Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on May 28, 2007 07:19 AM
Someone mentioned that I was being 'named' here.
The CGSociety wiki entry is ridiculous - it's primarily used by a few zealous Blender users as a marketing tool (yes, that's you LetterRip).
It shows Blender in a good light because Blender is feature rich. I certainly do use it for promotional purposes, just as the author of this article attempted to do so for AOI.
Also most of the areas that show Blender being behind other packages (ie where Blender has a red mark) are those that I added. Ie I specifically added categories that focused on Blenders weaknesses (the painting tools; the lack of smoke and flame simulation for instance). I also suggested on the talk page that comparative ratings be used for different categories so one can accurately gage the relative strengths and weaknesses of packages.
Also it should be noted that the comparison chart was originated by cgsociety, not me.
Check out the wiki page history and you'll see that Blender is the only tool on there that people are constantly working to promote.
Blender is the only package that has been updated with a release since the wiki was originated. This summer after Siggraph I'm sure that updates for other packages will be forthcoming.
So much on that page is skewed toward Blender.
What 'skew' do you see specifically - you are welcome to register at CGTalk, and add comments to the talk page or add more categories on the main page, etc. Of course it is easier to throw mud from anonymity and make unfounded and broad accusations of bias and skew.
Plenty of focus on number of polys allowed, but no word on the internal renderer quality?
The 'poly count' section was added by a cgsociety moderator as I recall. It was a section that was present before any Blender user even visited the wiki - so accusing it of 'Blender bias' is idiotic. As to renderer 'quality' - I've been in discussion with renderer authors to establish such a comparison. The difficulty is a lack of standardized test scenes which would allow for a meaningful comparison.
That's odd...but I guess it's OK because you can use all those half-finished external renderers and edit XML all day...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P
Most professional users of Blender are just fine with the internal renderer (ie the Plumiferos movie is using only the internal renderer), although improvements are always desireable. There are certain specialties that Blenders internal renderer is not the preferred solution of Blender users - ie 'photoreal' work for houses and other structures (although notably this is the case for most 3D packages that external tools are used to render architectural work).
Blenders internal renderer is certainly behind many commercial renderers for global illumination, but its scanline rendering is pretty good and with the recent refactor of the rendering code has a nice architecture and is much more easily extensible.
I certainly welcome a renderer comparison feel free to suggest categories you would like to compare on and good approaches to doing so.
To me your comment sounds like you are someone who is using (or developing) another package and is jealous of Blenders rapid growth and increasing success.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re:comparison
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 28, 2007 07:19 AMIt shows Blender in a good light because Blender is feature rich. I certainly do use it for promotional purposes, just as the author of this article attempted to do so for AOI.
Also most of the areas that show Blender being behind other packages (ie where Blender has a red mark) are those that I added. Ie I specifically added categories that focused on Blenders weaknesses (the painting tools; the lack of smoke and flame simulation for instance). I also suggested on the talk page that comparative ratings be used for different categories so one can accurately gage the relative strengths and weaknesses of packages.
Also it should be noted that the comparison chart was originated by cgsociety, not me.
Blender is the only package that has been updated with a release since the wiki was originated. This summer after Siggraph I'm sure that updates for other packages will be forthcoming.
What 'skew' do you see specifically - you are welcome to register at CGTalk, and add comments to the talk page or add more categories on the main page, etc. Of course it is easier to throw mud from anonymity and make unfounded and broad accusations of bias and skew.
The 'poly count' section was added by a cgsociety moderator as I recall. It was a section that was present before any Blender user even visited the wiki - so accusing it of 'Blender bias' is idiotic. As to renderer 'quality' - I've been in discussion with renderer authors to establish such a comparison. The difficulty is a lack of standardized test scenes which would allow for a meaningful comparison.
Most professional users of Blender are just fine with the internal renderer (ie the Plumiferos movie is using only the internal renderer), although improvements are always desireable. There are certain specialties that Blenders internal renderer is not the preferred solution of Blender users - ie 'photoreal' work for houses and other structures (although notably this is the case for most 3D packages that external tools are used to render architectural work).
Blenders internal renderer is certainly behind many commercial renderers for global illumination, but its scanline rendering is pretty good and with the recent refactor of the rendering code has a nice architecture and is much more easily extensible.
I certainly welcome a renderer comparison feel free to suggest categories you would like to compare on and good approaches to doing so.
To me your comment sounds like you are someone who is using (or developing) another package and is jealous of Blenders rapid growth and increasing success.
LetterRip
#