[Bf-committers] Cycles as Default Engine

Thomas Dinges blender at dingto.org
Sun Oct 5 23:55:02 CEST 2014

If you look at it like this, you will always find something missing. Cycles is not Blender Internal, it’s a totally different type of engine.
Both have pros and cons. That is not a reason to postpone the default switch. 

Am 05.10.2014 um 23:17 schrieb Sam Vila <samvila at gmail.com>:

> Hi Daniel, of course I know you can change that on the menu, what I'm
> saying is that BI is a feature complete render engine (maybe not the best
> quality ever but it's complete), Cycles is not complete, one more example:
> The render passes in cycles are most of the time unusable, try to get an
> object ID or a material ID pass from an object with motion blur for
> example. Some of the 'features' are on the UI but they are actually not
> usable for production. In my opinion if you have a 'feature' that is
> unusable is better to remove that feature from the UI until it's ready. I
> started rendering a shot in cycles thinking that I could have material and
> object passes with motion blur and I realize that these options are not
> usable at all and I had to fake these passes in other ways.
> All I'm saying is... Yes, I'm looking forward to have Cycles as the main
> engine BUT only when it's fully featured and not having inconsistency
> problems as the ones I mention. Also it has more limitations from an artist
> point of view to tweak the lighting and managing the light in comparison
> with the BI. Even Arnold render fakes many things but in cycles is trying
> to achieve realistic rendering results which is fine but not really
> allowing the artist sometimes to adjust settings in a non-realistic way
> (example: shadow color on the rendering).
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-committers mailing list
> Bf-committers at blender.org
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers

More information about the Bf-committers mailing list