[Software] Bluerender, a rendering engine for LDD

[___]

BlueRender's "no spherical light ball representation" - hope you will like it (here it is in combination with one of my previous achievements - the one from yesterday: "transparent object shadow")

But unfortunately as you can see it does not quite work in expected way: actual center of the light source is not oversatured as we would think (like when you are looking at a light bulb in switch on state ), it is rather "empty" so we have no option how to oversaturate the glass brick surrounding it: that brick only giving it its color and somewhat partially shape but the brick itself is almost untouched from the light point of view...I guess we have to make new type of light for this specific purpose.

Anyway this new enhancement is especially useful when you have light setup that is reflected on some bricks resulting in visible white ball on those reflections: this way it is not a problem anymore!

Edited September 9, 2015 by bublible

[msx80]

Ok, here's the long awaited version 0005.

Let me know if you find any obvious problem before i update the page :)

Changes are:

• Black is not real black #93
  
• Glass is now lighter #82
  
• Implemented bublible chrome materials #73
  
• Corrected NPE with invalid color codes (default to white) #86
  
• Implemented aliases parsing and caching #81, #68
  
• 360° rotation renders #71
  
• can now place light with transform{} blocks #72
  
• overwrite and other options are now persisted #64
  
• basic parameters are now in the app #65
  
• changed default background to white
  

[___]

Ok, here's the long awaited version 0005.

Let me know if you find any obvious problem before i update the page :)

Changes are:

• Black is not real black #93
  
• Glass is now lighter #82
  
• Implemented bublible chrome materials #73
  
• Corrected NPE with invalid color codes (default to white) #86
  
• Implemented aliases parsing and caching #81, #68
  
• 360° rotation renders #71
  
• can now place light with transform{} blocks #72
  
• overwrite and other options are now persisted #64
  
• basic parameters are now in the app #65
  
• changed default background to white
  

GREAT!!!

Gonna test it right away... :thumbup:

Ehm, and BTW and I am also happy because of finally implementing many of my achievements to the official release :

• Black is not real black #93 [bublible]
  
• Glass is now lighter #82 [bublible]
  
• Implemented bublible chrome materials #73 [bublible]
  
• Corrected NPE with invalid color codes (default to white) #86
  
• Implemented aliases parsing and caching #81, #68
  
• 360° rotation renders #71
  
• can now place light with transform{} blocks #72 [bublible]
  
• overwrite and other options are now persisted #64 [bublible]
  
• basic parameters are now in the app #65
  
• changed default background to white
  

Edited September 10, 2015 by bublible

[msx80]

• overwrite and other options are now persisted #64 [bublible]
  

How is this your work ? :P

[___]

PROBLEM:

* "Resolution" under Parameters TAB should update accordingly to values from .sc files - at the moment they are not (it still remain at 1024x768)

* when "Rotation" is enabled rendering window closes itself upon finishing the render, compared to "one render" mode/previous version it stay opened

@msx80

BTW I just noticed/realised that my latest BR achievement of "transparent object shadows" actually SOLVED COMPLETELY NOW our previous "too dark glasses" problem which is now much better than original still when it comes to objects further inside from the glass or being right after glass (like minifig head behind trans visor) those are still almost completelly unvisible...well, not anymore, see:

original newest BR v0.005

bublible's MOD:

BUT unfortunately as you can see there is "small" side effect that creates too hard glass shadow spots even if there should not be any...so that needs to be solved, anyway @msx80's guess was right when he thought the problem could be by glasses giving black shadows...so my code solved exactly that but now this new side effect needs to be solved, except that it does what it should (I guess there is no attenuation of glass shadows maybe?). Also I am now considering bringing back original SF glass behavior but enhanced by my "trans object shadow" code, maybe that could get rid of those not attenuated hard shadow spots produced by glasses...we'll see.

How is this your work ? :P

#91 https://bitbucket.or...-button-s-state

Maybe we coincidentally done the same without knowing about each other's effort...seems like that, therefor I thought you implemented my stuff.

Edited September 10, 2015 by bublible

[___]

Also I am now considering bringing back original SF glass behavior but enhanced by my "trans object shadow" code, maybe that could get rid of those not attenuated hard shadow spots produced by glasses...we'll see.

TESTED...no improvement whatsoever , gonna try some attenuation stuff (fingers crossed ).

EDIT:

gonna try some attenuation stuff (fingers crossed ).

YES - success!

Now it's basically only about personal taste how much of the darkness we set as a default for the glasses, right now I ended up with "glassColor" vs. "blackColor" = 0.85f, but I have to check what it'll make with those shadow colors being casted creating nice effect on other objects (my initial value was "glassColor" ONLY, which produced that unwanted side effect described in my previous message), this is the final result:

Edited September 10, 2015 by bublible

[raminator]

Nice Progress!

I like this =)

[___]

Nice Progress!

I like this =)

Thanx!

[raminator]

First test.

First tests with Bluerender. by bricks @ raminator, on Flickr

I am pretty impressed so far.

[Garry_rocks]

I was waiting for this! Very nice option indeed!

It's a bit disappointing that in fact it is just a multiple render and that there are no simplifications to somehow speed up the process. It is still pretty quick for small image resolutions, so it's not a big deal.

[raminator]

Is there a way to add a Texture to the baseplane?

[___]

I was waiting for this! Very nice option indeed!

It's a bit disappointing that in fact it is just a multiple render and that there are no simplifications to somehow speed up the process. It is still pretty quick for small image resolutions, so it's not a big deal.

Ehm, I know you did not mean it bad BUT excuse me: can you point me to some other LEGO renderer that is able to do this in such a short time (a few minutes) and the same quality? To my knowledge BR is the quickest one, and I mean MUCH MORE QUICKER than any other available competitor (if we are talking about free or "not-those-professional-highend-ones"), so please be a bit more realistic as speed of this sw is really good, I can say without any doubt the best.

Or let me put it in another way: you simply cannot have Ferrari and still expecting having it for the price of Trabant. There is simply some "unbreakable" limit to the amount of work that needs to be done vs. time needed for such operation(s).

Is there a way to add a Texture to the baseplane?

Yes and no, it depends on type of baseplane you use: if it does have UV mapping then yes...

Edited September 10, 2015 by bublible

[raminator]

Yes and no, it depends on type of baseplane you use: if it does have UV mapping then yes...

ah Ok. =)

Did some more testing and the metallic Materials are way too noisy with samples set to 1.

With samples 10 you get nicer results, but I think you already knew that ;)

[___]

ah Ok. =)

Did some more testing and the metallic Materials are way too noisy with samples set to 1.

With samples 10 you get nicer results, but I think you already knew that ;)

Yes I know that and it has its reason why I set it like that: metallic material has to have some grainess to it so the reflections are not that clear as with shiny or mirror and it is much more metal resembling than with higher values + with different setups and lightings this value (samples 1) proved to be the best one for most cases (for example it looks different when you have some simple smaller model taken from closeup compared to some bigger one that needs to be taken from far away: without that grainess it does not look that good cos it does not look too metallic), but of course if you need it or if it suits your needs then you can use whatever value you wish.

Edited September 10, 2015 by bublible

[Garry_rocks]

Ehm, I know you did not mean it bad BUT excuse me: can you point me to some other LEGO renderer that is able to do this in such a short time (a few minutes) and the same quality? To my knowledge BR is the quickest one, and I mean MUCH MORE QUICKER than any other available competitor (if we are talking about free or "not-those-professional-highend-ones"), so please be a bit more realistic as speed of this sw is really good, I can say without any doubt the best.

Or let me put it in another way: you simply cannot have Ferrari and still expecting having it for the price of Trabant. There is simply some "unbreakable" limit to the amount of work that needs to be done vs. time needed for such operation(s).

Well, you're not right at all. POV-Ray allows renders just as fast as Bluerender when it gets to high-resolution images. "No radiosity" (or OutdoorLQ) + "only LDD geometry" gives you approximately the same speed in POV-Ray. Yes, currently there is no such option in LDD2POV-Ray, but it's not something that cannot be done. Also I saw some of my models rendered with Blender. They look far more realistic than anything from POV-Ray or Bluerender and (from what I heard) they are really fast.

Once again, I really like Bluerender and I like what it can do. But only as a supplement to my POV-Ray renders with "lower-than-usual" settings, not as a stand-alone program. I don't think I'll ever use an image solely from Bluerender as a main representation of my model, at least not with its current capabilities.

[___]

Well, you're not right at all. POV-Ray allows renders just as fast as Bluerender when it gets to high-resolution images. "No radiosity" (or OutdoorLQ) + "only LDD geometry" gives you approximately the same speed in POV-Ray. Yes, currently there is no such option in LDD2POV-Ray, but it's not something that cannot be done. Also I saw some of my models rendered with Blender. They look far more realistic than anything from POV-Ray or Bluerender and (from what I heard) they are really fast.

Once again, I really like Bluerender and I like what it can do. But only as a supplement to my POV-Ray renders with "lower-than-usual" settings, not as a stand-alone program. I don't think I'll ever use an image solely from Bluerender as a main representation of my model, at least not with its current capabilities.

Well, I do not agree

I was rather experienced POVRay user (ehm, ehm, OK maybe not that experienced after all ) and also was using Blender some time ago and I can tell from first hand this:

* POVRay: on lower quality than Q9 it is not even close to quality of BR, glasses look terrible and yet it take longer + if you render at such low quality under POVRay you cannot use everything you can use under BR as there are clear restriction which quality settings are doing what (on some of lower settings you even don't get transparency or shadows depth etc. and those rendering times...c'mon )

* Blender: actually I like Cycles renderer BUT to make quality render comparable to BR it took tens of minutes at best + its notorious side effect of "fireflies" all over the image if your lighting setup is not extremely well done, ah...but yea, I like its output tho BR looks somewhat more real, Blender and POVRay final output looks surreal, that is even more real than real = not that real at least to me

But hey, no problem: anyone can think anything + ppl can have different results (time vs. quality) with the same sw/renderers used so I guess it is personal taste in the end that decides after all.

BTW if you will can you post here some of your comparable render(s) with rendering time(s) side-by-side with the same result from BR? Just being curious as my personal experience with those two sw you mentioned are not such as you described them, so I am very keen to learn/understand something new that could push me further to Nirvana (...and Curt Cobain in particular ).

Edited September 10, 2015 by bublible

[Garry_rocks]

Well, I do not agree

I was rather experienced POVRay user (ehm, ehm, OK maybe not that experienced after all ) and also was using Blender some time ago and I can tell from first hand this:

* POVRay: on lower quality than Q9 it is not even close to quality of BR, glasses look terrible and yet it take longer + if you render at such low quality under POVRay you cannot use everything you can use under BR as there are clear restriction which quality settings are doing what (on some of lower settings you even don't get transparency or shadows depth etc. and those rendering times...c'mon )

* Blender: actually I like Cycles renderer BUT to make quality render comparable to BR it took tens of minutes at best + its notorious side effect of "fireflies" all over the image if your lighting setup is not extremely well done, ah...but yea, I like its output tho BR looks somewhat more real, Blender and POVRay final output looks surreal, that is even more real than real = not that real at least to me

But hey, no problem: anyone can think anything + ppl can have different results (time vs. quality) with the same sw/renderers used so I guess it is personal taste in the end that decides after all.

BTW if you will can you post here some of your comparable render(s) with rendering time(s) side-by-side with the same result from BR? Just being curious as my personal experience with those two sw you mentioned are not such as you described them, so I am very keen to learn/understand something new that could push me further to Nirvana (...and Curt Cobain in particular ).

Here are some examples. They are not really comparable since they were made different on purpose to get a "middle" ending result, but whatever. Mind that these images are 3840x2048. This model has over 7000 pieces.

POV-Ray, visible bevels + OutdoorLQ radiosity and HDR lighting = 13 hours.

Bluerender = a little less than 4 hours.

POV-Ray, only LDD geometry + OutdoorLQ + HDR lighting = 26 minutes. No jokes.

You keep saying that Bluerender is way too different, it's not. The settings are, and it'll take forever to find the same settings in POV-Ray. But it's not impossible. Bluerender slows down very much with the increased image resolution while POV-Ray mostly cares about radiosity settings and model complexity. Also try POV-Ray with no AA - it'll be even faster.

[___]

Here are some examples. They are not really comparable since they were made different on purpose to get a "middle" ending result, but whatever. Mind that these images are 3840x2048. This model has over 7000 pieces.

POV-Ray, visible bevels + OutdoorLQ radiosity and HDR lighting = 13 hours.

Bluerender = a little less than 4 hours.

POV-Ray, only LDD geometry + OutdoorLQ + HDR lighting = 26 minutes. No jokes.

You keep saying that Bluerender is way too different, it's not. The settings are, and it'll take forever to find the same settings in POV-Ray. But it's not impossible. Bluerender slows down very much with the increased image resolution while POV-Ray mostly cares about radiosity settings and model complexity. Also try POV-Ray with no AA - it'll be even faster.

First of all: that BR render does not look good simply because its lighting setup is terrible - good lighting is half of success (whoever it made), secondly: please, put there some transparent parts then we can really talk - you simply avoided one of the main obstacles for POVRay and I can guarantee to you that if you add them POVRay will lose like that.

+ where I am keep saying that "Bluerender is way too different"?

Anyway to avoid any misunderstanding: let's close this nowhere leading discussion and rather be happy with what we have.

Edited September 10, 2015 by bublible

[Garry_rocks]

First of all: that BR render does not look good simply because its lighting setup is terrible - good lighting is half of success (whoever it made), secondly: please, put there some transparent parts then we can really talk - you simply avoided one of the main obstacles for POVRay and I can guarantee to you that if you add them POVRay will lose like that.

+ where I am keep saying that "Bluerender is way too different"?

Anyway to avoid any misunderstanding: let's close this nowhere leading discussion and rather be happy with what we have.

If BR=Bluerender and you say it looks terrible... Those are default settings that we all love about Bluerender. And read closely, they are meant to look different. Why else would I do several renders. I made them different to combine all three into a single image.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/garry_rocks/21228886621/

You say that Bluerender works faster than we could ever get POV-Ray to work. I know that's not true, why should I go past this quietly?

Big transparent objects are rare guests in my creations, also they still look much worse with standard Blurender settings, so I'd rather have them rendered in POV-Ray.

And yeah, you're right, this is rather pointless.

[Darats]

Also, don't forget that the way parts are made also change a lot of thing.

Usually, parts made of triangle meshes renders much faster than CGI based ones especially with transparent parts.

LDD2PovRay bevels feature is really really slowing everything. LGEO library in ldraw, whcih has also bevels render much faster.

You can't compare anything as long as you don't use the same input geometry.

And even with identical geometry, speed is more a matter of settings than anything else.

Edited September 10, 2015 by Darats

[Umbra-Manis]

Animation function test.

[msx80]

I was waiting for this! Very nice option indeed!

It's a bit disappointing that in fact it is just a multiple render and that there are no simplifications to somehow speed up the process. It is still pretty quick for small image resolutions, so it's not a big deal.

Looks awesome! Great model too!

Actually there are simplifications, for example it parses the LXF file only once, and load all bricks geometry only once. But those things are fast so you don't get a lot of speed up, all the time is taken by the actual renderer.

Animation function test.

It's a pity it's not centered, you should try to center your model next time (I know autocentering would be cool :P). It's also spinning a little too fast :) Nice Mantis baddie btw!

[Hobbythom]

This might be a very stupid question but: 'How do I change the angle of my model?

I tried searching the wiki to no avail and am completely new to rendering so any help would be appreciated.

[msx80]

the angle is the one defined inside LDD. Just reopen the LXF, orient it and resave :)

[___]

This might be a very stupid question but: 'How do I change the angle of my model?

I tried searching the wiki to no avail and am completely new to rendering so any help would be appreciated.

You change it in LDD: render visual is how you saved you model in LDD

the angle is the one defined inside LDD. Just reopen the LXF, orient it and resave :)

Did you already noticed my new issue solving finally our glass "problem"? I am asking here cos I see you there but seems like you did not noticed when there is no reply from you.