Rendering Workflow / Quality

These are key points, IMO.

In a professional designer’s workflow, most of the ‘rendering’ is quick-and-dirty. (But don’t read crappy, those days are long gone.)

He/she wants to quickly assess progress at all times, photorealistically, but without render geek bog and time suck. No backdrop drawing, no lights to fiddle with, etc., etc. Keyshot excels at this elemental task which represents most project elapsed rendering time with one exception - the Rhino/KS hoop jump. Would be a boon if Cycles had a mode to do something similar as quickly and simplistically inside of Rhino. (And if it does, Bravo, have not explored.)

Final renders for presentations and marketing - that is another story - time to fiddle towards perfection. Different animal. Different process, whether it’s the same render app or another.

1 Like

This is what we have tried to achieve. The Raytraced view mode is there to do quick’n’dirty look-dev, and we try to minimize the amount of buttons to press to get great results. I am sure we can improve, as there will always be room for that.


p.s. moved this to new topic to keep distributed rendering topic on that topic :slight_smile:

Oops, sounds good, thanks!

I need help on that one :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:
Perhaps there’s too much none-default stuff in my custom templates but I find that a regular -modified- shaded view gets better results than quickly trying to assign some materials and hoping to get that great result™.

Maybe you could share some of those display modes, so I can see what is going on? Or maybe just do a screencast of a typical material assigning session and share it with me?

I’d love to see more of that. I do a lot of testing personally, but that is only my workflow (and I am probably biased, since I know… Things). So if other users find the time to do some screencast of how they use Rhino, materials and rendering and share it with us that’d be great. Some voiceover explaining what and why would be useful too, since my telepathic abilities haven’t improved since I started teaching Dutch to Finns in 1998 when I tried to learn myself that skill.

So… if I were to think in Dutch again instead of Norwegian, our communication would greatly improve?

It’s not so much about the workflow. It’s the result. Dropping metal materials on metal parts - in my opinion - doesn’t make a better picture (in that factory-default Raytraced mode) than a simple shaded view. So that’s where the fiddling with lights, HDRI backdrops, etc comes in that I assumed @ec2638 hinted at.

That goes without saying. Telepathy is still lacking though :confused:

I guess this is also a taste and preference thing. Just assigning any of the basic materials Rhino 6 comes with indeed shouldn’t need much tweaking and as such can be done in any mode. It is more when you have to start tweaking them basic materials when default Raytraced might be useful (but I can be wrong of course). And sure, lighting is probably more look-dev-y than just dragging and dropping simple materials.

If just dropping those materials on the objects, then switching to Raytraced gives you what you need - well… then we achieved what we set out to do (:

1 Like

So can I conclude that of the 2 pictures I posted, you think that the Raytraced one is the one that conveys the object in the best way?

I think both pictures like great. The Raytraced conveys better it is an actual metal object, but other than that…

1 Like

I feel changing HDRI file is good for the metals.
The default HDRI reflection make the metal look a bit illustratorish. Though changing the angle of the HDRI might help.

I don’t seem to need to tune lighting anymore as before.
Though maybe just need to adjust the intensity setting in the HDRI for your liking.

Also I usually want the reflection but not the background to be from HDRI so set the
Gradient and not use 360deg Environment.
And select the custom environment for reflection as the HDRI file.

It would be nice if there was one or two other studio type setup where the blurred lighting is from several directions, but without any realistic furniture and such.

Something strange with the reflection, copper color is not shown below the highlight… I wonder why…

1 Like

@wim Your assumption is correct, plus smoothness and efficacy of interactivity.

@nathanletwory Do you have Keyshot installed? Not trying to be obnoxiously opprobrious, rather, if a picture is worth a thousand words, a video tens of thousands, then hands on is, perhaps, priceless.

If the answer is no: I sincerely think toying with Keyshot will be more effective than any video posted. If the answer is yes: have you noticed how quickly one gets something looking way better than what @wim conjured? (Sorry wim, trying to help.)

More importantly, notice the fluidity and rapidness of interaction while manipulating and studying views in real time? It is this aspect that, if you can simply mimic in a mode, will be recognized, applauded, and will add serious value to Rhino, IMO.

Others on the forum have repeatedly pointed to this particularly welcome KS aspect as well. If memory servers, @gustojunk took you to task over his first impression of relative interactivity of an earlier WIP. I know you worked on that and improved, yet such is still wanting, in comparison, last I looked, which was about a month or two ago. Sorry, I’m putting very limited time into 6 until Mac 6 WIP is out, so if I’m off or behind, I apologize.

Look, I don’t know what is technically possible with present resources. I think the effort so far is really great and welcome. I know it will only improve too with time. Just trying to keep the bar high.

To be clear, the aforementioned is related to the rapid viz aspect of the raytraced view, not perfect presentation renderings. Rather not hear about gemstones and Maxwell, please, different aspect. (But those Maxwell diamonds someone posted in another thread were really really good!)

Not at all! You are supporting my feelings on this one. I don’t think that the raytraced picture I posted is nice in any way and would never use that for discussions with colleagues or customers. The simple shaded image is - IMO - much better. But I appreciate Nathan’s answer - at least I know there’s nothing in my templates from RH5 or early WIPs that is getting in the way of getting results that should be expected.

Also, I’ll still be using the Raytraced display mode often - but then more like this:

I don’t do much rendering but when I need a realistic one, I’ll just throw it into Maxwell (yes, different aspect)…

I have to agree. The raytraced version is … well, not so good.

Me too…


I can fully appreciate that Raytraced doesn’t meet requirements, but.

How is it not good? I mean, as it currently stands users shouldn’t have to know a lot about how it works, just drop on any of the ‘simple’ materials and see the results in the Raytraced mode. If the quality isn’t good, what are the changes you’d need to see? Note that I am not talking about performance…

I must be dense, since I don’t see how it isn’t nice - other than that I personally don’t like the default environment Rhino Studio much. What is it what you’re looking for in the Raytraced picture that makes it unfit?


P.S. I changed the topic title a bit to include the quality aspect (:

Actually, the two times I played with it in Windows, it sucked at first glance.

Then I did tweak it up (edit/change hdri, lights, materials) and got reasonably good looking photorealistic results with the type of objects I work with - plastics, metals, coatings. Happy!

What annoyed me most was what I perceived as unusable interactivity. That was latter improved to become simply odd and unpleasant interactivity. (Progress :clap:) I should add that I do not enjoy the “rendered” implementation in Fusion 360 either, and I believe Cycles driven Raytraced is going to be superior in time.

Anyway, now that @nathanletwory has a Mac, can’t be too long before we get Cycles in the Mac WIP, and I should refrain from much further comment until I delve deeper.

@Wim agree that the Arctic mode is cool looking and has its purpose. One oddness - the placement of tubular elements perpendicular to the ground plane produced funky bizarre massive shadows.

1 Like

Thanks, yes the interactivity keeps also being a PITA, and it’ll be probably eternally on my todo-list to improve.

So materials and HDRi’s with their defaults aren’t good for you. What changes did you make?

So, one essence of product development is benchmarking against the competition, regardless of whether the goal is to approximate at a lower price point, equal, or surpass a competitor.

This is why I (we, assuming others whom have mentioned same, think same) keep coming back to Keyshot. It is the present benchmark for interactivity, IMO. We realize there are likely reasons why you’d rather not acknowledge studying it, (as you may or may not have) and that is fine. However, simply benchmark its interactivity as one path forward.

Focus on default hdri, lighting, ground plane, in least common denominator, one size fits all sense.

Again, sorry to be a broken record: evaluate the KS default startup environment and other default aspects. It’s vanilla, yet typically produces good basic result from the get go, from which advanced users will quickly deviate from, or jump into their own predefined ‘studio’ setups.

A good standard studio would be nice. Current default’s reflection is a bit simple and high contrast between the dark and light area of the HDRI seems to make the render a bit artificial.
Personally I seem to select HDRI that looks good even when surface is simple(like a rod or a box)

Hi Nathan!

Sorry for the short comments (really busy at work) - that didn’t really help, I guess… I just meant that the raytraced picture Wim posted didn’t look realistic - at all (sorry!). I don’t expect Maxwell quality in a display mode, but something a bit more realistic. It has at lot to do with the quality of the HDRI - and the default settings - as ec2638 pointed out.

However… I’m quite exited about the Cycles integration and will be doing a lot more testing when we get V6 on the Mac. I just don’t have enough time here at work for testing on the Windows box…


1 Like

This is something for @BrianJ and @andy to look at and think about, too, so mentioning them for their information.

@ec2638 just to make sure we’re using the same terminology: when I say interactivity I mean the viewport response to changes. Did you mean the same? Or did you rather mean the easy of making changes, that is the amount of clicks needed, the location of the different parts and bits to navigate to?