I hope I’m not crossing any lines here, or stirring up the pot. I’m just curious about Neon capabilities and have some questions / comments.
I’m in the trade show business. Time is a luxury a designer never has. Many, many times, a project is about how fast you can get it done, rather than how creative or how well you can do something. Rendering high-quality images that Brazil, Vray, AIR, even Flamingo NXT, can knock out, sometimes can take way too long than my industry allows.
And then I found Neon. For what I do, and the time it takes to render 256 passes, is excellent. The simplicity of using Rhino materials and using the viewport to visualize the output is amazing. No USB stick to worry about, fully integrated into Rhino (rhino renderer, etc.).
Using HDRI environment maps for lighting and background to easily to achieve reflections, etc. is absolutely incredible. Bottom line, the quality and time balance is great for what I do. Neon with the Rhino Renderer makes doing some of the more complex settings, surprisingly easy.
My point being is, Neon for me, is filling a gap of a very much needed rendering capability. Super simple to use and fast with some qualities of a high-end program. Maybe with a few extra capabilities, Neon could really hit the mark for some folks. So why not make it a full-blown renderer?
Now, because of the -ViewCaptureToFile, I cannot save an image past the size of the viewport.
For example, rendering a 750px x 500px image works perfectly. Rendering 1650 x 1275px extends past my screen size. My work around was to set my view at 750 x 500, then resize the viewport and then render. It would be easier if I could maintain my aspect ration and still hit the targeted output.
Anyway - I really think Neon could fill some gaps.