SGI: Discussion

Hello everyone!
So I actually only found out about SGI last Saturday and I've been frantically getting all the info I need about SGI. Now before I go into the main reason of this post I want to say: Daaaamn! These machines are beautiful! 0_0

Now I'm a 3D Animator that only recently decided to move from SFM to Maya, I have been using Maya 2016 as I've been learning how to rig and how to do "pose-to-pose" animation. I want to use Renderman as the renderer and render at 5k resolutions... I know Maya 6.5 is the last version for IRIX but how different is that to 2016? Also I could not find a version of RM for IRIX! =P

I model in Blender, everything from set building to character modelling, it's all done inside this program for my workflow. I know that IRIX has a version of Blender available as well, but it's at 2.49 which I absolutely cannot grasp the interface like I've grasped the revamped version. It also does not feature the "Cycles Renderer" in this version, So even though I don't render through Blender usually, me setting up texture maps is a lot easier using the nodes in this renderer then Blender's default.

There's nothing wrong with my brand new Hackintosh, but I've read that SGI was known for their performance in 3D Applications. So hypothetically, if I had the money should I take the dive with a V12 or v12 ? or is my workflow to incompatible to work in IRIX and I should stick with Mac OS X or Linux (With MaXX installed if I can ever get that working)

If it is the latter then I do have a cool build idea with the case I want to do at some point!

PRMan was available on Irix for a long time, but I'm not surprised that it's no longer sold. The interface and REYES rendering was cloned by several third-party tools so you could use pretty much any of them the same way.
The first was Blue Moon Render Tools (BMRT). Its author then formed a company to sell an improved version called Entropy. They both were served with lawsuits from Pixar and were discontinued, but the Internet is forever and source code is easily found.
The other clones were Render Dot C, which was a commercial product but can be found as source and Irix binary, and I think there were a few others.
The latest free-software REYES renderers are Pixie and Aqsis.

There are several Maya users on this forum who should be able to tell you what's missing in Maya 6.5, but remember that it is very old. But even by then the main platform for A|W was Windows, so performance on Irix is not that good. Same problem with Softimage XSI.

The 3d tools with the best performance in Irix are Lightwave 5.6, Softimage 3.9 or 4.0, Houdini 5 or 6, Alias Studio Tools 9, Mirai 1.2, and there are many others.

Welcome IMNOTDEFECTIVE, and I see you are UK based, outstanding.
Funny about the Maya interface, I'm not a massive Maya user but have used it for as many years as I have had SGI hardware and I tried the Maya 2015 last year and couldn't work out where the bloomin on off button was let alone where my Hypershade had gone. I am currently building a 5 second lighted scene just to start testing rendering times.

If you do want an SGI, you need the Inside, Outside, Noise, Heat and the software, not some bastardized mutation of one.. go for it.. if it's just modelling, I'd go for a FUEL (less environmental noise effects) and maybe render using some other hardware, but if you want to use video etc, Octane2, just my 2 shillings worth.. I have both and do both.

The Maya coders take pride in the fact that they've never changed the user interface, if you know 2016 you'll instantly be able to be productive with 6.5. I have never used a version newer than 6.5, but members here who have have said the new features are "cruft." If you're happy with what Blender gives you you'll be fine with 6.5.

Maya 6.5 Unlimited also comes with Mental Ray which in my humble opinion is better than any other Irix renderer, but obviously you can export to any Mac - Linux - Windows renderer.

Now, for hardware I would say you'd want a V12 2-processor Octane (or a 4-processor Tezro) rather than a Fuel, the extra processors make a big difference if you want to run Mental Ray while you're modeling or in particular if you're playing back scenes.

vishnu wrote: The Maya coders take pride in the fact that they've never changed the user interface, if you know 2016 you'll instantly be able to be productive with 6.5. I have never used a version newer than 6.5, but members here who have have said the new features are "cruft." If you're happy with what Blender gives you you'll be fine with 6.5.

Maya 6.5 Unlimited also comes with Mental Ray which in my humble opinion is better than any other Irix renderer, but obviously you can export to any Mac - Linux - Windows renderer.

Now, for hardware I would say you'd want a V12 2-processor Octane (or a 4-processor Tezro) rather than a Fuel, the extra processors make a big difference if you want to run Mental Ray while you're modeling or in particular if you're playing back scenes.

So if I do go with an IRIX workstation, I should consider more towards an Octane... interesting... =)

Also I noticed I derped in the original post, I forgot to mention my display is actually a Ultrawide Monitor... Whoops! XP

vishnu wrote: The Maya coders take pride in the fact that they've never changed the user interface, if you know 2016 you'll instantly be able to be productive with 6.5. I have never used a version newer than 6.5, but members here who have have said the new features are "cruft." If you're happy with what Blender gives you you'll be fine with 6.5.

Doh, I was thinking of Smoke...

vishnu wrote: Now, for hardware I would say you'd want a V12 2-processor Octane (or a 4-processor Tezro) rather than a Fuel, the extra processors make a big difference if you want to run Mental Ray while you're modeling or in particular if you're playing back scenes.

I'm to be convinced of your choice there Vishnu (Octane2 over Fuel), based not solely on the noise level of these machines compared to the fuel, but I respect the speed of a good fuel. But I will stand corrected after I have witnessed own testing.

IAMNOTDEFECTIVE wrote: Also I noticed I derped in the original post, I forgot to mention my display is actually a Ultrawide Monitor... Whoops! XP

Widescreen monitors are a bit more difficult under IRIX, but not impossible. What you may need to do is to look at compiling a custom VFO file for the monitor. Recondas and a few here can help with that. I had some success with widescreen VFOs for my O2, but not my Indigo2. However, in the end I found it easier to run my SGI machines through a conventional 20" 4:3 monitor and use my 16:10 monitor for my Windows machine and my Mac Mini - means I can interact with both SGIs and my PC at the same time too.

Best of luck with an SGI, but do remember that whilst they were superb machines for their time, that time was quite a while ago. Don't expect even a top-end Tezro to beat a modern PC/Mac in terms of 3D performance, or even come close for that matter, because it wont.

What you do get however is a snappy and responsive OS that is genuinely different to Windows/MacOS/Linux. If you like IRIX, that's worth a lot. And of course SGIs do look cool

Whatever you do though, keep expectations realistic. The OS is from the mid 90s, and the hardware technology even in a Tezro is still 15+ years old. Of course, the fact that you can still do neat and genuinely useful work with them is a good testament to how good they were back in the time.

I know there maybe a few users that are still using their Sgis/Maya for creating published/production content. But I would guess most use it strictly for nostalgia purposes. If you have a favorite tool/shortcut..etc in 2016. I would make 100% sure it works in 6.5. Granted you should be able to easily re-create it in MEL. I don't use the animation toolset much. So I couldn't tell you what's different. Just be warned you may find yourself trying to fix minute differences between the two software versions. I know I did. Occasionally I will try and re-create a python script in MEL on 6.5 just for comparison, but I rarely use the Fuel much for any real Maya work.

robespierre wrote: Thanks foetz, I knew you would supply lots of details in this area

pleasure is all mine

one more thing to consider is that with late sgis the differences in speed are not that noticeable anymore. owners of machines with an r16000 in particular but running the same stuff on older ones might be a surprise in some cases i.e. one program suddenly behaves like a dead horse while the other still reacts properly. for example the workflow of wavefront on an r4400 indigo2 is way faster than maya on an r10000 o2.
a funny exception is softimage (the original one, not xsi of course). there the floating windows are always somewhat juddery no matter what machine you have

IAMNOTDEFECTIVE wrote:

Trippynet wrote:

IAMNOTDEFECTIVE wrote: Also I noticed I derped in the original post, I forgot to mention my display is actually a Ultrawide Monitor... Whoops! XP

However, in the end I found it easier to run my SGI machines through a conventional 20" 4:3 monitor and use my 16:10 monitor for my Windows machine and my Mac Mini - means I can interact with both SGIs and my PC at the same time too.

I said I had an Ultra Wide monitor, IE 21:9, so that would be a problem if you had a problem getting a 16:10 display working all honky dory.

Not necessarily. Either way you have to create a custom VFO if the resolution isn't supported natively by IRIX. That's the case for a lot of 16:10 and 16:9 monitors, so the same would hold for a 21:9 screen. So long as the graphics hardware can physically handle it, creating a custom VFO should be possible.

As I said, I was able to get my O2 to run at 16:10 resolutions, but not the Indigo2. However, the Indigo2 is a much older machine. With newer systems like Fuels and Octanes with the later graphics cards (V10/V12), compiling widescreen VFOs is not too much of a problem. Hence, getting your screen working is certainly a possibility!

Hem hem, bit of a testimonial here but in my case I've got a maxed out Octane2 and a quad 700 Tezro and I do not find their performance to be disappointing on any of the high end apps I've got (Shake, Maya, Catia, Pro/E), and I in particular do not wish to spend the tens of thousands of dollars it would cost to upgrade to their "modern" equivalents. So in summary I expect my sgi's to remain important to me for far into the foreseeable future...

but my Dad actually has a RiscPC SA as his main workstation to get things done...

I'm impressed. Does he do this in RISC OS or something else?

ClassicHasClass wrote:

but my Dad actually has a RiscPC SA as his main workstation to get things done...

I'm impressed. Does he do this in RISC OS or something else?

Yep! RISC OS 4.39! And it's still going strong!

Trippynet wrote:

IAMNOTDEFECTIVE wrote:

Trippynet wrote:

IAMNOTDEFECTIVE wrote: Also I noticed I derped in the original post, I forgot to mention my display is actually a Ultrawide Monitor... Whoops! XP

However, in the end I found it easier to run my SGI machines through a conventional 20" 4:3 monitor and use my 16:10 monitor for my Windows machine and my Mac Mini - means I can interact with both SGIs and my PC at the same time too.

I said I had an Ultra Wide monitor, IE 21:9, so that would be a problem if you had a problem getting a 16:10 display working all honky dory.

Not necessarily. Either way you have to create a custom VFO if the resolution isn't supported natively by IRIX. That's the case for a lot of 16:10 and 16:9 monitors, so the same would hold for a 21:9 screen. So long as the graphics hardware can physically handle it, creating a custom VFO should be possible.

As I said, I was able to get my O2 to run at 16:10 resolutions, but not the Indigo2. However, the Indigo2 is a much older machine. With newer systems like Fuels and Octanes with the later graphics cards (V10/V12), compiling widescreen VFOs is not too much of a problem. Hence, getting your screen working is certainly a possibility!

I see... That'll be interesting to fiddle around with... XD

ClassicHasClass wrote:

but my Dad actually has a RiscPC SA as his main workstation to get things done...

I'm impressed. Does he do this in RISC OS or something else?

RISC OS has plenty of good software to get things done and personally I would take RISC OS over linux any day. I am pretty much only using my Windows PC for 3d-modelling, web browsing and watching videos. Everything else is much more relaxing to do on RISC OS.

Having owned both Octane and Fuel, I must say that Octane is much cooler system as a workstation. Fuel is pretty much like a standard PC, while Octane is awesome in every way the Fuel is not. Fuel is maybe a smarter choice from the two, but then again if it would be deciding factor, you would not be lookin for a SGI system anyway.

Octane is a freakin' marvel; a true workstation in every sense of the word, every component engineered to the nines, tight tolerance precision machined parts, giant heatsinks and fans to keep it running no matter what, zero internal cables, same HEART as used in sgi's highest-end supercomputers, who wouldn't want one? Oh wait, every member here who can't stand more than 50 decibels of fan hum...

vishnu wrote: Oh wait, every member here who can't stand more than 50 decibels of fan hum...

So I have 2 SGI machines on my desk that share a Keyboard & Mouse, the rest I remote to. My Octane is as you know pretty maxed out, my Fuel is decent spec (could do with a V12 if the truth be known). Each machine can do roughly what the other can do with the exception of Video and my Octane has all the bells and whistles for that task. Now, which is the first machine I turn on.. the Fuel, because it feels snappier and yes is quieter. I think the Fuel gets bad press due to the build design, the case, the crappy flappy front door and the internal cabling (which, every time I use it, I'm consistently thinking about those internal cables and sometimes it makes me so sad I just turn off everything and sulk- ).

With the above in mind, which is my favourite machine.... Octane2 obviously (until I get my hands on a certain Onyx Rack).

uunix wrote: With the above in mind, which is my favourite machine.... Octane2 obviously (until I get my hands on a certain Onyx Rack).

I wish you the best of luck with that!

FYI, Using this monitor:
http://www.viewsonic.com/us/vx2770smh-led.html

I have had no problems with 16:10 (1920x1200 resolution), or even 16:9, on an Octane (with Vpro graphics) or a Tezro. No customization or mods, worked out of the box with IRIX.

My O2 however, could not get either type of those resolutions.

Ultra-wide resolution will be more of a challenge, if even possible (so far it seems not).

vishnu wrote: who wouldn't want one? Oh wait, every member here who can't stand more than 50 decibels of fan hum...

and don't forget the electricity counters

necron2600 wrote: My O2 however, could not get either type of those resolutions.

Ultra-wide resolution will be more of a challenge, if even possible (so far it seems not).

I did manage to get 1920x1200 working on my O2 with a custom VFO, but it was not without issues. There was some occasional graphical corruption in a few areas, and I think the resolution was simply pushing the little O2 a bit too far. Once I dropped it to 1680x1050 (another custom-made VFO), it worked without a hitch.

I think it's not so much the aspect ratio which is the issue, but the sheer number of pixels for the hardware to drive. Later graphics cards can naturally power higher resolutions. Of course, a lot depends on the native resolution of this ultrawide monitor in question...