GI Fake

[Method]

Yes, DirectLighting is rendered with nice results, so why do it a little Improve? Then everyone has a choice.
For example, this one renders Direct and it is beautiful: http://www.vimeo.com/13100212

When using Pathracing would not be possible(at home).

[cornel]

-1

I would love to see the company´s capacity spend on the development of a blazing fast, firefly free MLT-like implementation with attention for caustics
rather than seeing a programmer`s time spend on further biased imrovements.

Animation capability is good to have - but just a bonus, as there are still to many problems unsolved compared to established software from `the big ones`.
it still seems like madness to render middle or large scaled animations on GPUs, as there is still the max VRAM issue and a lack of renderfarms.
e.g. for getting a twenty second vimeo-snippet it may be fine. But not for 15 min shortfilms in 2K, which also need to be rendered twice for stereoscopy...
And as voxelization time still teases me, none of them, neither pathtracing nor directlight, is currently suited to beat a vray/renderman farm that delivers over night.

So the programmers should focus on the thing they´re best in: see first sentence in my post.

But we just share opinions here, right, duh?

[Method]

+-78

You're right, but I think Directlight animation is in many cases sufficient.

[cornel]

yes, and it´s sometimes even the better looking alternative to pathtracing!
But I use it mainly to adjust lighting & shading before switching to pathtracing for the final render. It´s beautiful go get things right on the fly.

further unbiased speedups: a must have! The reason I bought this software!
more biased approches: bonus, if there is time left for the programmer. And I guess there ain´t.
animations: bonus, as there are still other big issues connected to this which need to be fixed in the future.

[Method]

No problem.
Everything has a beginning. I used Directlight the street scene and it looked perfect. Much better than, Vray, Advanced Render, etc.
The only thing that bothered me was that the light passes not through windows(For example). That is all.

[carbon]

further unbiased speedups: a must have! The reason I bought this software!

That's exactly what i meant.. My work requires renders as physically accurate as possible because all of them are further combined with photographs and retouched as a whole. Personally i do not need animation at all, i need perfect still image quality and speed. Btw, i've never used direct lighting in any render/project..
c.

[Method]

Everyone has different needs. This is normal because everyone is doing other work.

[arexma]

I´d love to see improvements to DL as well as PT, as my work mostly requires animations but often stills too. In moving images DL often is more than sufficient.

[Elvissuperstar007]

ambient light is a very useful feature, just do not understand can write that I do not need! then you need a couple more years of experience gain! and then write -1
matte shadows map you also do not need?

all who supported me thank you so much, you just adequate people!

[Elvissuperstar007]

this is a big market, where speed is needed for physics engine animation would take months
can do nothing to add octane? any material dirt, caustics, volumetric light, displacement, and then he simply can not compete with VRAY and others! Octane is famous for the speed, but the animation for direct illumination does not seem complete if it has no fake GI

sorry for bad english