|
yea the passes should be to organize your renderables, and the framebuffers get you many outputs per render state.
On 7/29/07, todd akita <
takita(at)earthlink.net> wrote:Gene Crucean wrote:
> Who here uses Render Channels? I do... but I mainly use them for small
> things like a matte for an object, a singled out rendered object or
> quick AO pass for a single object. I see these as a HUGE time saver
> and really want to see it progress into a mature feature. Everyone
> rendering passes should be interested 110%. For those of you who use
> them, feel free to post your ideas on how to improve integration and
> workflow. For those of you who DON'T use them, why?
For me the big workflow killer is the transparency bug - refract rays
only display the output of the main framebuffer regardless of what
channel they are.
> Personally I see passes fading off into oblivion. Maybe a legacy
> feature thats nice to have if you just want to quickly render a matte
> pass or whatever. That way you don't have to render the whole wad.
I'm not sure, there're a lot of things you need control over that
framebuffers don't solve. Arealights on/off, finalgather on/off, stuff
like that. If your load times are killer or you have a lot of
preprocessing (displacement,finalgather,lightmap,shadowmap generation)
then it will probably save you time.
-T
---
Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in body:
unsubscribe xsi
|
