The collected works of sgtprobe - Page 3

I would say that Maya 6.5 runs very nice on my 600MHz V12 Fuel. My Octane 2 with a single 400MHz CPU and a Vpro 10 is also running Maya very nicely indeed. If you are running in wireframe mode, both machines can handle pretty high polycount models and still be quite responsive. Noticeably faster than any VW320 I have tested so far and certainly much faster than my own VW320 with a single 500MHz CPU. (wich really needs more RAM and a second CPU)

Of course, none of them can handle the millions upon millions of polygons every frame any modern GPU can do these days with ease. But where is the fun in that?

I haven't bothered to try Maya 6.5 on my Old Indigo 2 with extreme graphics yet, but it does handle Softimage very nicely.

foetz wrote:

sgtprobe wrote: I haven't bothered to try Maya 6.5 on my Old Indigo 2 with extreme graphics yet, but it does handle Softimage very nicely.

assuming you're talking about the classic softimage that does run fine with extreme gfx. maya on the other hand is very fat and sluggish in comparison as mentioned already; the gui in particular.
i wouldn't recommend maya on anything other except octanes and above. well maybe r12k o2, too.

Yeah, SI 3.9 I think it is, so it runs very well on that old machine. Anyway, there is a reason why I haven't bothered to install Maya on it, just as you say. But now I might install it just to see how bad it actually is. Have you or anyone else tried this before?

Trippynet wrote:

Hang on a sec, Trip. Just one point. Windows 95, bless its little DOS heart, came out at the end of 1995. The Pentium Pro (180 and 200 mhz) came out some time around then. Around 1998 I had a neighbor with a purple Indigo2 which made my hot-to-trot peecee look like that retarded kid on the Special Olympics poster. The Indigo2 throughout the 90's would kick peecee ass both in hardware and software, from here to Uranus

Err... we're talking about noise output here, not computing performance. I'm well aware that an Indigo2 IMACT will trounce a mid 90s PC when it comes to performance

Yeah, I did react to that too, but thought that you must have talked about fans and noise.

Awesome, thanks for sharing

GIJoe wrote: years later - the answer: high quality viewport rendering was not ever brought to the sgi. infact, at the time it showed up in maya it was not even working in all PC-based configurations either and not available for all supported platforms (surely including linux). i don't think any SGI graphics cards were even capable of the kind of pixel shaders that were commonplace on PC boards?

and if memory serves: alias switched from IRIX as their development environment to windows around or right after releasing maya 3. whatever came after was not targeted at SGI's but rather ported. pretty sure IRIX was a quickly vanishing target market for them around the year 2000.

It was awhile now, but if my memory serves me right, there was a demo for the Odyssey showing this high quality shading did indeed work on the hardware. Maybe alias just didn't bother to implement it in Maya in the end?

vishnu wrote: straight to the smelter...

Noooooooooooooooooooooooo

Nice rescue. And now it have been given a second chance thanks to you Sir!

Edit:

Oh, and welcome

Hey, thats a great machine and loving this thread

Haven't seen this one before. SI3D V1.0 demonstraded at Siggraph 2006 on an Octane! Quite hillarious

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzj3VITdN5A

pentium wrote: That's like SI3D 3.9 or something.

Yeah, I know, at least 3.8. Dunno why I wrote SI3D V1.0, probably because the title on youtube.

foetz wrote: we had it here before but i couldn't find the thread right now. but as i said back then that's a video from douches for douches

How come it's for douches?

foetz wrote: including the one who put that title up because si3d v1 wasn't called si3d and wouldn't run on an octane either so that dude has no clue what he's talking about.

Yeah, kinda weird he said v1.0, but I guess it was in the context for the demo and the then following demonstration for XSI in a lighthearted way. I think you are misunderstanding the whole presentation.

foetz wrote: same seems to go for the peeps in that video. treating the founding fathers of 3d that way is equally dumb and ignorant. if i would shoot a parody video about windows and x86 (and xsi) it'd easily fill several seasons of "big brother" and that'd be actual, serious issues contrary to what they picked up in that video.

Oh, come on now, you take this way to serious. Could almost believe someone hurt your feelings, going off like a religious zealot or something It's about progress, and they had a little wayback moment they shared with the old SI 3D artist in the audience. We all thinking back of how great it was, but actually going back and using it reminds you how much everything has advanced.

And yeah, he has clearly no idea what he was talking about since he is an old SI3D user/modeller that has been in the business for years and years, and the audience is full of working 3D artists either using XSI or used SI3D.

foetz wrote: especially given that xsi is by far the most crappy 3d package so far.

Ok, now I know you are either just joking or are just full of it. XSI crappy 3D package? Serious, really? No, seriously? Name one thats clearly better and why, would love to hear about it.

foetz wrote: only runs properly on winblows and even there stability and features are humble compared to others; modeling in particular.

Allright, this is just beyond everything. It's just.. Where do I even.. Stabiliy, yeah, about as stable as it gets, don't know which version you have tried out, but.. Features, among the best in business, name one with better feature list or a "superior" modeller! I know 2 programs that have either better workflow or are more advanced than XSI, but maybe you can fill me in with the rest

And why is it so bad that it runs stable on Windows? What other operating systems today would you like it on, OSX? Yeah, sure, to bad you don't have any PRO systems to run it on. Apple can go to where the sun doesn't shine for all I care. Pissing on your own PRO users, especially when they released the new Pro Mac, it's a joke! Forcing user to use the old Pro Macs.

foetz wrote: i remember at a seminar the instructor from avid couldn't get the network render to work even once all day and one of the default scenes crashed badly.

Yeah, I have seen all kinds of so called "superior" operating systems/software crash in all sorts of scenarios. Usually the crap behind the keyboard if you ask me. Sometimes it's because of software and bugs, but bugs usually gets ironed out! And considering you mention AVID, it's a long time ago, and probably extremely early version. But what do I know, I wasn't there, but that says nothing about the software stabillity. What kind of computers where they using, gfx hardware, drivers, etc.

foetz wrote: the linux and irix versions were just junk

Now you are speaking the truth, and I agree.

foetz wrote: they had it coming, xsi lost a lot of ground

Why did they had it coming? I really can't see how anyone can say something like that. Autodesk shutting down XSI was a sad day indeed, the best 3D program they had in their whole lineup isn't just stupid, it's criminal. But ofcourse, after they took all the inovation out and implemented it in Maya and 3DS MAX and transfered the masterminds of XSI, it kinda make sense if you look at it from their standpoint. We all knew that this was going to happen the day they announced that Autodesk was buying XSI.


But yeah, they did lose a lot of users since they had to delay XSI for so long, and the fact that XSI 1.0 did miss a few important basic features, but it took time to complete one of the most inovative 3D programs ever made. They lost a lot of SI user over to Maya because of it, and when XSI was really competetive, it was to late to get most of them back, unfortunatly. I do know a handful of SI users that did stick with it though, and they are glad they did.

foetz wrote: and the only serious role it plays anymore is for games. and even there others are more popular.

Well, some studios are using it for it's animation capabilities or advanced modelling workflow, no studio is one package only. But in generall it's true, but that's not because there is better programs out there as I pointed out earlier.

foetz wrote: compared to the days of the original si3d its market shares are just a fraction today with no silver lining on the horizon in the near future.

This is true, and more so considering Autodesk has shut XSI down.

foetz wrote: even today i'd prefer an sgi with si3d over any sort of xsi anytime.

I can't in even my wildest fantasies understand why, unless you want old school features/clunky workflow/Retro, memory lane/look to your animations/renders. But whatever floats your boat.

foetz wrote: i guess going down that road in the video was their way of dealing with the sad reality because even then they were headed south already. bad style.

As said erlier, I think you misunderstood the whole video. They arent bashing SI3D at all, no more than a user of a La Ferrari comparing his car to a Ferrari 250GTO in a lighthearted way. You know, progress. Of course it will be superior in every single way, except maybe aesthetics and in memory.

But do please keep in mind that I'm not trying to state that XSI is THE BEST modern 3D software, they all have their pros and cons, and everyone usually find a workflow that suits them best. And if the said software is up there and compete with the best, it's all good and well I guess.


I have working with 3D graphics for over 20-22 years now, and during that time I have used: Sculpt 3D, Turbosilver, Real 3D, Imagine, Lightwave, Luxology Modo, Maya, Motionbuilder, SI3D, XSI, Zbrush. Not in my "main pipeline", but programs I have to use/used now and then depending on clients or coming in contact with is: 3DS MAX, Mudbox, Houdini and Cinema 4D. Houdini and Cinema 4D isn't something I have really worked with hands-on more than providing material/content to, but I have close friends that are very good with them, so there is usually a lot of comparions between the programs. My Houdini using friend is a Houdini master and is working as a Lead Tech artist. Cinema 4D workflow is starting to look a a bit long in the tooth if you ask me, but still a great program with healthy development. Especially popular among motion VFX users.

Then there is a shitloads of different 3rd party renderers ontop of that, but the usual suspect is Vray, Octane, Maxwell, Fryrender.

Let me put it this way, the best 3D software I prefer after all my years in the business today, I have to say is Luxology Modo. Ironically that program feels eerily like XSI when it comes to actually come up with quality stuff from scratch fast. It's like an well oiled machinery that just let's your imagination run wild, and the tools never stops your creativity, infact, they are there to boost them. And when you wanna go really in depth, you have all the features to do so. Maybe that's why many XSI users now abandoning the sinking XSI-ship is coming to Modo. What XSI does better, (well, better than most basically) is animation and stabillity (and the incredibly powerful ICE). But Modo is a young software that is evolving rapidly, wasn't so long ago it got Octane integration, soon we will have Vray for it (in Open Beta now) and hopefully, one day, Arnold integration. You also have Maxwell for it btw.


If it wasn't clearly obvious before, I was a SI3D fanboy and have lot's of great memories of that program, But that was then. By the time the demonstration of SI3D in the youtube clip was made (2006), XSI was so far ahead in every possible way that stating anything else is just fanboyism, sentimentalism or pure ignorance. Sorry to put this so bluntly, but yeah, there it is.

GIJoe wrote: sgtprobe: just wondering what you have against the current mac pro? the box - well cylinder - seems ace as a personal workstation as far as hardware goes. small and quiet? yes please. software availability/comparably inferior OSX ports of applications seem to be a problem however.

Allright, I guess I could look at it from other users standpoint and guess it could be a small and quiet nice looking computer. But it lacks in the omph department, especially in the graphics area or any area the user would like to do his own upgrades.

Right now you only have mobile graphics power, and no choice if you need to change hardware for Cuda based rendering, which forces lot's of users using the older power macs or switch OS completely. As is, Apple has made the choice for you, and cut out a lot of people using their favorite OS or sticking with a ~2010 based system, which in itself is lacking if you are going the GPU rendering way thanks to limited slots for putting graphic cards. Sure, in the future Apple might decide to change to Nvidia GPUs, but considering it's small size, it would still only be able to use mobile type of chips, that or it wouldn't be such a quiet system anymore going for the real desktop parts. It would probably have to spin the fan so quickly it would hover around your desk or the graphics would have to throttle severly not to burn up.

But you never know, with Nvidias new GM204 (maxwell) architecture they have managed to make it very energy efficient. So in the future it might be possible to mount stuff in very small enclosures like the current Pro Mac.

The computer itself is quite neat, and in typical Apple way of building, very well thought out for what it is, I give it that.

GIJoe wrote: btw. that line about modo being a young software is getting long in the tooth. this thing has been around for 10 years at least now. stop treating it like the next big thing.

Maybe your right, looking back to the first version released in -04, it's ten years old. And considering the 3rd party supports it starting to get, it's coming to an age. Time sure pass fast.

They have ported it to OSX and Linux. Can't say much about Linux verison, but on OSX it works really great and is just as, if not better than, on Windows. Doesn't matter which version you buy, you get access to all three when you buy it.

gocram wrote:
SGI is definitely one of the most publicly under-appreciated platforms, or doesn't get nearly as much praise ‘posthumously’ like, for instance, Apple and its legacy do. SGI is also one of the only retro platforms (if you will) that's still, up to this day, measured and scrutinized for its performance, it seems. A rather peculiar phenomenon. Maybe that's a compliment to SGI, in a way, that people still have such high expectations of it.

Perhaps, but most people in "our" age do think of SGI foundly. At least people that either used them or came in contact with them in their line of work. Coming from other platforms under the great SGI era you couldn't be anything but impressed with them. Just by looking at an Octane back then made you feel all fuzzy and warm inside, thinking of all the horsepower inside of it, the sexy hardware accelerated graphics etc.

Younger graphical artists of today know nothing about it however, but are in general very interested to hear about where it all more or less started. Some people have of course never come in contact with SGI hardware, but heard of it's greatness and excpecting it more or less to perform neck and neck with todays hardware. It's naive, but such is the mythical power of SGI.

I know I excpected more out of the first Octane I came in contact with/used and was kinda "dissapointed" by it's performance, even if it did run circles around anything I have ever used or seen before. I know, really stupid. Maybe it's partly because the very first SGI I ever came in contact with was an Iris Indigo, and that one surely blew my mind compared to what I was using back then (Amiga) Since it was an SGI, it should somehow always have mind bending, moutain-crushing/time resisting capabilities. I think that's why people sometimes expect more out of it, even today.

It's like some people expecting a Ferrari from the seventies should outperform a modern mid/low priced BMW on the track, and when it doesn't they go "BUT but, it's a Ferrari" and missing the point that technology evolves/progress, and for being from the seventies it's still a really nice performing/looking car with other qualities than just the speed around the track. And who will remember the low priced BMW 30 or 40 years in the future? Not that I have anything against BMW, was just using it as an example.

gocram wrote:
Wasn't that also the reason why they released version 4, even with XSI around for a good while (at the time)?

I either way miss SOFTIMAGE|3D a lot, with its solid, fast loading, graphical user interface and feature richness. I'd love to try some of the older versions of SOFTIMAGE|3D, but acquiring the software seems very tricky nowadays...

Another thing that I should probably mention, from my own experiences with XSI at the time, is that it never even got close to boasting the same NURBS modeling toolset (which was rather nice in 3D). Even what little XSI had, it was severely broken (and I remember some XSI developers on relevant mailing list, forums, etc. admitted that and showed no interest in changing that situation either; I guess what little XSI offered was just enough for loading in older 3D projects in XSI).

Yeah, since XSI version 1.0 did miss out some really important features, like polygon modelling tools and other stuff like fully developed nurbs and stuff, you got SI3D along your purchase of XSI (or according to your upgrade paths). But by version 3 it was working just fine by itself, and when version 4 came out it was really good. I think I still have a boxed version 1.0 and 4.0 around here somewhere together with my SI3D with it's gigantic box. Not sure which version though, since I lost some boxes in a break in some years ago together with my boxed version of Modo 101. Dunno why they took it, since they won't be able to use it. Hope they broke their backs carrying them around.

foetz wrote:
of course my post was to be read with a grain of salt. i do realize that every supermarket peecee beats the crap out of every risc box from back then but that wasn't the point.
in recent years i got quite fed up with kids (or older but ignorant peeps) thinking that the new and fancy stuff is much superior compared to anything else just because it's new and fancy which in return makes them cool, too. in fact some quite strict rules have evolved regarding what's to be considered superior and widely accepted. that's also not to be questioned and if you do so, even if you're right, you're outlawed instantly. thinking outside the box is not welcome and that's a bad sign.
si3d with an sgi was a mature set for pros and something like that doesn't exist these days. that's sad and even more sad is having ignorant people making fun of that while sitting in front of their off-the-shelf junk thinking they're the greatest because they have a github account and praise python that's a bit like a driver of a new toyota patronizing the owner of an older bentley just because he's got more horsepower ... you get the idea.
is that sentimental or emotional? of course it is because as a human being i can't be 100% objective nor can anyone else. but that doesn't mean it's not true and that's the very point.

Ok, fair enough! I do understand what you are aiming at here, and I have to agree.

I hope I didn't came off too harsh, because it wasn't my intent. Everything is so much easier to discuss in person over a few good beers, posts on the forum can look a bit more aggressive than they are (reading what I wrote). So, I'm sorry if you think I went over board!

foetz wrote: as for xsi in particular, the flaws i described were no secret at all and not related to the guy behind the keyboard either. gocram said it already, especially in the beginning features and reliability were so poor that they not only released si3d v4.0 but also gave you one for free with every xsi purchase to compensate what xsi messed up or couldn't do at all. i've been in contact with avid at the time and they didn't hide it so that's officially confirmed. don't get me wrong xsi did have some nice stuff but it never was a mature package like its precursor.

No, this was well known, and what where they gonna do? They had to get their nextgen software out at some point, already late to the party they had to do something. Maya stealing all the thunder (as in losing customers), they had to relase what they had working so a "free" version of SI3D was shipped with every version of XSI to complete the package under the circumstances. Heck, my own brother didn't even touch his XSI before the 3.5 update or something, refusing to switch from SI3D because he was so dissapointed at the 1.0 release of XSI, despite of version 3.0 working just fine. So, yeah, I do understand the dissapointment of the early XSI. But I don't understand why it isn't a mature package? Have you even seen XSI from version 7 and forward? It's simply amazing. I would call it extremely mature, and very modern compared to anything out there today.

I mean, it's up to you if you don't like it, it's your choice of course. But as a tool it's everything you could ask for. It's a shame it's no more, well, this year will be the last release of the software, and support will end in 2016. It will be dearly missed. But I suspect 3rd party support will continue for a good while yet though.

Edit/

Coming to think about it, Autodesk buying all the great software out there. Who is left? Newtek, Maxon, the Foundry (merged with Luxology), SideFX and a few more for 3D software aimed at production. Then there are a few (actually a whole bunch) 3rd party render engines also. Chaos Group (Vray), Otoy (Octane), Redshift, Arion, Corona render, Next Limit (Maxwell, Realflow), SolidAngle (Arnold). But I guess those 3rd party render engines are doing well on their own considering supporting several different 3D software packages.

Geoman wrote: Ah yes - that video again.
Ingenious move to use an Octane with the weakest configuration there was on the market and make fun of its performance.
So douches they are indeed.

I see it gets people all worked up, I really don't find it offensive at all myself?

Do you know the specs of the Octane? I thought it did pretty well, especially with the Godzilla model which is quite heavy.

foetz wrote: no worries at all, i knew that post would polarize a bit which was intended

Okay, hehe, I understand

foetz wrote: i have, 2012 was the last one tho i reckon.
by "not mature" i meant it wasn't/isn't complete. especially the modeling never reached a complete state and they were not interested in that either. at quite an early stage the roadmap put most emphasis on animation and as it turned out they kept it that way till the end.
then there were other things like ice that made me chuckle because it was such an obvious houdini copy. not only the concept but also the name since prisms' compositor was called the same was quite looking like desparate measures at the time already ...
... and so on. although i've never been an avid softie (<-- double pun ) i did respect si3d for what it offered and that just never happened to me in case of xsi because of stuff as described above. in addition the fact that it was pretty much a pure windows app didn't help

Ok, I see. Then there isn't much more to do than let's agree to disagree. But I do remember I had some beef against AVID back then, but can't really remember what it was I was angry about (this was long after the release of the first XSI).

But I remember the stressful days when Maya was stealing the limelight, and the frustration about XSI never being done/coming out, and all they did was talking about how good it would be when released, started to feel like vaporware. Should I switch or stay, Maya sure looked tempting, all those new features/workflow, it really felt fresh and new and all that jazz.

I mean, it would be great if things turned out different, XSI released before Maya with all core features in place, and the best version running on Irix. But I guess they (Avid) saw Wintel being the next "big thing", which, sadly, it was, not that it helped XSI in the end though.

Today I'm working on your typical (well, maybe not, loaded with graphics hardware for GPU rendering and such) Off the shelf hardware running on Winblows (as you said). I start her up in the morning, working/rendering/modelling without any issues as a user without actually worrying what it says on the box. It's a tool, and it get's the job done and fast (although it could always be a gazillion times faster, but that goes for everything).

But it doesn't excite me as my Octane does, or my Amiga4000 for that matter. With those systems I find it fun to do all kind of tasks on no matter what it is. I'm always thinking of trying to integrate them in my pipline in some way because it would be cool to say that my Octane was involved doing that or that, but it never happens though, because time.

Have some time over and thought about modelling the Octane in Psubs and set up a scene and render the Octane in Otoy's Octane

I have the Octane on my desk, so I can spin it and measure, but I severly need some kind of blueprints or at least some relativly exact drawings to model it from. You know, top, front and side kind of things.

I have already started to model it, and it goes well, but there are so many quirky bends and curves that it is hard to get it right from measurements alone.

Google haven't been able to bring up anything so far, I even had a quick flick in the Octane manual in hopes of good drawings, but no luck there either.

So I would be greatly thankful if maybe someone here have some of the good stuff and might wanna share.

nongrato wrote: I can provide you wrml model of Octane from Octane demos if you're interested.

Yeah, sure! It's definitely worth a look.

You can mail it to 'jonas at edgeloop dot se'

the "at" and "dot" is of course an '@' and a '.'

Thanks alot

nongrato wrote: The models are quite detailed - it won't be easy to surpass them. I've uploaded them on dropbox in case someone else needs them:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jok3rzf0dyc1x ... ar.gz?dl=0

These are Inventor models, not wrml.

Thanks a lot, unfortunately I can't import/use .iv files, none of my program I use is able to read/import that format.

.iges/.stp/.3dm/.dxf only, dangit! Not sure if buying the relatively expensive CadLoaders for Modo would help in this case.

/Edit:
Looks like Maya might be able to read .iv files. Unfortunately I don't have a license installed on this machine. Now, where is my old Maya license? lol Probably in the attic with my luck, guess I'll have to put on some clothes and go looking for it. Gah, can't find it. It probably is there somewhere inside a box among the other gazillion of boxes.

/Edit again:
.iv files is SGI Inventor files, and is not the the same as Open inventor from Autocrap. The more you learn..

nongrato wrote: dang, so may formats and most of them are just a plain text with coordinates of verticles, still incompatible tho.

I also found some models in .wrl.gz format. Maybe someone can suggest a converter.

Might have better luck with .wrl though!

nongrato wrote: Alright, later this evening. I have already shut down my Octane.

Supernice! Let's hope I can use it this time so you haven't had to go through all this in vain.

Really appreciate it ,thx

GIJoe wrote: if memory serves there are some 3d format converters installed in irix by default. i think they have their own category in the toolchest even. i recall inventor support as being part of that. but if that included conversion-from capability is an entirely different question.
also if you have a version of maya installed on the octane, check the plugin manager for any inventor format plugins that are likely not autoloaded by default but may have shipped with the software.
last place i'd look is ivview. this might have the option to export into some other format long forgotten by history.

in any case these 1996-style models are likely pretty lowpoly by today's standards and a messy CAD export to boot. might not be of much use other than for volume reference. if you have the real thing on the desk why not get to work proper? shouldn't be hard to recreate in subdivs - or even booleans if you like it messy.

Thanks for your suggestions, but unfortunately right now, I have no way of setting up my SGI equipment. Severe lack of space not to mention I have all my monitors and stuff in storage until I get ore space again. Oh well.

No, no problems of recreating at all, it will be made in Pixars-SubdivisionSurface type of geometry in my ordinary style of quality, pro/commercial stuff. So no booleans here, no thank you sir

Since there is no technical drawings/blueprints, at least from what I have found, the next best thing would be a crappy model as a volume reference/measurments for where certain details should start/end etc. I will/would of course check against my real reference item backed with real measurments.

I had the day "off" so I thought I could do this quickly before working with my clients again, so lazy as I am, good reference in form of blueprints etc. would have speed things up significantly.

nongrato wrote: This is how these "crappy" models look like. You can download them directly from my Octane while it's running or i will upload them to dropbox later:

http://5.19.246.101/~nongrato/Public/livoct.tar.gz

image1.jpg

Wow, A bit lowpoly of course, but no where near as I remembered them and a whole lot more detailed. Excellent reference. Thanks A lot nongrato!! You are indeed awesome sir!

nongrato wrote: Well, actually these are shots of Inventor models, I don't remember clearly if WRML models are as good.

Ah, that might be it. But at least the WRML files will have that as a reference, and you would asume the inventor models to be pretty exact regarding relative measurments.

Once again, thanks a lot my good sir!

foetz wrote: attached package contains the iv files converted to obj and sidefx format

Absolutely fantastic! Thanks a lot for this!

Turned out the case part of the wrl files wouldn't convert over properly either. Only thing I know of that will convert SGI inventor files reliably is a program called Polytrans from okino. I do have an age-old licens somewhere, but only works on 32bit version of windows it seems, probably only WinXP at that.

Again, thanks a lot!



Now the question is, can I spare a couple of hours doing some fun modelling today?

Ok, the base done. Was thinking about building the internal stuff too, but since this is only for viewing/rendering purpose, i take the easy road. Modo is not a CAD program after all.

There is a small surface detail left to do, that shall match the line in the front plastic cover, but I do that when I'm there.

Base done in Psubs, but I don't do any weighting of the edges , so I guess it could be done in ordinary subdivs anyway.

Unfortunately, I haven't had much time to do anything on my Octane 3D build. Was planning to use the hollidays for some 3D fun, but as luck would have it I catched the cold of the century, so have been too sick to do any fun stuff

But I managed to get some hours to play today, so here is a small teaser of that work. Don't know when I will have time to continue again, but hopefully not too soon!


* Note, the Octane is rendered in Octane *

nongrato wrote: Amazing! Hope you will release your work into the "public domain"!

Yeah, I am hoping to be able to convert it to ordinary polygons in the future and in a common fileformat for anyone to play with!

Not been able to play with the octane 3d modell today, but thought I could post some of my work I did today. This isn't for a client, but I needed to flesh out my material/shaders library a little bit (and test some light setup ideas I had in my mind), so I built some shaders in Modo today and used an older scene originally used for some Octane renderings I have made before.

The Redbull can is a bit too bright on the right side, something I noticed later on, since I was more focused on rendering the image out to see the materials. It need some highlight compression.


link to a little bigger image with better quality: http://edgeloop.se/edgeloop_4/Silver_Edition_Modo_003_RC.jpg

If it is of any interest, it is rendered on my 8 core 5960X CPU @4.2 GHz (currently) so no GPU rendering here.
Rendered at 3312x3840 resolution originally, 18m and 35 seconds in total (quite a bit slower compared to my GPUs).

/Edit. I had to change the size of the image, was too big, thought it would autosize or something

foetz wrote: looks ace
especially the water drops are great. i almost don't dare to say that there's one tiny detail that looks not as perfect as the rest which is the foot. unlike the very top that looks a bit to smooth and blue for my taste for being the usual can metal

Thanks a lot

Regarding the foot, it might just be that the foot takes up some blue tint from the HDRI. I have two calibrated screens, althought one is of a warmer tone and the other one a tiny bit colder (ccfl vs white led) and I feel it is within the OK range. Is it very blue on your screens? Regarding it's smoothness you are right. What the H*ll, seems the shader have lost it's path to the bump maps, lol.

Oh, and by the way, don't be afraid to criticize my stuff, I can take it. But I might not agree, that's all

Here is another one from the same angle, but rendered on my GPUs with path tracing in Octane. 3m and 57 seconds @3312x3840 resolution. Quite different results, it's harder to be creative with how you can bend shaders when rendering with PBR in an unbiased renderer.

vishnu wrote: I would say if that's not photorealistic it's as darn close as you can get and still not be...

Thanks (I guess )

That dropplet going down the can looks very weird now when looking at it, like it has a completely different shader than the dropplets. I wonder why since it should have the same Octane material.

Probably the gamma that is different, some default setting somewhere?

I "wrestle" with gamma everyday since I mostly work in linear space, but sometimes at gamma 2,2 and 1,8. Especially when applying standard texturemaps comming from photoshop or the likes (which usually have an applied gamma correction curve), I usually have to divide the gamma with 2.2. 1/2.2 = 0,4545. Otherwise the colors/contrasts (in the texture) looks washed out similarly to your pictures.