I know of others who have used this service from Fred (VUE demi-god), and have no intention of replacing their reviews. I merely thought an organized thread might be more beneficial for those considering this new service.

THE GOOD:
Account creation, project upload and payment are all an easy process.
The farm does render images and animations quickly.
Customer service is superb.
Good pricing for professional projects.
File retrieval and privacy very strong.

I created my account at their site within minutes. I then tried to make the $10 deposit required. At the time, Paypal was having issues, and the site suffered from this. However, after submitting a tech support email I was VERY pleased to receive a direct phone call within half an hour. Julian, the tech support representative, was very thorough and quick to respond and resolve my issue. 

THE BAD:
Too expensive for personal use.
Need for an additional piece of software to decompress your finished file.
No support for Poser animated figures or non-default VUE items.

So while my single frame 300 dpi, 3600x2400 image was set to work on their system, I started thinking about some other projects I might use their service for. Then I saw in the userguide that very little is supported for things many VUE users use regularly in their images, namely imported Poser animations or additional content. That quickly crushed that dream.

Once my file was ready, I retrieved it from their FTP service. This was also an easy process. Using the 7-zip utility needed to extract the file, I excitedly opened it up, only to see some objects from my images missing. I had tried my best to make sure there was no copy-protected material in the image. I guess I failed. Now this image is useless to me. $86 US later. I do not place the blame on RANCH of course, and the final image quality isn't what I had envisioned, but sadly as I was testing with depth of field, full radiosity, subsurface scattering on leaves, volumetric lights, godrays, and everything else I could think of in the image, I was disheartened with my result. Now I will have to go back and render it on my machine. Was hard to test the ideal settings I wanted, even at low rez, on my home system. Costly lesson learned.

CONCLUSION
I think it is great that such a service is being offered to the VUE community, and if the Userguide is read and followed closely, I can see many applications for its use within a profession community.

Personally for me, it's too expensive, so I won't be using it very often personally, but still commend Fred and the team for their initiative.

3/5 stars

Hope this review helps.

Warangel, the problem with copy protected items is really a Vue limitation, unfortunately. Because for the copy protected content to be rendered by Ranchcomputing would mean each and every item from the store is present on the farm's machines. Too many items, too much money for Fred & Julien to spend, as this is just the beginning of this service, same goes for Poser stuff.
It is highly recommended to make a small render of your submitted job before submitting it, to see if there are any problems with textures not being incorporated and see if the effects you have checked in your scene render the way you want it. SSS for example needs a lot of testing before final render.
About Poser animations, it is possible to save it as animated vob inside Vue. Same goes for imported objects, easy to save them as vob before submitting.
It's a shame you had to learn this the hard way, I guess I was lucky to learn this while testing the farm.
This is a great service and most scenes won't require such a big amount of time to render, and thus cost less, and I really hope it will be a success, because Fred & Julien spent a ot of time and money to set up the farm, and they really set it up right.

I do agree that the farm is VERY good. And the item missing isn't copy protected as far as I know. It's a .veg file for blossoming buddies or something. Everything else I turned into .vob, just didn't know how to make a plant into a vob, so yeah, lesson learned.

I have nothing but admiration for Fred and Julian's efforts. I think this is a wonderful service, just a bit costly for me.

As for rendering a smaller view of the image. It takes my machine about 6 hours to render a 320 version at those settings. Granted, those probably aren't optimized settings, I just really wanted to test the RANCH farm.

And as I stated, I think for any professional project, this is the way to go. It is possible I just don't have the personal disposable income some might, so will either need to REALLY make sure everything is perfect before submission, or do it myself.

Again, love Fred's work, and think RANCH computing has potential, hence the 3 of 5 stars.

Hi Warangel,

thanks for this review. I would just like to comment on a few things :

• Poser animated figures are not supported because Vue relies on the Poser.exe application to deal with Poser animations, and does not integrate all needed information in a single .vue scene. This is how Vue does it, and there is not much we can do at this point.

• However, static Poser figures are perfectly supported by the farm, provided they do not require an external link with Poser.exe or an external pz3 file (Vue is then able to embed all Poser information in the Vue file). We did tests with Poser / Skinvue figures and it works very well.

• Encrypted C3D content is obviously not supported because it is tied to the user's system and cannot be rendered on any external system. It is a high price to pay for paying less when you buy the content :) When encrypted content is detected, all the farm can do is ignore it (or crash, but we prefer the first way :). So if you build a scene and intend to render it on the renderfarm, you have to buy non-encrypted content, and there will be no problem to render it.

• The additional piece of software required to decompress the file is simply 7-Zip which is currently the best (and freeware) compressor on the market. We need to compress files, because professional animations rendered in bmp / tga / etc. with alpha and depth maps take a huge amount of space. Several gigabytes of data can be reduced to a few hundred megabytes after compression, and 7-zip (.7z) can make files 10 to 20% smaller than zip or other formats.

• About the price, it is true that the price is expensive for a hobbyist. However, we are the cheapest renderfarm available right now :) Clearly, renderfarms are mostly used for professional projects. Running a farm is costly and it takes a lot of work to make it run smoothly (especially this one which is the first entirely automated for Vue). 

That being said, we are thinking hard about what we could do to make it even more accessible... I would like nothing more than to see hobbyists using the farm. In fact, this thread is the perfect opportunity to hear everyone's opinion : at what price per hour would you consider using the farm regularly, as a hobbyist ? Answer honestly please (don't say for free :).

Fred

Oh, and indeed, it is very important to read the Renderfarm user Guide. All the technical aspects are explained in great detail in this guide.

Getting rid of the C3D encryption and copy protection would be a big step in helping you and your set up.
  I have been against it from day one and now I see its a big burden with using it on you farm.
Maybe someone is listening and will rethink their position on it. :)  but I doubt it. :(

Hi,

In response to the how much would you pay.

I am a hobbyist, nothing more, spent a lot of money on Vue 6 Infinite and Cinema 4D. But I love using the programs, but even I can't have my computer rendering away for days on end, so I would love to use a renderfarm, I would be happy to pay $20 per hour, above that it gets too pricey for me. Well its an honest answer ;)

Thanks
Jon

• Poser animated figures are not supported because Vue relies on the Poser.exe application to deal with Poser animations, and does not integrate all needed information in a single .vue scene. This is how Vue does it, and there is not much we can do at this point.

• About the price, it is true that the price is expensive for a hobbyist. However, we are the cheapest renderfarm available right now :) Clearly, renderfarms are mostly used for professional projects. Running a farm is costly and it takes a lot of work to make it run smoothly (especially this one which is the first entirely automated for Vue). 

Yes, in the file I had rendered on your farm was a static Poser figure, baked to polygons. It rendered very well. 

As a hobbyist, I use Poser in my VUE renders often, animated and non. If there was SOME way of having Poser animation possible (I don't know the technical requirements), that would go a long for hobbyists to use the farm.

As for price, I again agree that for professionals, this is THE most affordable solution for online render farms in VUE.

For me, to render a single frame, I was expecting $20-$30 US. The standard for animation tends to be $300 US per second. 1 frame, at 25 fps, in my thinking, should be 1/25 of $300. 

Honestly, it is these two things alone that make the system not very attractive to me.

Let me also reiterate the positives. The system is EASY to use. The security is very good. The customer support is unparalleled. There are so many positives about what you have done here, and I look forward to further improvements.

Another possibility, though again I do not know how viable it is, is perhaps a "3 try" process for at least single frame animations. The current estimate system doesn't work very well going in for me to know how much for it to cost. So when I get hit with a bill 4x what I had expected, and no way of going in and getting a "second chance" on my render, it makes me hesitant.

Granted, it's the user fault, my fault, that the file wasn't perfectly ready going in. I understand that. Even still, there are always issues that arise that can't be predicted until you see a final render.

Maybe a separate pricing structure for single frame hobbyist renders? It might be lower money coming in, but you are guaranteed to get a LOT more hobbyists interested in the system.

Every suggestion is welcome, so keep them coming !

About the frames : a 'single frame' in an animation is definitively not the same thing that a high resolution still image. For example, the scene you submitted is, from a renderfarm point of view, extremely difficult, because it uses global radiosity, 3600 x 2400 resolution, and with lighting quality boost +2 (quite a nightmare :). Often it is possible to achieve the same quality without using radiosity (using global illumination or ambient occlusion), and with much faster render times.

As explained in the RUG (Renderfarm User Guide), radiosity is in fact a worst case scenario for any renderfarm because :

• radiosity is inherently slower than everything else :)
• the preparation phase is very long, and it has to be computed for each tile (and the QB+2.0 makes it worse)
• I have devised an automated  tile allocation scheme which is very efficient for high res stills, but it can't be used with radiosity because of this long preparation phase (so the default Vue allocation method is used instead).

So, it is important to use radiosity with caution. Sometimes it is needed to achieve a particular look, but in that case it is important to be aware of the various implications.

That is very useful information, as is your optimization guide. I think for myself I am going to dig around again at various optimization techniques to make sure that if I am paying for every second it takes to render my stills.

Just the same, a different pricing structures for stills might not be a bad idea for attracting hobbyists.

While I haven't yet read the manual (I  intend to do so), I might suggest you consider a 'hobbyist' special pricing first time users kit' (HSPFTUK ;-)

With it comes a couple of things:

1. The requisite handholding I'm sure you're already great at!
2. A smallish (320x240) first render, just to make sure all the textures/objects are correct and non-copyrighted. This smallish render can be repeated up to 3 times so the first time user can learn about the system.
3. A larger 3k rendering which can be repeated once.

So, in total, the newbie gets a possible 5 renderings from this intro kit. They also receive information on how much normally everything would cost as well. It might be a bit of a loss leader, and you might have to disable some stuff like SSS and radiosity, but it would certainly be attractive.

Oh, and one more thing. You might ask the user to submit a 320x240 image WITH the scene file so you know:

1. What it's SUPPOSED to look like and;
2. It CAN be rendered on the users native machine.

Just my 2 cents, Chipp

Chipp,

the problem with what you suggest is that this requires a lot of manual manipulations, and this is exactly what we want to avoid. An insane amount of development work went into the automated  process. From the moment you click on 'upload scene' to the moment where you receive the last e-mail with the ftp information to download your file, everything, and I mean everything is automated. This is a first in the Vue world, it took six months full time to develop, and it is clearly invaluable for the professional who wants a quick turnaround time. 

But it also means that we can't do such a level of hand-holding... We are a rendering service, not a training facility :) We believe it is the users' responsability to send a valid, optimized scene. Yes, it requires more effort, but in the end it is worth it for the user, who will gain experience, and ultimately will do better work. In some way, using a renderfarm somehow forces the hobbyist user to think like a professional, and I believe it is a good thing.

As Einstein said, everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler :)

Wow, Einstein, now!
Seriously, Warangel, I think you overdid your settings, a+2 radiosity quality boost? Are you out of your mind, my friend! lol!
This quality boost setting is only here because sometimes, artifacts can appear on radiosity renders (noise, mostly), and it's inheritent of this lighting model in any renderer. But in 99% of the time, a -1 setting is good enough, and will not create noise.
And though radiosity is a lot faster in Vue6, I don't see its advantages against GR or AO for outdoor renders, most of the time.

You are right of course. I just re-did the same image on my system with -1 lighting boost using AO and it looks 99% identical and took a fraction of the time.

I may have to re-consider my review of RANCH after I actually spend a little more time making sure I RTFM before throwing money at something exciting, especially when I could've saved myself money had I done it right the first time.

/sigh As Fred pointed out, it's already forcing one hobbyist to think like a professional. While it's a frustrating learning curve, it is a good one.

Well, like Warangel, I finally got around to RTFM, and there's a considerable amount of great information in it, even for those who never want to use the service. I recommend it to anyone who is interested in optimizing their rendering times and chances for success.

In the manual, it's pointed out to start the render at the desired resolution FIRST on one's own machine, just to make sure there's not any memory errors. Of course, they say to interrupt it once it gets started. Good idea. They also mention a system for predicting render times for upscaling a scene. Good stuff.

Here's the only problem I know of. How does one know if there's copy protected materials in a scene? For instance, a long time ago, I used a texture for a headlight from a purchased copy protected model, then tweaked it substantially to create a different texture effect. I believe I saved it as a totally different named texture, and have since melded it with other textures, on and on.

At the time, I didn't know the copy protection 'sticks' with all the derivative textures (I do now). Even so, many of my original models may have a part of them textured with this copy protected texture. So, how can I tell? Of course they render fine on my machine, but I would certainly hate for them to show a problem when I'm purchasing time on a renderfarm.

Perhaps someone knows of an easy way to tell if you have copy protected textures, or objects, in a scene?

- Jonj1611, currently with our introductory price until March 31st, we are at half the normal price. It means that one hour of render time at full capacity costs $24.00, so we are not far from what you suggested.

• Chipp, copy-protection is indeed a real problem, because as you said users sometimes don't even know some content in their scenes is copy-protected. That's what happened to Warangel : three items were copy-protected in his scene and thus were not rendered. I personally never used, and never bought, any copy-protected C3D stuff, so I don't have a lot of experience with this (but we clearly see now how it can be annoying). I guess the only way to know, for now, is to load the scene on another machine with another licence and see if the missing content dialog appears.

Frederic,

Perhaps there's another service here...one where users can 'test' each others scenes. ;-)
It would be nice if there were some sort of Python call to check for copy protected stuff, then a plugin could be created to identify them.

BTW, aren't just about all the SolidGrowth plants copy-protected? If so, does that mean any scenes with custom eco-systems are bound to fail?

IMO, you really need to address this issue before people can really use your system. The 'issue' being how to identify whether or not a scene has copy-protected stuff in it which won't render on the Renderfarm.

Chipp,

the problem is specifically with C3D copy-protected content. Whether it is a CP item, or an item built from a CP item (hence CP itself). If you create an ecosystem with non CP items it can be rendered anywhere.

Hi Frederic,

I understand, but I (perhaps mistakenly) was under the impression all solidGrowth plants purchased at C3D was copy-protected, non?

-Chipp

Yes, they are, unfortunately, and if you create new species from any of these plants, they will be CP too.

The copy protection will have a bad effect on the render farm is how I see it.    Negative reviews never helps a service or a product.
   I hope the ones who are so niave about it will reconsider and have the models and meshes as other stores.  It would also cut down on the work load of tch support who I am sure has to constantly bew orking with the c3d staff to make sure it works in different versions and in all the protected models.    I hope they will see this as a nother reason to reconsider it and get that coding out the models and out of Vue. :)
   Just my opinion but as can be seen here it is a hinderence to what can be a good service for people who need the use of a render farm.

If I were to have a picture render at these prices I would want exactly what I put into my image to show as I have made the image.   No other way would I accept the use of a render farm. :)

Not sure about this, but I assume if the Renderfarm HAS the copyrighted object, then it will work? If true, I wonder if it's possible Frederic posts a list of objects he currently HAS, and if a copy protected object does not appear on the list, the USER could be billed a percentage of the purchase price for the first time. This seems fair, but does have the bad effect of creating a more manual mode for a time. Perhaps it's just a case-by-case system.

I understand why C3D has an optional copy-protected scheme for sold objects. But for Smart Growth vegetation, it is NOT an option as all of them are copy-protected.

Frederic, I wonder if you were to contact someone in charge at C3D, if they might cut you a deal on the Smart Growth plants? It seems like it's in the best interest of Vue to have a great Renderfarm system like you've designed? It really is very impressive! :-)

Another idea would be to have Vue create a 'special' version of the network renderer for Renderfarms, with appropriate license terms, which does not check for copy protection. I don't see how this could create a problem as people still need to have a valid license in order to build the original scene.

But first, a way is needed (Python) to evaluate a scene and report on all copy protected textures and objects in it.

• Chipp, copy-protection is indeed a real problem, because as you said users sometimes don't even know some content in their scenes is copy-protected. That's what happened to Warangel : three items were copy-protected in his scene and thus were not rendered. I personally never used, and never bought, any copy-protected C3D stuff, so I don't have a lot of experience with this (but we clearly see now how it can be annoying). I guess the only way to know, for now, is to load the scene on another machine with another licence and see if the missing content dialog appears.

Chipp didnt Fred already answer he didnt have any of the copy protected stuff...?   Seems to me with reading his comment he dont have any of the copy protected stuff.

lol.........I wonder if C3D would cut others a good deal on what they sell like Daz does its pc members......;)

Quote: Another idea would be to have Vue create a 'special' version of the network renderer for Renderfarms, with appropriate license terms, which does not check for copy protection. I don't see how this could create a problem as people still need to have a valid license in order to build the original scene.

lol.........Id like to have a good working copy of Vue 6 final before they even think about writing more code for anything........ Come on chipp......:)

Quote - But first, a way is needed (Python) to evaluate a scene and report on all copy protected textures and objects in it.

MeshVertices(), MeshNormals() and related functions will return None when called on an object that is locked for export. Could be worth a try?

John, Thanks.

I've written a Python script based on your hint which does correctly identify copy protected Meshes. It currently won't work on copy protected metablobs, or other primitives, though I don't even know if there is such a thing as a copy protected metablob.

Also, I don't know if there are such things as copy protected textures, and if there are, this script doesn't yet check for them.

In order for it to check everything, it's imperative one ungroups every object in a scene. This script doesn't 'walk' the groups yet.

Also, this script DOES NOT CHECK for copy protected Solid Growth plants. If you know of another way to check, let me know.

The script can be found at:
www.gadgetplugins.com/vuehub/TestCopyProtected.py

Just put it where you want and run it.

Quote - I've written a Python script based on your hint which does correctly identify copy protected Meshes. It currently won't work on copy protected metablobs, or other primitives, though I don't even know if there is such a thing as a copy protected metablob.

Well, metablobs can only contain primitives, which are not copy protected. So the only way for one to become copy protected would be to allocate it a texture from a copy protected mesh. Fairly easily avoided I would have thought.

Quote - Also, this script DOES NOT CHECK for copy protected Solid Growth plants. If you know of another way to check, let me know.

Now that is a headache I think. An instance of an SG plant mesh is not locked for export, but the SG plant itself is. After all an SG plant is not a fixed mesh, it's fractally generated from a random number seed. Might have to spend some time thinking about that one.

Quote -
Well, metablobs can only contain primitives, which are not copy protected. So the only way for one to become copy protected would be to allocate it a texture from a copy protected mesh. Fairly easily avoided I would have thought.

Indeed true. But, as I did, perhaps others did too. IOW, copy an existing texture off of a copy protected (and paid for) object, modify it significantly (in my case all I wanted from the texture was one of the filters used and thought it was just easier to copy the texture and change it than to copy the filter), and apply it to my own object. In that case, it would be nice to be able to check for the texture copy protection BEFORE uploading it to a renderfarm.

I know now not to do it that way, but I'm sure there are others who haven't learned. The whole idea behind this script is to provide a way for users to check their scene files before uploading them to a Renderfarm, so they don't end up spending money for something which doesn't work.

One way to check for Textures, I suppose, is to convert all metablobs and primitives to meshes, then check all the meshes. It's a destructive process, but I suppose the user can be warned. Since I'm not currently walking the GROUPed objects, the scene is deconstructed anyway. Though a better idea for checking textures is most welcome!

If you can think of one, I'll add it to my script. Thanks again for your help, it is very much appreciated!

John if a copy protected plant model material or what ever is tied to one computer or one copy of vue how can the render farm sort all that.  
  I am very curious.     Seems to me anyone would have to forget bout the copy protected stuff and only use things from other soursces that are not.  :)
 This is an Interesting thread. :)

John,

So here's my latest attempt at checking for copy protected textures: After I walk through all the meshes and identify the copy protected meshes using .MeshVertices(), which works, I then create a simple triangle mesh, and then walk through all the textures in the scene, applying each texture to the triangle and then calling MeshVertices() to see if it's protected.

But, my bad, the triangle of course is NOT copy protected, only the texture, so I'm able to access MeshVertices(). So, in fact the object you downloaded last night, would PASS the MeshVertices() test, even though there was a copy protected texture on it.

Back to the drawing board trying to design a test for textures. :-(

I know I am being ignored here but what good does it do to look for copy protected stuff when the render farm will not render it..............Something don't add up here.
 Are people to get only a half render picture with the copy protected stuff not rendered.    I would want what my pic to look as I composed it if I were to use the farm....Half doing it don't make sense to me.

  I am only asking for resnable answer as I am sure others would like to know also.

I am a big boy and if anyone don't want me in this thread then please tell me and I will start one of my own at other forums to see if I can get answers.  There are lots other places I can ask.  Sorry but yes I do feel I am being ignored and I think anyone who reads this can see it. :)

Hi everyone (including iloco :)

As we intend to be close to the Vue community, we are indeed concerned about this CP stuff and we intend to find a solution to this problem. I can't be more specific than that for the moment. Let's just say we are not idle :)

And to everyone, I repeat my question : at what reasonable 'hobbyist price' would you honestly consider using the farm on a regular basis (let's forget the CP problem for a moment) ? As far as I know only Jonj1611 has made a clear answer until now. We are trying to determine if there is a potential market for a hobbyist renderfarm, and we need feedback to be convinced that such a market exists.

Thank you Fred it is much appreciated. :)

I can not speak for other hobbiest but I am limited to a very small income due to disibility and it takes about all I make to use vue and buy a few models as a hobby to pass the time due to my conditions, so my input into what would be reasonable is better left to those who have a good income. :)
Don't get me wrong as I am not poor bye any means and I feel very blessed to be able to get up every day and enjoy what I do have. :)

I wish you succees with your venture and if I can see I can use the renderfarm I wil not hesitiate to let you know.  I am all for progress if its for the benifet of others.    That is why I am and have been so vocal with the copy protection.  It harms more than it helps.

 I ahve bought a few items from c3d all being no copy protection and would buy lots more but will not buy the copy protected models.  I am sure of and know a few more vuers who do the same. :)

1. I would pay about $10 to $15 per static image of say 1024 x 768 at 72DPI (for web use) and twice that for an image that could be printed at about 11" (27.9 cm) X 14" (35.5 cm). I don't do animation.

2. I buy copy protected content to save money and most of my scenes depend on those items, so that kind of lets me out of this renderfarm game.

3. (@ Iloco) I was never a fan of copy protection, but didn't see a big problem with it either, never complained and did enjoy the benefits of getting a larger variety of products for a lower price than would have been the case without the participation of those 3D modelers concerned about protection. And the few models i've brokered myself are never copy protected.

Now i see that it is causing this big problem for users, besides the inconveniences and bugs during upgrades, etc., as well as a whole lot of extra work for e-on and C3D staff. It's not looking as beneficial now, even though it has indeed saved me money and probably provided more products to choose from.

4. To Frederic: Charge what you need to charge, not what people think they are willing to pay (though i realize you are only doing market research right now).

5. Also, i think hobbyist users are going to give you more negative publicity, require more handholding and generally be more of a losing proposition than pros - simply because most won't have the level of technical expertise to really understand the rendering and protection issues. And many won't want to learn that much either. Of course, there are very serious hobbyists who want to learn as much as they can, but i expect that group is a fairly small proportion of the Vue hobbyists.  

1. You might want to offer a big discount for the first X number of renders, to make it inexpensive to try out the service and make the (inevitable?) first mistakes and corrections cheaper. And a quantity discount or free render every X renders might be good (if you're not already doing that).

2. I sure agree with Chipp that there is a lot of great info in the Vue manuals and help files.

Thanks jc for the reply. 
I am glad some now see what I knew at the beginning would be a problem.   It adds up in many man hours spent that could be spent on bugs in vue instead of having to mess with coding for a 10 dollar copy protected item.     I personly think the hours spent are more than what is saved by having the models protected because ot the hours spent making it work with different versions and upgrades and now with Freds renderfarm shich I wish him great success with it.

I wonder what would happen at Daz or Renderosity if their vendors started copy protection.
All I ahve ever wanted is a good working version of vue.   I think it would be better without all the protection and C3d stuff that is in it that a lot of us didnt want.    If a person is so dumb as to not know where to find models then they dont need vue to start with. :)

I am through with my thoughts and patiently waiting on a good update to Vue 6 Final. :)

Quote - I know I am being ignored here but what good does it do to look for copy protected stuff when the render farm will not render it.ink anyone who reads this can see it. :)

The reason for the Python script is to allow people to TEST their vue scenes BEFORE uploading them to the renderfarm. This way, they could fix them or choose not to use the renderfarm based upon the results. If you had, for instance, a very large animation, and you only had a single copy-protected object which would keep it from running, you might consider purchasing the non copy-protected object, inserting it in your scene, and proceeding with the renderfarm solution.

best,

Chipp

Thanks for the reply and I do see your point but don't most people know what is protected and not protected.  I may be wrong with how I see this and apologize if I am off base here. :)

To update those interested in utilizing Fred's service, e-on software and Cornucopia3D are working on a solution with Ranch, so that it'll be possible for them to render their customer's scenes with any Cornucopia3D copy-protected content.

Regards,
ChristieK
Cornucopia3D

The question is, how do you keep companies (such as ours) from using the hobbyist pricing model?  Meaning, how would you distinguish between this?

I think that would be tough to do...

To me, it seems like there should be one price....and thats for computing time.  If you want to render a full, 3600px wide Radiosity image with a 2+ boost with all sorts of bells and whistles...you shouldn't really have issue with paying $90.  That's one hell of an image to render...

If you don't want to pay sub $100, well then find away around such render settings that cause this.  A GI with a -1.0 quality boost looks GREAT...bet the render time would have been 1/5th the time and 1/5th the price...$20.

Wanna try expensive? Try ResPower...haha.  Oofda.  :(

Quote - Thanks for the reply and I do see your point but don't most people know what is protected and not protected.  I may be wrong with how I see this and apologize if I am off base here. :)

For folks who have large Cornucopia libraries, they may not know which objects were purchased copy protected and which were not. Also, if someone used only part of a copy-protected object in a scene, or a texture of a copy-protected object (say a custom 'snow material' for instance), there would also be a record of it in the scene and it wouldn't render properly on a differently licensed system.

ChristieK, that sounds like the best idea of all. Have Frederic and e-on work things out.

best, Chipp

I agree with Ryan,

While I would be happy to pay $20 per hour, I wonder what is going to stop just anyone using that pricing scheme, their would be no one to stop a company using the cheaper scheme to make their images or renders.

Maybe you could set the hobbiest renderer to 2 hours render time max, then not allow them to render again for 24 hours.

Thanks
Jon

Quote - 1. I would pay about $10 to $15 per static image of say 1024 x 768 at 72DPI (for web use) and twice that for an image that could be printed at about 11" (27.9 cm) X 14" (35.5 cm). I don't do animation.

I doubt I'd use the service unless I was rendering a minimum 3K static image. And like Jim, I'd like to pay under $20, which I think is probably in line with what you have now. My 3K renderings typically render 4-5 hrs using 2 dual core 1GB computers here, so I imagine they would render in under an hour there-- just guessing.

Quote - 5. Also, i think hobbyist users are going to give you more negative publicity, require more handholding and generally be more of a losing proposition than pros

Yep, I agree with Jim on this. Just look at what the e-on forum has become. And I believe it's mostly hobbyists which are the chronic complainers.

Quote - 6. You might want to offer a big discount for the first X number of renders, to make it inexpensive to try out the service and make the (inevitable?) first mistakes and corrections cheaper. And a quantity discount or free render every X renders might be good (if you're not already doing that).

Yep, Newbie discounts, IMO, work as you have a chance to 'hook' a new customer. I know Frederic has some issues with the automation of such, but good marketing should never be the slave to technical prowess. I'm sure if Frederic put his best thinking cap on, he could solve just about any issue he runs into. From what I've seen, he's a pretty bright fellow.

WEll chipp us hobbist may be complainers but who was it that said there was no resourse issues or memory problems..................?
 Also our dollar if I am not mistaken spends the same as the pros with the same value.
 Do you look at us as inferior because we use vue for fun and not for porofit.       Maybe e-on should quit selling Vue Pro to us hobbiest so we can seperate the  low end from the high end. :)
  I have no hard feeling with you but lets set the record straight when you say we are complainers. :)

Quote: "Just look at what the e-on forum has become. And I believe it's mostly hobbyists which are the chronic complainers." (end quote)

The pros are complaining as well. I see it here in this forum and at EON and various other small offshoot forums.  I see it in the gallery pics here - where people are indicating there dissatisifaction. 

Dear iloco,

Hey, I'm a hobbyist, too! But frankly, I don't find much value (as in Tips and Tricks and Help) from e-on's forum. I used to post my latest tutorials, tip and techniques there, but quit doing it awhile ago. I pop in from time to time, and things never seem to change. Course it certainly doesn't help their forum is on the kibitz right now.

I much prefer reading about how to do new things in Vue, than what a lousy company they are. I do admit, there is value in reading about other people's bugs as it helps me to avoid the 'potholes' when navigating.

That said, I certainly understand your frustration regarding this latest round of Vue 6 problems. I'm rather surprised an interim patch hasn't been released yet. When my users report a bug, I always stop what I'm doing and try and fix it ASAP, though my software development projects aren't nearly as complex or large scale as e-on's are.

I have successfully communicated with individuals over at e-on on a number of occasions, and always  find them to be courteous and helpful. I hope they get a bug fix out soon.

best regards,
Chipp

When a person knows more than new users I dont expect you or me to get any value when reading things we already know.    I do think new users do get some values from the tips and tricks that you don't need since you have already mastered Vue.

Have you ever asked anyone about how to do new things.  It might surprise you at the ehlp you would get. :)

  Lousy company ..............where have I ever said that and please give me the proof.  I have said I dont like a few things that have taken place since the release of Vue 6 and others have said it also so why single me out when lots of the higher end users have said the thing as dlk has already said.   Lets be fair with what and how we say things since this is directed at me by your Dear iloco start of you reply. 

I hate trying to defend my self when I am singled out and others have done the same as me but no mention of them.      Please lets stop this nit picking and trying to prove a point when its useless and not worth a hill of beans.  You being from Texas I am sure you know that old saying. :)

iloco,

I'm not singling you out. I used "Dear iloco" as a friendly greeting, not an escalation. I don't keep track of who's who over there and over here, and don't know (or really care) if you consider yourself one of the complainers I mentioned. I'm sorry you took it that way, as it was certainly not intended nor addressed at you in particular.

I have seen you make many helpful posts in the past.

best, Chipp

That straightens out a lot of things ...............with that said do remember there are a lot of people who use to be biased with Vue who are now complaing since the final version was released.   I can send you names in im if you want them and links to threads that they are in. also some pics that have been posted with what you would consider complaining.
 I would never have thought some of these people would have said what they are saying about Vue 6 Final release.

 Go to CGT and read some of the profesionals threads also to see what they say.

Let me know if you need any links showing what I have just said. :)

I think I have never said anything that I cant back up. :)  If I have I hope someone can show me.

iloco,

What I'm saying, is that I (me) don't like reading complaints. I'm SURE many of them have VERY valid points to make, it's just they don't interest me. If others like to read them, then that's fine with me. When a forum becomes dominated with such threads, then I generally lose interest and look elsewhere. Again, JUST ME.

My mother used to do Interior Design. She said it was much harder dealing with home owners than large corporations, for many of the same reasons. A home owner would complain more about more things, whereas a company wouldn't. It's not that the homeowners are bad people, it's just easier to work with the companies. That's the point I was trying to make when I said:

Quote - And I believe it's mostly hobbyists which are the chronic complainers.

The context was the target market Frederic might consider focusing on, and pointing out, as Jim did, corporations may be easier to deal with.

I'm just trying to be clear here. BTW, this thread has some redeeming value...I did check out your Early Snow image...VERY NICE!!

No more comments from me in this thread. We have hijacked what should been a great thread.
  We both are to blame so will leave it at that .
Your mother sees things different than I do.    After being in business for 45 years I am not as dumb as some may take me to be.  Common sense goes a long ways in fixing problems if it were on used. :)
 When I am in austin this summer maybe we can have cup coffe and you will see the real me and not as bad as some take me to be.

If agiel reads this I hope he will delete the threads that are not on topic and get it back on right track.  :)

I JUST received an email from Fred with some very exciting news! I can't say what it is yet, but if it's true I will be amending my review, and I am confident there will be at least two more stars in it!

Fred, I am VERY excited about this. I hope it works out.

Warangel, Fred, ChristieK... do keep us posted. I'm very much looking forward to using this renderfarm, provided the CP problem is worked out (and it sounds like it will be)!

Iloco - I did read this thead and I am keeping an eye on how things evolve.

I seem to be having some problems with e-bots. I missed many posts and I now have to go back and check them out.

I will warn people and delete posts when they turn out to be nothing more than gratuitous bashing with no value.