I agree but only because of the
current implementation. Is there any real reason that those things can't be
implemented into a new render channel setup?
So lemme ask ya, do you use them as they are now? And if not... why?
Lemme add to my list something else that would be neat. Lets say they were
implemented exactly like passes. Now what if you want to render just a
reflection channel but you need to tweak it a little bit. Obviously it wouldn't
be wise to re-render the entire thing just for your reflection channel. So...
wouldn't it be cool if you could duplicate a render channel into a new
pass while maintaining all needed settings?
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
