't really give a fuck._ | | This is usually a general technology smell. Consistent, | profitable revenue is the technological equivalent of the | resource curse [0]. | | I haven't figured out if it's because people never get | fired (thus new ideas are extremely slow to penetrate and | propagate) or because management can afford to be extremely | conservative (no pressure, resistance to change). | | Put the most charitably, it's because there's no need to be | more efficient, and stability & consistency is more | valuable than improvement. | | [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse | emkee wrote: | Watching Blender become more and more prominent over the last | several years has been extremely satisfying. This looks like | another great step. | dragontamer wrote: | Does anyone know about good books that discuss the various design | decisions behind the "kernel graph"? | (https://code.blender.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/cycles_x...) | | I mean, I recognize that its the "graphics pipeline", but there's | all sorts of performance discussion points. You want the data to | be in a particular form as it traverses the graph. The various | bits of the graph want to be "pipelinable", and parallelized if | possible (possibly executing on a 'Remote' GPU). The data may-or- | may not be local to a certain location. (Ex: data in DDR4 will | need to be transferred to GPU, and back. Or if you're in a | render-farm situation, you may need to TCP-send the data to the | remote computer before that computer can move forward with its | rendering). | | And of course: all of those need to be balanced out with the | featureset of the underlying program. Anyone can make a fast | "sphere-only" renderer/raytracer, but Blender supports many | different types of meshes, NURBS, and other features, which is | probably the bulk of the complexity. | | ----------- | | The depreciation of the OpenCL kernels is a bit sad, but | understandable to anyone who has actually worked with OpenCL vs | CUDA vs ROCm. The OpenCL kernels in Blender are particularly | weirdly coded, so throwing them away might be the best option. | birktj wrote: | > Deprecation | | > OpenCL rendering kernels. The combination of the limited Cycles | split kernel implementation, driver bugs, and stalled OpenCL | standard has made maintenance too difficult. | | I am not really up to date on the GPGPU world, but is OpenCL in | such a bad shape that it is not really usable? If so that is very | sad. Are there any alternative open hardware agnostic GPGPU apis | or has CUDA eaten the entire market? | raphlinus wrote: | My perspective is that OpenCL is indeed in that bad shape, | though it does have defenders. Both AMD (ROCm) and Intel | (oneAPI) have ways to run workloads originally written to run | on CUDA, but they're nowhere near the level of polish as CUDA. | | I believe an open stack can and will emerge, but it will take | time and effort on all levels of the stack. It's possible to do | pretty amazing things with Vulkan compute shaders, but the | programming model is different than CUDA (it's not single- | source), and the tooling support is not quite there. | | In time, I am hopeful that WebGPU will gather more momentum, | and be officially supported even in places where Vulkan | requires janky adapter layers. But in its current form, it's | very immature and far from being usable for real workloads. | dogma1138 wrote: | ROCm is a total mess, and is Linux only. | | OneAPI is in a rather good state considering it's barely a | release candidate now I'll put my money on Blender support | Intel GPUs sooner than AMD ones with Cycles X unless AMD will | adopt OneAPI. | jsheard wrote: | ROCm doesn't even run on every AMD card, it only supports a | subset of their architectures skewed towards the HPC market | | The current and previous generations of consumer AMD cards | just don't work with ROCm and there's been no indication | they ever will | brundolf wrote: | Oh man, I am pumped about the viewport improvements. Whenever I'm | working on a scene, tweaking lighting or shaders is really | arduous because after every tiny adjustment I have to sit and | wait at least a few seconds to really see what effect it had. | These previews look amazing. | valine wrote: | Have you tried using Eevee for shader adjustments? A pretty | common workflow is get your lighting setup working with Eevee | and then switch to Cycles for the final render. | brundolf wrote: | Certain shader nodes only work in Cycles. In particular I use | the Bevel node a lot for an "edges" effect: https://docs.blen | der.org/manual/en/latest/render/shader_node... | | You can get the difference between the surface normal and the | bevel normal and use that as a "sharpness" value to mask | things like wear on the corners of objects | knolan wrote: | One other suggestion is to use a render border. | | https://docs.blender.org/manual/en/2.79/editors/3dview/navi | g... | capableweb wrote: | > A pretty common workflow is get your lighting setup working | | Don't think that's common at all because that won't always | work well. The difference between Cycles and Eevee is the | lightning, materials, rasterization (compared to raytracing | that Cycles does) and such. | brundolf wrote: | The GP is correct in many cases. Part of the reason Eevee | was created was for this exact purpose. You can't preview | certain shader nodes (though you can preview most of them), | and you can't preview raycast-only effects like indirect | lighting (unless you bake it) and certain volumetric | effects. But you can preview your geometry and direct | lighting and physically-based materials well enough to get | an idea of how things will look, and then you can make a | final pass where you preview the actual Cycles output. | | If you're fixing your UVs, or adjusting the depth of a bump | effect, or arranging a scene to see how objects' colors | balance with each other, or tweaking the metal-ness of a | material, Eevee works great as a preview even if your final | render will be in Cycles. Eevee is particularly useful when | working on an isolated object (minimal indirect lighting), | vs seeing how an entire scene gets lit. | zlsa wrote: | I've found that with complex shaders, it can be more performant | to use CPU Cycles rendering because GPU rendering can have a | substantial delay after changing parameters. In the same vein, | Cycles is sometimes faster than Eevee, because the latter needs | to recompile the shader after every change. | brundolf wrote: | Edit: I should clarify this only applies when | | 1) I'm using a Cycles-only shader node (which unfortunately I | do a lot; see the thread below), or | | 2) I'm focused on lighting the full scene with all the | indirection, or | | 3) I'm adjusting volumetric effects | | Otherwise Eevee is a great stand-in ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-04-23 23:00 UTC)