Best inside SU renderer under $200
-
@unknownuser said:
The bitchy attitude, however, isn't. So stop it, please. And don't give me "I don't know what you're talking about".
Didn't mean to sound "bitchy" - but point taken...
@edson said:
what is odd about this?
Perhaps I'm being nit-picking, but like I wrote, I find the wording "seems to be their attempt" a little odd...
I don't see TWR as an "attempt"... I feel we've succeeded and have made a very good application...
Furthermore I don't like the word "seems" in connection to the word "attempt"...@edson said:
emphatically, yes a 1000 times because no other renderer has allowed me to concentrate on the architecture and come up with quite decent renders that are more than enough for me. I cannot say this much about any other app. and V2 (which, by the way, no longer uses the KT engine) is proving to be even better than v1.7.
I respect your personal preferences, but feel that your wording is very strong and in a somehow derogatory manner toward other render applications (not only TWR and KT)...
Remember that you're a Global Moderator (equal with an ambassador) for the SCF...@edson said:
as for twilight, it does not exist for me as there is no mac version YET
Yet there's a lot of mac users who are able to run TWR...
@edson said:
(how can this take so long!!!)
Because you simply can't compile the code from Win to Mac...
But it's being worked on...
-
dear kim,
first of all, let me emphasize that this is meant as a friendly and respectful exchange of points of view. some people here may think we are starting one of those lengthy internet fights... we know better than that.
@unknownuser said:
Perhaps I'm being nit-picking, but like I wrote, I find the wording "seems to be their attempt" a little odd...
I don't see TWR as an "attempt"... I feel we've succeeded and have made a very good application...
Furthermore I don't like the word "seems" in connection to the word "attempt"...I can only be tentative about this because I have not had the chance to test twilight. thus "seems" and "attempt". there is no demeaning intent in the use of these terms.
@unknownuser said:
I respect your personal preferences, but feel that your wording is very strong and in a somehow derogatory manner toward other render applications (not only TWR and KT)...
Remember that you're a Global Moderator (equal with an ambassador) for the SCF...I did not mean to be derogatory. I am merely stating the truth. I challenge anyone to prove what I am saying about podium wrong. if you can show me an application that is simpler to operate and produces the same results I will switch to it on the spot.
all moderators here have their preferences and make them public very often. I have never been disrespectful to any application, plugin or member of the forum. although making my preferences public, I have recommended TW and KT many times before and will continue to do so as no app fits everyone.
@unknownuser said:
Yet there's a lot of mac users who are able to run TWR...
good for them. as for myself, I think virtualisation sucks for demanding applications. I am not going to be forced into windows just because some apps do not have a mac version. it means not only owning a licensed wmware copy (which I do) as well as windows and sketchup pro win (which I don't).
@unknownuser said:
Because you simply can't compile the code from Win to Mac...
But it's being worked on...that does not seem to be case with the developers of podium, idx renditioner, indigo, lightup, vray, artlantis, etc. they all managed to it.
regards,
-
@unknownuser said:
Please remember that KT is available in native mac format - hence the reason why Podium has been available in mac format...
However, it's not just the render engine that needs to be available for mac and according to my knowledge, it's the user interface in TWR that has proved to cause some headache...
I'm sure this is about to get solved and you can try it yourself...yes. it seems that dealing with the UI is one of the challenges podium developers face.
as I have stated before, I am eager to try TW. it is a good idea to have several options for different situations. for that reason I have acquired LightUp which I am about to start testing soon.
-
@edson said:
...some people here may think we are starting one of those lengthy internet fights... we know better than that.
Absolutely...
I didn't want to start such a fight...Besides... I acknowledge that each tool has it's place in the toolbox...
(Podium is doing a good job with many models, TWR is needed for other projects, etc...)@edson said:
that does not seem to be case with the developers of podium, idx renditioner, indigo, lightup, vray, artlantis, etc. they all managed to it.
As you know very well, I'm not a programmer...
Please remember that KT is available in native mac format - hence the reason why Podium has been available in mac format...
However, it's not just the render engine that needs to be available for mac and according to my knowledge, it's the user interface in TWR that has proved to cause some headache...
I'm sure this is about to get solved and you can try it yourself... -
@edson said:
some people here may think we are starting one of those lengthy internet fights... we know better than that.
That we do.
@edson said:
it is a good idea to have several options for different situations.
True. I have quite a few renderers - including TW - and while I don't use all of them often, I quite like every last one. They all have their strengths.
-
Hi All,
I dont know how to properly upload text and images, I am going to attempt to cut and paste from "word", I hope this works?Nope no luck? Does anyone have any advice on uploading a group of images with text notes? Make a PDF and Insert?
Thanks Matte
-
-
Yes it is not really objective. I think you should objectify the test or do not bother as it can show bias. Even with Cornell box one need to compare biased with biased and unbiased with unbiased.
For instance shaderlight is beta at moment without GI and artificial lighting.... Podium depends, and for that matter Twilight as well, on what preset one uses...etc... LUp is very easy to set up so can't inderstand your struggle.I have seen so many of these and none really gives me any more insight. It just show that you know how to set up one renderer better than the other.
-
If anything this proofs the fact that render engine comparison is difficult.
If you want to compare render times/quality, scenes must be stagged similarly and illuminated in same way... now some engines use totally different materials and lights even render settings are far from matching. Comparing biased and unbiased render wont help the situation, some renderers like twilight can do both in different quality levels. I think a complex scene is more suitable for a workflow testing than render time/quality testing, as there is so much things to control.
If I may suggest, take a relatively simple scene like cornell box or a variation of it (a recreation of a jotero cornell box is available here also as obj). Use different materials, rough, glossy/blurred, metals, glass... Controlled environment will reveal most obvious faults in engine, like energy loss errors and so. Hope this helps and good luck. (btw, if you end up using cornell box, Thea will offer you couple scenes - ready to render - just to get some good reference renders) -
I agree 110% with both Notareal and Sepo...
I couldn't say this better myself, so allow me to take a quote from Pete (aka Solo):
@unknownuser said:
...you must realize having the tools does not make one a carpenter, meaning that there is a level of artistic talent and desire needed in order to set up a scene, composition, lighting, texturing, modeling, and so forth that requires one to have a genuine interest and find much enjoyment in what one is doing in order to succeed...
Although you've tested some different render applications, you must also acknowledge that it's difficult to compare the applications without a real deep insight experience with each of the different applications...
It's a really interesting topic, which is brought up from time to time...
I'd say that any user should go with whatever application they feels most comfortable with and also suits their needs the best...
Since they all offer some kind of a trial version, where the user can test the application, it should be possible to check it out...
Moreover... Altough you may feel one application is easy to adapt and also will meet your requirements, may be a completely different experience for another person...In a few years time, things have changed, current applications have (most likely) been upgraded and new applications have seen the light...
But - perhaps the most important part - you have developed your skills and thereby you may need other tools and more advanced applications to accomplish the projects you get... -
Sorry if I caused any trouble? It is not so much difficult as it is almost impossible to compare Rendering programs, with enough time they can ALL put our great work! And I should have also mentioned that Shaderlight is in beta form right now so I probably should not have even include it in the tests, Sorry for that.
As mentioned earlier, the test was to learn what things can do, I agree if you’re an expert at any one of the renderers out there you will get excellent results. I wish I had lots of hours to devote to each one of them! But since time is limited I do not have that option.
The original Idea was what could some one not knowing anything about rendering put together and get decent results when you are under pressure to produce decent images fast. As I mentioned earlier this test was narrowly focused on only residential/commercial interiors with a bit accent lighting that did not need to be perfect photorealistic, just good enough to show the mood of the space in a pleasing way. I tried to use lights in the exact same place as much as I could. I am not trying to say who is better then whom. I’m just trying to limit down the choices so I can actually spend some deep quality time with the one best for me.
My test was also to bring up answers that some of you already know that might help myself and others choose a direction? I have learned from others that there all great, it just depends what you want to do, and of course how well you know the program, but that didn’t help too much to make a choice.
I also should mention that I have an older computer that isn’t working up to snuff all the time. That’s probably why I can not get Lightup or IRenderNXT to load, it has nothing to do with that I can’t figure out how to use them.
I choose to use a test example of something that I would be rendering instead of a “cornell?” box or other object, as the out put was never expected to be perfect, just better then what I can make without help of a good rendering program.
-
While I more or less agree with those three gentlemen above, we have to admit that they are rendering experts (also professionally dealing with certain rendering applications).
So I completely understand you, Matt, when you are trying to find something that would fit your needs best. I do not find it wrong that you post your experimental images although true that it would be hard to make an unbiased and correct comparison even by an expert, not by you (or as a matter of fact by me for instance) as a beginner in the field.
If not for any better, these tests can show how far an interested beginner can get in a few hours with these different engines.
As for IrenderNXT, I cannot comment but LightUp definitely needs a decent, OpenGL compliant video card so that indeed may be the reason why you cannot use it on an old computer.
-
@gaieus said:
If not for any better, these tests can show how far an interested beginner can get in a few hours with these different engines.
Agree. Still a little return to my earlier post; using a well know simple scene one can make sure that he can get about a correct result. Most renderers do provide a cornell box that has correct materials/settings - so if anything, it's a good starting point to learn the engine. When you know that you can get a proper result, it's far more easier to continue with some challenging scene.
-
Don't forget what I started my post above i.e. I agreed with you guys.
Probably because I have also seen a lot of topics about this and already know that this kind of comparison is futile.Yet I still found it interesting...
-
Based on what I see I think you are best served by using IDX renditioner based on your tests.
It's not about what can do the most, it's about what can you use well... you stated your goals for a render engine and it looks like that fits the bill nicely. Sometimes more is just more and if you don't use it then it's not really useful.
Best,
Jason. -
I've also tried to conduct a review of many of the renderers in an exterior (landscape) context. I am a beginner and the review was to cover what does the default setting give the viewer. These were using the latest versions (in some cases beta) in demo or trial mode. And I learned it is hard to compare renderers... They all have areas where they excel, they are all built on inspiration (and perspiration), and can show off wonderful things in the hands of an expert. Any feedback on the review is welcomed.
http://sketchupland.posterous.com/a-personal-review-of-sketchup-renderers
-
Matt, There is no "best inside SU renderer under $200". IMO, aside from "features", most rendering applications use the same math, and primarily differentiate themselves by their interface. Each of us are vested in a application by some form of ownership. After you have spent some time with a particular application, it is unlikely that you will attempt to learn something new unless the return is justified.
Advertisement