Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - lolec

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12
151
It appears to be a hardware issue indeed.

After some more testing, 1.6.3 ended up crashing in the exact same way.

However, I returned to 1.7 and the crashes are easier to reproduce.

I'm trying to figure out what part is causing the crashes, is there something that happens much more in 1.7 than 1.6.3?  Since the crashes are more common in 1.7, maybe that can lead me to find the issue?

152
[Max] I need help! / Brutal crash Corona 1.7 + threadripper
« on: 2017-10-28, 08:39:50 »
Hello, Just upgraded my system to threadripper 1950 and I'm getting some pretty brutal crashes that "lock" my computer. I've never had crashes like this before in any other scenario, I will try to describe.

Rendering in in interactive or normal render, after a few minutes the video source goes out.  Fans and case lights are still on though, but I get absolutely no video. Another strange thing is that my mouse's rgb logo goes black too.

After the crash, I can't turn the pc off by long pressing the power button. I have to cut power completely, plug again (fans spinning but still no video), long press power button to turn off and then turn on again normally, even the mouse turns on. This is the only way I found to recover from the brutal crash.

This happened 4 or 5 times, and I decided to downgrade to 1.6.3, no issue so far.

I would like to reproduce this issue but I fear hardware damage, I've never seen a computer crash like this.

The system is not overclocked at all. It's a fresh install only 3dsmax and corona, all the latest drivers.




153
Well.. look at an Ikea Catalog.  They've been moving to digital more and more. Last time I checked they said 80% of images were renders, this was a couple of years ago...  I bet it's close to 100% now.  And the images are not overly edited.

You probably come across photorealistic renders all the time, they are just so good that you don't even notice.

It's like CG in movies, people say they hate CG, but what they really hate is bad CG, because good CG is invisible.

Pretty much every product photo you've seen in the past years is a render.

I believe true photo-realism can be promised to clients, not by me, but it is definitely possible.

I remember CACTUS work posted on this forum : https://forum.corona-renderer.com/index.php?topic=16232.0


154
This thread was the right persuasion approach. Nice re-framing, visualization and focusing in the future.

A good lesson on how to correctly handle the situation. Thanks!

155

Actually, the days when VFX rendering meant faking a lot of things are now mostly gone. It took the somewhat cumbersome VFX industry a while to adapt new, simpler, physically based approaches, but they have been enjoying it for a while. So VFX renderer does not mean complicated renderer. VFX renderer, by today's standards simply means feature complete renderer, at least when it comes to major features.

Corona is just hair, skin and volumetrics effects away from becoming a VFX renderer, and hair is already present in dailies, skin is already implemented and being polished, and last time I checked, volumetrics were still on the roadmap. I am also pretty certain that all of these 3 last major features will be implemented in Corona fashion: fast, simple and convenient to use while flexible just enough to cover vast majority of requirements.

They also mentioned on several repeated occasions that there are no plans to limit development direction of Corona in any way, so even if some more requirements for VFX work arise in the future, there's nothing standing in the way of them being implemented into Corona.

I was unaware of this, sounds good. It's hard to imagine one company allowing two overlapping products tailored to the same markets at different price points, but it's likely due to my lack of imagination ... and me spending 5 minutes thinking about it instead of 1 year like Ondra.   

One thing I do know is that the corona team has made many many smart decisions in the past, they probably structured this deal in the smartest way to make it work. Facebook is a great example of a company that figured out a great way to acquire teams in a smart way, with WhatsApp, instagram and oculus... The foundry is another good example. I bet the same minds that created the best render engine in the world, came up with a good structure.

156

The implication was made on the blog that users of corona and vray aren't the same, so the render engines are flexible(vray) and simple to use(corona)

Does this mean, that in the future a request of a feature (existing in vray) might come from corona users, and corona devs would simply say: well, there's vray for that..? Since, you might not want to compete...?

This is the big question! I would love to know what is the adjusted vision for both products, as there is no way they will stay in the same track as before (competing with one another).

What makes sense for me is that Vray would focus more and more in the VFX and production industry, people who spend all of their time rendering and would like a lot more control and flexibility, archviz users spend very little time rendering compared to VFX and they holdback the engine, Vray has to tailor to 2 audiences with very different expertise levels.  This market is also used to paying way more for software, so expect vray to become more expensive as it abandons "casual" users.

Corona on the other hand does not need to adapt to attract a single VFX user. They will probably stay where they are at and probably become simpler.  I imagine corona becoming a "virtual DSLR" focused 100% on capturing reality instead of faking it in any way.

Since corona is not even feature complete for archviz (hair, voumetrics, caustics, skin...)  the plans in the short and mid term will probably stay the same. 

But once corona feels complete for 80% of current users, it will probably start diverging more and more from vray.

For most corona users like mayself that are escaping the complexities of other engines, this is great news. For the small number of users that want corona to become something that it's not already, you are probably out of luck.


The one super exciting thing about this is compatibility between the two, get the best of both worlds without compromise. Except paying for 2 licenses of course ...



157
Well, first of all CONGRATULATIONS to the corona team! I work in product development and know the huge deal something like this is, and how different is from what the rest of the world can percieve. You will get a lot of hate, no doubt, you will be called sellouts, stupid, traitors etc... Don't listen to that shit. You should be very proud!

Now, as a user, I have to confess I'm a little bit nervous, while I believe you made this deal with the best intentions and the interest of users at heart, it is very difficult to do right by that intention. I won't pretend to know what is your specific vision, and what are your secret awesome plans... I wish this is one of the few cases in which an acquisition results in better products and more innovation (human nature says it wont).

I hope you can soon share with us some of your specific future plans and end game, as the blog statements are very vague and really could mean anything, or at least are vague enough that they can change at any time. 

Future plans for both companies will 100% for sure have to change dramatically, would be interesting to know a little bit on how.

You certainly took a big chink of customers from V-ray in the archviz market and probably were planning on going after other markets as well.  As Corona is CHEAPER than Vray by a significant amount (even if it's very profitable), it absolutely doesn't make sense to allow Corona to gain any more ground now, or keep prices the same.

I agree that Corona and Vray have different DNAs, but the market forced Corona to compete with Vray and therefore increase the overlap between the two. I would love to know, now that you are under the same roof and the plan is (probably) to fully express this DNA without worrying about competing, what market do you want to tackle with full force?

Congratulations and remember to be mindful about your dreams and passion, as those vanish slowly without you noticing, don't allow that to happen to you! I've seen it too many times.



158
Work in Progress/Tests / Re: Dragon portrait
« on: 2017-08-23, 20:07:12 »
Are you using lenscare for DOF?

159
Around 3000 cinebench score at stock speeds and I've seen 3440 score while OC. It might do Corona benchmark just a bit under 1 hour if OC, quite impressive!!  I wish there was a "plain" MOBO with no gaming bs, but then again they will probably target it to workstations and the markup is even higher in that market.

160
[Max] I need help! / Re: Disable Exposure Control
« on: 2017-08-11, 01:36:39 »
Thanks, that worked.

Any idea on how that can be turned on accidentally? I'm guessing a rouge shortcut? I've been using the same workflow for months and never happened to me. 

Looking forward to Corona Camera, I really like the common sense approach to your solutions, and I'm sure I will like it.

161
[Max] I need help! / Disable Exposure Control
« on: 2017-08-10, 07:05:19 »
In my last project I create a physical camera like I always do, hit render and the image is very under exposed. However the VFB shows the exposure to be locked at -6.   I look around for a "6" somewhere and find that the "Exposure Gain>Target" setting in the Physical Camera is set to 6.

I can control the exposure with this setting, but I would prefer to control it inside the VFB, specially in early stages when I like to play around settings quickly.

I don't know how to go back to old behavior, I must've clicked something.  How can I go back to controlling exposure in VFB and not in Exposure Gain box?

Thanks.

162
[Max] I need help! / Re: GI precomp stage is very long
« on: 2017-08-03, 06:25:22 »
Definitely upgrade to 1.6   99% chance it will fix your issue.

163
Preliminary benchmark for an internal version of the 1998




Will probably improve in the final version/ OC


164
[Max] I need help! / Re: Round Edges 1.6
« on: 2017-05-02, 02:56:57 »
@lolec - IIRC there has been some request to make round edges work exactly as it does know. I think one of the requested scenarios was Windows, where the inner and outer frame was seperate elements in the same object, and the wanted round edge behavior was exactly as it is now.

But hey - that might be from some of those users you're counting as 0....

I'm not counting anyone as 0, I searched and couldn't find anyone complaining about the old behavior, that's why I said that. If there is a case to be made for this to work both ways, I think the sensible way forward would be to add a checkbox maybe?

I don't think "This is the expected behavior"  or "This is the most logical way" are good arguments, because there are so many different workflows and uses for corona, that what is expected or logical for someone doesn't make sense for someone else.

The window argument you brought to the conversation is 100% valid, as it reflects an actual benefit and not just a conceptual rightness.

It's funny how you try to make me look like an asshole for dismissing people, it's not a personal attack on anyone to give my opinion on this feature change. It's just that the way this thing used to work was very VERY useful for many people, I think that deserves to be said.

165
[Max] I need help! / Re: Round Edges 1.6
« on: 2017-05-01, 02:56:53 »
Well, as you can see, the difference is there. It works as intended. As i said before, if someone doesn't like current behaviour, they should open new feature request and not a bug report.

If something worked one way, and no one complained. Then it was changed and people complained, and 0 people are happier with the newer way, wouldn't that make it a bug?

I understand that this doesn't affect your or Rawalanche's workflow, but it clearly breaks many peoples'.

I used overlapping faces as an extreme scenario to demonstrate that the system doesn't make sense, you can't argue that it is correct for corona to add round corners in the middle of an object, regardless of  that not being a "correct" workflow in your mind. The real case scenario is 2 objects touching, 0 gap, 0 overlap.  What we are arguing is that it would be better for Corona to treat THAT case as if both objects are one, the way it used to handle it, and EVERYONE was happy with.




Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12