but I can't proof this by numbers and it actually doesn't bother me too much tbh. I do have a feeling that Arnold IPR starts a little faster and that Arnold leaves a smaller memory footprint on heavy scenes with lots of textures and heavily displaced meshes. Its actually hard to specifically point on certain things which differ fundamentally these days. In the end it all comes down to how fast and convenient I can setup assets and scenes and especially for lookDev it helps to have things like render/isolate selected shading nodes, framebuffer features for debugging, good utility nodes, etc. But I still think that "Integration" into the Host App is a very important part when comparing render engines as a whole. So maybe there are even better ways for this topic, but this is at least what I enjoy to use when working with Arnold.Īgreed, in a way. I know that one can definitely achieve those operations with Maya Standard Tools (Multiply/Divide, Plus/Minus/Average, etc), but its just way more convenient and faster to work with. The background layer (Layer 1) will be blended over black if its alpha is not 1 and the Blend Modes are basically stolen from Photoshop, which isn't to bad I think it is also closer to the VrayBlendMaterial (but for textures/procedurals, not materials of course) than Maya's Layered Texture (and I hate the "Layered Texture"!). The LayerColor is actually quite similar to the composite-node in 3dsMax and looks like this (there are actually 8 Slots in total): So there is actually a bunch of Utilities, but the one's which interests me the most are those 4: Its plain, simple, self-explanatory and just works. So like I said, I really like Anders Langslands approach for layering multiple inputs together.
That put the cost very high and small business / freelancer just can't justify it. However those are all just small things imho, the biggest factor back in the day was that it cost as much as it did, and as far as I could find out it did not have render licenses so each render machine would be basically a user license. I also heard that it has issues with hair, you need to split the scene up so that the hair can get a lot more samples (cause it needs it) but the scene is rendered separately with lower samples, its kind of a pain. Also the way its sampling works is exponential so if you get grain you have to raise the sampling to power of 2 each time, gets clean image but takes much longer. I think it has some limitations to interiors, like no light cache and irradiance map. Back in the day we did comparison with vray and found that it can render generally with the same speed and quality as vray. Not very cost effective over a 18 month period for one thing.I don't know much about arnold.
0 kommentar(er)
