We couldn't find any threads matching the specified search criteria.
4 comments found!
I'm not at all pleased that my dissatisfaction with Vue 6 appears to be a widespread feeling.
I've been a Vue user since Vue 4, going on through Vue 5 Infinite, and finally to Vue 6 xStream (Hoping futilely to take advantage of not only Vue 6's admittedly attractive features, but also Vue 6 xStream's ...er... as they term it..."integration" with Cinema 4D - which in fact seems to be only by the broadest possible interpretation functional for much of anything useful.)
Unlike many, I had few enough complaints about Vue 5 Infinite - the usual bugs I put up with, and being relatively inexperienced with other complete package 3D applications, I sort of assumed that they were simply par for the course when dealing with the largely hidden technical complexities of 3D work. This is hardly the case, I've discovered, after purchasing Cinema 4D v10 Studio - itself considered "buggy" by long time C4D users, a program which I've only managed to crash when doing things which are inconceivably stupid. Maybe some day I'll stumble across these oft complained about bugs in C4D. That I haven't found these notorious bugs in C4D says a great deal about Vue 6, which as often as not, for me, at least, and others, apparently, terminates itself with a lockup or crash.
So, at this point, from time to time I check e-on's site for Vue 6 xStream updates and try to keep it current - which is largely the limit of my interaction with the program. It pretty much occupies space on my hard drive as its main function.
Purchasing Vue 6 xStream may not be the most worst mistake I've ever made, but it is certainly the mistake that is most unquestionably a total mistake I've ever made.
That I've jumped ship from Vue to C4D certainly does not mean that I'm trying to convince others to do so. Not at all. C4D, for a program touted as "professional," and "high end," entirely lacks anything resembling Vue's very cool and versatile ecosystem feature, and its only DOF option is an entirely unacceptable post-render depth map based DOF, much like Vue's quick and cheap depth map DOF option, but without the admittedly slow, but lovely and subtle ray traced DOF which is an option in Vue. Compared to Vue, Cinema 4D is pricey. The most basic version, sadly lacking many of the features which make for a complete 3D program is more expensive than anything in the Vue Infinite series. Cinema 4D Studio, while not as costly as Maya or Max, is very, very expensive indeed. But no more so than a good HD TV system, and since I can find no good reason to spend large money on &%$#@ TVs, I can justify its purchase to myself, at least.
I'll most likely return to my installation of Vue 6 when the desire to create a landscape strikes me. This may be a while, however, as I seldom do them. If there is something for which I absolutely require an ecosystem, thousands of little rocks or something, I guess I have little choice. The spectral skies and cloud systems are certainly impressive, and I'll keep that in mind when I need spectral skies or impressive clouds. But for everyday use, nah. E-on's lost me. Perhaps someday they'll understand that cool features don't really make up for a frustratingly unstable application.
"La
meta es el olvido. Yo he llegado antes."
Jorge Luis Borges,Un Poeta Menor,Oro De Los
Tigres
Thread: The Soft Renders of Vue | Forum: Vue
Quote - There's one thing I don't understand from what I've read on the Vue forums. Why is speed of renders so important? OK, I understand that if you're producing something for commercial use & have tight deadlines then I understand this. But I'm quite willing to have a render take an extra 4 or 5 hours if it means the end result is so much better. Ideally we would all love fast renders with expectional quality, but in most cases I don't think this is going to happen.
Custom settings are definitely the way to go.
An approving nod to you, stormchaser.
I guess it's a bit off the nominal topic thread, but I couldn't agree with you more. I've never seen the point of obsessing over render speed. What's the hurry?
Hopefully one appreciates the wonder and freedom of being able to make concrete the mercurial imagery of one's own mind, and enjoys the time spent in its evolution and its creation, and does not look at the final step of creating a suitable render as some sort of chore to be gotten over with as quickly as possible. Why on Earth would one spend weeks creating meshes and materials, experimenting with lighting, presiding over the evolution of a bit of one's own thoughts and imagery made digital, only to demand a quick render? Beats me.
If it's not worth the time needed for a worthwhile render, why bother at all? Your time might then be better spent watching TV or playing games. ptui ;-)
"La
meta es el olvido. Yo he llegado antes."
Jorge Luis Borges,Un Poeta Menor,Oro De Los
Tigres
Thread: "Essence of Realism"? | Forum: Vue
Dittos again to the above comments.
Note that I was not implying that render quality was the only important variable, nor that my own commonly used solution was the ideal one. My comment was aimed, in a very general way, at addressing what I see often enough as a too common fault with a number of otherwise good pieces, both here and elsewhere - The artist is frustrated, or perhaps not - which is another topic altogether - that his piece "doesn't look real enough." There may be any number of reasons for that, many of which have been discussed above in other posts, but often enough the most striking fault, even at a quick glance, and aside from any other problems that may exist, is the poor quality of the render itself. When it's suggested that perhaps a better quality render might improve the situation, it would seem that all too often the artist is unwilling to wait for the results of a high quality render. To this my question then is, "Then why even bother in the first place?"
This was certainly a discussion I've had with a friend of mine, quite artistically skilled and creative, non-digitally. He purchased Vue 4, based on some of my older work which he found interesting, and seemed rather angry and frustrated at the generally crappy results of his own efforts. The problems were many - including that his own creativity did not seem to translate well to this medium, but the primary thing was his own impatience. Hours spent on composing a piece meant nothing to him, but if the render could not be achieved in five minutes, well, he was done with it. Unsatisfied, of course, but done nonetheless. Oh well.
As far as the render quality used, I doubt that there is any single answer. It depends on what's needed, and it's hard to beat simple experience for that, but it's best to aim high.
Aspect ratio is interesting: I generally use a 4:3-ish ratio, not because it's "best," or anything else. (Quite the contrary) My pre-digital background was in 35mm film photography, and I guess at some level, my attempts at photorealism kind of reflect this sort of ratio. Unless a particular subject absolutely, physically demanded it, even heavily cropped stuff ended up with roughly this format. Damnable cement-headed rigidity! LOL
"La
meta es el olvido. Yo he llegado antes."
Jorge Luis Borges,Un Poeta Menor,Oro De Los
Tigres
Thread: "Essence of Realism"? | Forum: Vue
Attached Link: From My Own Little Gallery
("A Self Referential Don't Touch") - about a 26 hour (network) render, as I recall.In addition to the above excellent advice, I'd add the simple, yet often enough overlooked by some, importance of using a suitable rendering quality. This does not mean Vue's previewlike "final" setting. My own attempts at realism, successful or not, usually entail a great deal of time spent creating meshes, texture mapping them, etc., in addition of course, creating an interesting and hopefully creative composition. Given this, why in the hell would I insist on a quick render?
Most of my own work is rendered at a custom setting which is similar to, but a bit better than "broadcast." The images are rendered out very large - usually the width is in the 2000-2500 pixel range. This gives me the advantage of a rather good quality render at a size which allows very easy pixel level post-processing if needed. (usually very small scale softening or blending, or the repair of artifacts of bad vertices or something.) Residual depth of field graininess, soft shadow imperfections, and better quality antialiasing are neatly taken care of during resizing to a more managable display size of 800x600 or 1024. When using GI, HDR, (or God forbid, volumetric lighting, radiosity, perhaps with DOF blurring thrown in to really put the brakes on things) this can result in very lengthy render times, sometimes several days, or even more, even when networking several machines. (I usually use 3 roughly similar machines). But why hurry? What's the point?
"La
meta es el olvido. Yo he llegado antes."
Jorge Luis Borges,Un Poeta Menor,Oro De Los
Tigres
This site uses cookies to deliver the best experience. Our own cookies make user accounts and other features possible. Third-party cookies are used to display relevant ads and to analyze how Renderosity is used. By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understood our Terms of Service, including our Cookie Policy and our Privacy Policy.
Thread: Final release crashing | Forum: Vue