Has anybody gone back to basic Flammingo nXt after using nXt5. I am strongly considering it, I find the materials and texture handling very cumbersome. I have persevered for three months and just cant get to like it.
Any thoughts?
Cheers,
Brian.
I used Flamingo for the first time in quite a while, and I find the latest version to be pretty cumbersome as well. The results are nowhere near as nice as in V5. The beauty of Flamingo was that anybody could get pretty decent results even if your knowledge of rendering was limited (like mine). I’m interested in going back as well, but I don’t know if the old version will run in V6.
Anyone succeed at running the old version in V6?
Edited to add the following:
Compare the results in the latest version to the results from a few years ago. Same level of rendering ignorance on my part for both, so it’s apples to apples.
Dan
We can take a look at the differences between the two. It is best to have a test model to work with. The Rhino 5 rendering looks great. Nice work.
I know one things that does not work perfect is to render a Rhino 5 model in Rhino 6 using the new Flamingo and expect it to match. There are some advantages to the new tools, it just takes some work sometimes to update the models materials and environment. Decals are also obviously new.
Remember you can have Rhino 5 and 6 on the same machine and have the old and new Flamingo also on the same installs. So, all can be installed at the same time.
Normally it is the materials that are being used. They should be Flamingo Materials and not Rhino materials. Although Flamingo can read Rhino materials, you will have much more control over the Flamingo style materials.
The bitmap mapping mow looks to Rhino 6 to do that work. It is a bit different then before.
There is also some new rendering tech in Rhino 6 that is worth looking at. It also helps understand how the Rhino 6 rendering interface wrks: https://wiki.mcneel.com/rhino/6/rendering/realtime
Thanks Scott. I will review those videos again. It would be great to be able to get the results I need right in Rhino 6.
Just a quick question. The first thing I noticed in Kyle’s video is that his rendered mode looks just like the arctic mode, but mine doesn’t. I’ve restored the rendered mode to the default status, but it still doesn’t look like his. I’d like to make sure I’m starting off on the right foot, so how do I match his rendered mode?
Thanks,
Dan
Dan, you are correct that the default view you show there is not what we would expect. Do you have lights turned on? Or do you have the sky turned off? Many older Render settings can effect how the Rendered mode works. But in this case you are looking to set to complete default.
In this case I expect that the Environment in the Environment panel on the right is set to Flamingo Background. You may want to set it the the Rhino environment Studio.
If that does nto work, I might start a new model, check the render mode looks good, then copy and paste the geometry you have into a the new model.
There can be conflicts with the video card that also limit the rendered mode effects, we can always look at that by running Systeminfo in Rhino 6.
Lots of good suggestions. I was using a template that I had brought forward from V5, and it did not have the skylight on, and was using the Flamingo environment. I turn the skylight on, changed the environment to Rhino environment studio as you suggested and the results are closer to your image. Not quite as sharp, but close. It seems that my shadows are grainy compared to yours.
Overall though, much better. I’ve monkeyed around with some of the Flamingo settings (before making the above changes) and I am getting better results. The decal on the base is horrible (notice the ellipses), but I’ll play with that and see if I can make it look better.
Thanks,
Dan
Realtime shadow graininess can be adjusted. Although I am not sure how important that is.
There are so many changes happening in Rhino related to rendering. In additional there are many technology changes surrounding rendering technology. With so many new immature and competing technologies, it is difficult to see a straight line to the future.