[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/3/ - 3DCG

View post   
File: 150 KB, 1104x924, knishes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
462711 No.462711 [Reply] [Original]

What is the Cycles render engine exactly and what is it about it that makes Blender users cream their pants? Ever render I've ever seen posted here using Cycles has been very grainy and crappy looking. Is Cycles just for test renders? If so why do Blender users act like it's the best thing ever invented?

>> No.462729

>>462711
Because fanboyism is a cancer to anything. Cycles is babbies first path tracer and is extremely simple.

Everyone would be better off using either Luxrender or Mitsuba. But fanboys are so hard headed they will never understand that.

>> No.462730

>>462729
Listen mate, something thats multi-os, and using cuda isnt extremely simple. Let's get that out of the way. Second of all, its much better written and cleaner than any other open source gpu pathtracer AND blender. It destroys luxrender, and mitsuba has so many limitations it might as well not be in this conversation.

>> No.462731

>>462730
Lmao, it does not destroy LuxRender you fucking tool. Cycles doesn't even have MLT, Lux does, that right there puts Lux miles ahead.

>> No.462750

So why do all the Cycles renders look like they were posted by someone shooting with ASA 3200 film?

>> No.462751

>>462750
Because as has been stated, Cycles is literally the most basic type of GPU accelerated path-tracer that you can make. The dev team collects research papers that they don't really even understand and then don't implement anything from them.

>> No.462757

>>462730
>No MLT
>No bidirectional path tracing
>No photon mapping
>Only basic materials
>Shitty sun and sky models
>no light groups
>No exit portals
>No micro displacement
>Actually thinking Cycles is miles ahead

The only thing Cycles has in Lux is speed. Which soon won't even be a relevant argument thanks to Luxcore.

>> No.462760

>>462757
You're just a lux babby. Cycles is extremely good and accurate. Hell, if you were to do a double blind test with a 10 cycles renders vs luxrender renders chances are good that you wouldnt be able to tell the difference and if you did, you would be partial to cycles.

>> No.462764

>>462760
The results produced are from the skill of the artist. Not the tools he uses.

However Luxrender is technologically more advanced than Cycles. Allowing you to create more with less hassle.

Also Cycles sucks at caustics.

>> No.462765

>>462764
We're not talking about the tools, we're talking about a double blind test comparing the two.

>> No.462775

>>462765
Do it, set it up or shut up. Because right now you're just blowing air out your ass. Every time someone posts a Cycles render on here, it's instantly identified as one by pretty much everyone.

>> No.462787

>>462775

MUH OPEN SORE ASS!

>> No.462798

Because the renders you see that look grainy are posted by dumbasses that don't know how to configure render settings. It's a really nice engine when used correctly, look at some professional work done with it instead of n00bz on /3/

>> No.462800

>>462798
Nope, you browse even the officially released "professional" Cycles renders and they all have grain on them, especially where reflective and refractive caustics are involved. It's because Cycles is incredibly basic, I don't know why you guys are so passionate about fighting this fact. Sorry, but other renderers have much bigger development teams who are paid to work full time on developing them and have actual relevant degrees in the subject.

>> No.462801

>>462800
>cries m-m-muh grain-free
>still wont pass a double blind test

>> No.462802

>>462801

>Still won't post a double blind test.

>> No.462803

>>462802
hurr durr

>> No.462806

>>462711
The problem most people have with cycles is not setting the lighting up, plus it doesn't like being in enclosed area, like a skybox.
The power of it is the node structuring system which allows for endless procedural materials as can be seen in the following link:

blenderartists.org/forum/showthread.php?278285-Yet-Another-Thread-about-Cycles-Materials

>> No.462807

I have a question. How do most of these renderers like Vray,iray, Lux,Mitsuba, Cycles, and 3Delight compare to Arnold? I ask because it's currently with my package of Maya and don't know much about renderers to really tell if i can even justify using one over the other, since i'm a total novice.

>> No.462817
File: 893 KB, 1080x1920, Sord1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
462817

Okay faggots, the game is on. Figure out which one is from either Cycles or Luxrender.

Keep in mind that I am not highly proficient in either but a very simple scene should be fine.

First.

>> No.462818
File: 1.13 MB, 1080x1920, Sord2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
462818

>>462817
Second.

This dildo esque sword shall determine which is better.

>> No.462819

>>462818
That's not a good test scene but this one feels like cycles to me. Not either of the guys above, first time I post ITT.

>> No.462820

>>462819
>>462819
I know it isn't a good test scene but I'm too lazy to make something big and detailed for it. Maybe one day I'll do it but not now.

>> No.462821
File: 81 KB, 700x700, cornell_glossy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
462821

>>462820
You shouldn't use something 'big and detailed' for this, just something that highlights how the engine handle light tracing.
A rendering of a 'Cornell box' set up to look as good as possible is the best approach, pic related.

>> No.462822

>>462821
You're right.

I'll do it tomorrow.

>> No.462859

The only thing I want in a renderer is fasd openCL rendering because I have a 290 and tfw no CUDA

>> No.462864
File: 951 KB, 960x540, PTown WIP 7.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
462864

I don't think cycles is god tier "better than every other render engine out there" perfect in every way, but it is completely unfair to say that it isn't a competent render engine. Cycles can generate some impressive renders in the right hands.

I think the reason Blender users suck its dick so much is because it's a world ahead of Blender's original internal renderer, which always made sketchy results, even at it's peak.

Cycles is still under development and will be for a while, let it grow a bit and it'll be better.

My computer is shitty, so i always render with low samples, making my renders grainy, but on a better machine I think they'd look pretty good even with just cycles.

>> No.462865

>>462859
get a job and get a real card. Throw away that toy card

>> No.462867
File: 49 KB, 641x593, 1352528160024 (1).png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
462867

>>462859
I know how you feel.
>Still have my two radeon 6770s
>Still stuck on PCIe 2.0

>> No.462869
File: 545 KB, 960x540, treefarm.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
462869

>>462865
the only reason I'd ever buy an NVIDIA card is for CUDA.

I don't need to say any more because my opinions tend to trigger people.

anyways, does anyone know how to make particles in a system not intersect/bunch up/cluster and intersect eachother?

>> No.462884

>>462869
lol enjoy your fucking awful toy hardware you beta faggot. P.S. - 980 says hi.

>> No.462885
File: 9 KB, 640x150, Screenshot_3978.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
462885

>>462884
like I said, the only reason I'd buy one is for cuda.

980 - $600
290 - $300

980 - 256bit
290 - 512bit

2x the bits for 0.5x the price

>> No.462895

>>462885
kek you're so retarded. nvidia makes the fastest cards on the planet and you have toy AMD. What next - you gonna buy a widdle Kaveri to go wid dat? KEK

>> No.462898

>>462895
>writes kek, calls people retarded.

..lol

>> No.462901

>>462898
>has no reply, probably has a kaveri on his amazon or newegg shopping cart right now

top KEK

>> No.462902

>>462901
wrong person that aint even me bro

>> No.462905

>>462885

ur fukin stupid that shit dont matter cmon
show me the carfax

>> No.462906

>>462905
KEK

>> No.462911

Different anon here. I'd just like to point out that the ONLY reason an nvidia card should matter for /3/ purposes is if you are using CUDA only software, like Octane Render. Otherwise, there is literally no difference between nvidia and amd/ati cards.

Also, if you ARE using Octane Render, modern gtx cards are not optimal for it, because Octane is optimized for Kepler and Fermi nvidia cards, not maxwell. Just saying.

>> No.462912

>>462911
>there is literally no difference between nvidia and amd/ati cards.

actually, theres a huge difference. Nvidia makes the fastest gpus, period. Speed is the most important factor. Radeon cards are like some shit some mexicans would sell out of their shacks.

>> No.462913
File: 133 KB, 1132x1024, top50.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
462913

>>462885
This the current top 50 fastest renders for the 2.73 release.
As you can see, all Nvidia, as the support for openCL AMD cards is not there.
It's there's more to it than just bits and speeds, the cuda core count is what makes the 980 so quick, and they run 40% more efficiently than the titans, which as you can see the 2x980 is nearly on par with 2xtitans if you add 1/3 the time from the 3xtitans.

No 50 is the AMD card...

>> No.462915
File: 8 KB, 192x171, 1407015527963.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
462915

>>462913

>> No.462917

>>462912
AMD cards have more More shading/texture mapping units, and more render output processors, which are more important than speed alone, unless you're clinging to the more ghz>more threads logic of the 90s.

>> No.462919

>>462913
I'm >>462885
and in my original post I stated
>>462869
>the only reason I'd ever buy an NVIDIA card is for CUDA.

This is because I recognize that the support for CUDA is wider, and more recognized. However, referencing CUDA cores and other NVIDIA specific statistics that, as you said, do not have parallels in AMD cards (openCL) as it is not supported yet does not help your case.

You can't do GPU rendering and determine superiority to GPUs that do not have that capability merely because developers have not supported/developed for it yet.

Like I said, CUDA is nice, but it's really the only reason I'd get an NVIDIA card. Which is not enough for me, hence the reason I bought an AMD card.

>> No.462920

>>462917
KEK they lose in every bench, and badly. Shit you're deluded.

>> No.462921
File: 672 KB, 1200x1600, keklelvsayylmao.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
462921

>>462920
>>462906
>>462901
>>462895

>> No.462922

>>462920
Oh also, more than 60% better floating-point performance alone should be an indication that AMD is superior. Nvidia only has less wattage going for it, which shouldn't matter unless you live in europe and have to pay 300 dollars a day for using your queen's electricity.

>> No.462962
File: 354 KB, 1024x1365, 5960x980x2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
462962

>>462919
I posted the graph before.
I'm sure that the 290 is quick with gaming, I'm the 3rd on the list guy with the 2x980 G1 gaming OCed + 5960X cpu (all watercooled and none of it goes over 40c), and I also do a lot of gaming @ 2560x1600 and haven't found a game yet which maxes them out.

I bought them mainly for rendering and the price tag didn't bother me.
Using cycles, the rendering times are extremely quick, something which is what I need as I won't want to wait an hour each time I make small adjustments to the scene.

I'm not knocking the AMD card, just saying if you want to do serious rendering (in cycles) then you can't beat the cuda cores.

Pic is my rig, I don't give a shit about the looks, just want the performance...

>> No.462970

>>462962
lol you're retarded. Your watercool is stupid and unportable. Should have just gotten a 2x980m lappy.

>> No.462988

>>462970

It's just as portable as any another PC. Obviously you don't understand watercooling nor computers, esp if you think of using 2 shitty 980Ms on a laptop is the way to go.

>> No.463012

>>462711
It's a raytracer, well integrated with Blender's node system. But the biggest thing seems to be that your can use it in the viewport as you work. It'll render and add samples as time goes by, so you can get a quick idea of how your setup is working, or let it go for a while and it gets better. It allows you to mess with lighting and whatever and get quick feedback without waiting for a full render.You can render only a small section of the viewport with cycles if you want.

But mostly it seems to be that it's better than the legacy renderer.

>> No.463014
File: 2.68 MB, 1920x1080, Cup_render_full_res.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
463014

"Cycles is a shit tier render engine?"

What? Dumping a few images.

>> No.463015
File: 41 KB, 600x300, Realistic-Materials-using-Cycles-Rendering-Engine-in-Blender.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
463015

>> No.463016

>>462988
you got a behemoth watercooled mess. You want to bring it somewhere? Better dedicate the next 10 hours to draining fucking fluid and flushing the radiator. Me? I bought a 2x980m lappy with shitloads of speed and so much portability. I can output to regular monitors at home if I choose. Mechanical keyboard built in. MSI Gt80 Titan - every heard of it? KEK.

>> No.463021

>>463014
That's a very basic scene and material, anything could handle that really.

>>463015
This looks better at first glance but it's very low resolution so it's hard to tell. Certainly the background looks like dogshit, the shoes don't look leathery at all, and the rust interacts strangely with the smooth metal parts.

>inb4 those are art issues not rendering ones
you should use better images then
oh wait you can't, because no seriously good artists use shit-tier tools

>> No.463025
File: 624 KB, 1200x1597, painting_robots.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
463025

Cycles is fine, and it's one of the best free rendering engine although it's a bit slow.
Most blender users don't know how to use it though.

>> No.463038

>>463025
looks like complete ASS. You get better results even in UE4. For fucks sake.

>> No.463040

>>463038
UE4 is dogshit that takes 8 gigs of ram to load a primitive lmao. kill yourself.

>> No.463041

>>463040
>mad mad mad

>> No.463044

>>463041
yes you are.

btw where's your portfolio kid? ;^)

>> No.463045

>>463044
I'm not >>463040, so I'm not mad.

My folio is too good for this board. Its on youtube - somewhere.

>> No.463066

>>463038
Ehh come on anon, it's actually pretty nice. You can't get anywhere near that shading in realtime, that's for sure.

>> No.463071
File: 425 KB, 2048x1152, ice.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
463071

>>463038
Nice argument.

>> No.463076

>>463025
This was obviously edited in post. Who are you trying to fool?

>> No.463077
File: 745 KB, 1542x1960, angry_ram.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
463077

>>463076
Give me one good example of a good render that wasn't post-processed.

>> No.463083

The more threads like this I see, the more convinced I become that /3/ doesn't know shit about CG. There are like 3 posts in this thread that indicate the poster might have higher brain function..

>> No.463095

>>463083
can you quote those posts out pls

>> No.463138

>>463021
Here. Test stuff from the sintel movie. (Sintel and Tears of Steel were rendered in cycles)

https://durian.blender.org/news/eye-and-hair-test/

It's somewhat interesting to see their node setup, it seems that eye is all procedural.

https://durian.blender.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/iris_explanation.jpg
https://durian.blender.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/veins_explanation.jpg

That's 3 years old already

>> No.463158

>>463138
>Sintel
>Cycles
I'm pretty sure it was BI

>> No.463162

>>463158
Hmmm... seems you're right.

I downloaded a sintel eye sample from blendswap and it was under cycles, I assumed it was the original. Apparently not.

>> No.463303

>>462864
Is that Provincetown?

>> No.463347
File: 1.92 MB, 500x390, 1384145120667.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
463347

>>462821
>>462822
>I'll do it tomorrow.

lel. He totally did it and proved himself wrong and now doesn't want to post the results.

>> No.463348

>>463347
I think you have a strong read on the situation anon.

>> No.463350

>>463303
Yes it is!