nerd opened this issue on Jul 13, 2015 · 554 posts
wolf359 posted Thu, 13 August 2015 at 2:09 PM
"Cycles can express that are completely unreachable features if all we
have are ported Firefly nodes. This is at the heart of the matter - what is the goal of adding another Renderer? Is it better looking implementation of Firefly nodes, or is it everything the new renderer has to offer, using its exact algorithms and parameterizations, which
means abandoning the backward compatibility thing?"
Well in my opinion, the goal of adding another renderer is to deploy Everything the new render has to offer.
Take the Example of Vray for Maxon Cinema4D
when we finally got that professional film production quality renderer
added to Maxon C4D ,years ago, we were told bluntly that you need to
use vray's native& separate material system to get the professional results one has come to expect from the Vray system.
Now while they did include a token "material converter" for any of your existing image based C4D materials the results were inconsistent and often unusable.
so the Community of users got to work creating many online repositories of Pure Vray materials for C4D.
From my perspective this obsession with"backward compatibility"
ultimately stifles development and keeps software& OS systems trapped in the crumbling caves of the past while others who take the bold steps to innovate quickly surpass you in the commercial marketplace.
I admit to not being much of a "node wrangler" myself but my limited experience with cycles nodes has me quite impressed with its power, beauty and elegance.
IMHO it would do a major disservice to poser users to cripple it
over some sentimental attachment to the past.