[Bf-committers] Cycles as Default Engine

Jonathan Williamson jonathan at cgcookie.com
Mon Oct 6 00:04:57 CEST 2014

While all of those are legitimate issues Sam, I agree with Thomas. There
will always be features that're needed for this or that reason. And can we
really ever say something is feature complete? The research and development
is constantly progressing, bringing new, "necessary" features all the time.

At the end of the day we are seeing great amounts of quality work at all
levels of production with Cycles. Making it the default, seems to me, like
a great way to even spur the development further.

On Sunday, October 5, 2014, Thomas Dinges <blender at dingto.org> wrote:

> 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 <javascript:;>
> >:
> > 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 <javascript:;>
> > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-committers mailing list
> Bf-committers at blender.org <javascript:;>
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers

Jonathan Williamson

More information about the Bf-committers mailing list