After reading this thread the situation looks like:
- user “A” wants feature “X”, it’s his absolute priority
- user “B” wants feature “Y”, in his opinion “X” can wait
...
- user “Z”..
Now please tell us who can satisfy all appetites? Right, no one can A pandemia of “building features lists” has no constructive results, it’s clear long ago. Of course, you can discuss MP, Rama, FPrime amd 5 other things in same thread and at same time, but a common sense says: a result will be never greater than zero Until you land back and see real things that are really in process.
As for the ability to have post-processing effects being gimmicky .. This feature was actually required in order for the multi-layer solution to work, it wasn’t additional work, it was a happy side effect. My favourite kind of side effect
Camera already does post-processing ( glow ! ), why is this suggested being a new “feature”, unless i misunderstand something…
Yeah, it is a new feature because now plug-ins (or shaders) can be written that perform post processing effects. One example of this would be that as of EIAS 7, it will be possible for a third party (or EITG) to produce a plug-in that creates a sketch effect on a render (ala C4D’s Sketch and toon).
This was not possible before (only build in post-processing was possible).
Ian
After reading this thread the situation looks like:
- user “A” wants feature “X”, it’s his absolute priority
- user “B” wants feature “Y”, in his opinion “X” can wait
...
- user “Z”..
Now please tell us who can satisfy all appetites? Right, no one can A pandemia of “building features lists” has no constructive results, it’s clear long ago.
Stay the course Igors. You’re doing fine with Multilayers. Yes..we users tend to ramble on about features, but believe it or not, I think EITG finds the discussion useful on a certain level. It gives them insight to its user base’s desires. (As chaotic as it seems)
But maybe its time to cap this discussion....least it spiral out of control with rampant feature requests.
I think EITG finds the discussion useful on a certain level. It gives them insight to its user base’s desires. (As chaotic as it seems)
But maybe its time to cap this discussion....least it spiral out of control with rampant feature requests.
I sincerely hope EITG ‘does’ take some of this to heart.....I don’t personally see anything wrong with requesting more speed based on current hardware technology. Asking for a MP Camera or a type of IPR is not spiraling out of control rampant feauture requests. These are real needed speed enhancements which are common place in todays 3D programs and not some esoteric desire.
Seventy-five percent of any of my given projects is spent doing snap-shots - 20% modeling and 5% final rendering.
...
I personally need speed at set-up (MP or IPR).
I was thinking about this. Correct me if I’m wrong. But isn’t IPR the most useful for someone like yourself?
Even if a renderer like FPrime were to be slower than Camera on the final render, that difference would be more than compensated for by the speed of the previews.
In other words. Given the choice between IPR or MP, which one would best for people who do stills?
I would certainly ‘settle’ for a good implementation of IPR:-)
But, what I would really like to see would be an efficient MP Camera which has the ability to set controls to ‘under-sample’ a test render. As it stands it seems that sampling is set at a minimum of 1 X 1 ...while using Brazil, many times I would do tests at -2/-3 X -2/-3 with dramatic speed increase.
I see. Too hard to pick one, you want both. It’s just that I’m becoming more and more impressed with IPR, how it changes your way of working and thinking. Simple things like getting the scale of a noise shader right. Even with the fastest MP renderer it would take much longer than IPR on a single processor.
“agree", “AMEN”, “awfully nice”.. Let’s imagine a miracle occurred and tomorrow EITG declared: “We do MP!!!”. Bravo. A wave of enthusiasm (first 2 days). But what then? Then during a half year no any new feature can be added. Cause a porting to MP is a “critical” ultimate operation that cannot be combined with any other changes in any way. So, a next half year (or more if you aren’t lucky) for all your Q you will have only one A: “busy with MP port”. It will be fully true. Next 3-4 months you will hear “busy with MP testing/fixing”. Please think about this a little before say your enthusiastic “GO!”.
We already do wait at least 6 months for new features, at least !, and thats an understatement !!!
I guess EI already has its “roadmap” for the next version then, hopfully it will, in some way, set the program in good stead for the future with regard to the hardware its run on.
Well, if it’s going to take 6 months then there is nothing like the present to get started:-).
If not now, then in 6 months time we will be saying the same thing - we would like to see a MP Camera.....and then it will be another 6 months to wait.
How about a complete rewriteof the manual? I don’t think it’s been fundamentally edited since v2.8. New features are added, but the crummy core never gets touched.
Too much text, not enough example image. Just look at any Adobe user manual for guidance on how to do it right.
I say you are right Igors. Add new features, then do MP. EITG just finished UB, and Apple just finished an 8 core. My quad isnt even a year old yet.. I would much rather see a more creative program than repeating the same old thing but just faster. What’s the use of an 8 core when all the features you need to run are in another app?
A pandemia of “building features lists” has no constructive results, it’s clear long ago. Of course, you can discuss MP, Rama, FPrime amd 5 other things in same thread and at same time, but a common sense says: a result will be never greater than zero 
