Blender violating their own design goals for Cycles???

[Anonymous No.907178]

The official Blender wiki: https://wiki.blender.org/wiki/Source/Render/Cycles/DesignGoals
>"We do not intend to make a physically correct render engine per se, but we do think that a physically based shading system is much easier to use. With a flexible node system and shading language support, various production tricks are also possible. Not all rendering algorithms must be physically correct, but we prefer to avoid approximations where we can."

>shadow caustics is an approximation of caustics, which can already be done in blender with filter glossy and clamping disabled
>the original principled bsdf better fits the design goals than principled v2, as the latter is based on being more physically correct with less options for physically incorrect artistic choices
>everything else that was replaced in the name of realism over artistic control
Cycles was intended to an artist-friendly PBR renderer, as the goals imply. With that being said, there have been wishes made by the Blender community to make Cycles more accurate. Why do they want a physically correct Cycles instead of using renderers meant for realism, like Octane and LuxCore?

[Anonymous No.907179]

>Why do they want a physically correct Cycles instead of using renderers meant for realism, like Octane and LuxCore?
Lux is garbage.

[Anonymous No.907277]

>>907178
Based Dutchie

[Anonymous No.907293]

>>907178
Linux and Blender are mostly developed by trannies and therefore shit.

[Anonymous No.907340]

I wish people would stop posting black and white photos of Ton. Each time I have an oh shit moment

[Anonymous No.907401]

>>907293
companies like google microsoft adobe apple aren't full of silicone valley troons