[Bf-committers] Cycles as Default Engine

Brecht Van Lommel brechtvanlommel at pandora.be
Mon Oct 6 01:19:56 CEST 2014

Yes, ID passes do not work with motion blur and depth of field, and the
only solution is deep compositing, just like it would be for Blender
Internal if it actually supported these features.

The thing is that you can list many missing features in Blender Internal as
well. No depth of field, no 3D motion blur, no proper indirect light or
HDRI environment lighting, no diffuse glossy interactions, no emission from

And even more inconsistency problems like no SSS or hair curves in
reflections, render passes not working for node materials, wrong
transparent shadows from material nodes, no hair curve shadows with lights
other than spots, wrong fresnel and specular transparency, hair shading
that you have to light with separate lamps to get decent results, volume
stepping artifacts that are impossible to get rid of, very difficult to do
motion blur and depth of field with transparent objects, no way to texture
various settings, no correct light falloff, broken bump mapping in
reflections, no correct area lights, and so on.

I'm not trying to say one is better than the other here, Blender Internal
certainly has more flexibility in some areas. But if the question is, do
feature X and Y work together properly, then the answer is yes *much* more
often in Cycles than it is in Blender Internal, and in fact I like to think
that this is the case when comparing Cycles to most other renderers as well.
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

More information about the Bf-committers mailing list