HDRI's are now standard in every rendering application I see .. including Lightworks in SolidWorks, as is global illumination

So why dont we use them in LightWorks for Concepts ?

LightWorks supplies it

Isn't it a case of just enabling / implementing them ?

It's really a problem when you're trying to compete with other designers whose visualisation systems have features implemented literally years before

I'd like to remind all those who use Concepts that we've only had the ability to reflect environments at all since CU3 .. now we really really need to step up to HDRIs and global illumination !!

Hoping for good things from V5 !?

If you need GI rendering, animation capability etc. you can get it now.
I recommend EIAS. It's a blazing fast renderer, and it produces great quality images.

Very simple GI setup compared to lightworks (as implemented in formZ) and I think the GI is better quality.

True HDRI support is slated for v7 due to be released soon.

Concepts supports EIAS through the FACT model export option.

http://www.eitechnologygroup.com/

got any examples of a Radiance render?

Mike...

hmmmmm... I wonder if mine does HDRI? :confused:

Mike...

Batch Render could be an easy feature for Tim ..

Just step through a bunch of 'saved views'

The rendering could happen when you're asleep

My point was that ..

.. batch render would need precious little work to implement

It's effectively a queue of renderings, just like an animation

A renderfarm would presumably take quite some resources to implement

I am all for a realistic HDRI+ GI renderer being integrated into CU 5. If this is going to be done, it has to be easy to set-up & easy to preview, and run in the background. Also, give me a way to easily modify it. (I hear the peanut gallery already).

I already use a complicated rendering program, and it is one of the easiest I have used (Cinema 4D). I really need a rendering solution that is not another program onto itself. Being integrated is nice, or even appear to be integrated is fine.

Just my two cents, plus interest.

I just tried out Hypershot from www.bunkspeed.com on my MacBook Pro. They have an os x demo version. It is seemingly quite good at this point, but is very processor intensive. It makes the computer fans very loud. At the moment it seems that not all CAD type file are easily imported, as I tried several types. The interface is very simple. Hypershot really does give control back to the creative types, as there is very little technical knowledge or experience needed. I do wish I had a quad-core with 4 GB Ram to run this program though. Hypershot might be able to work with CU versions via a plug-in interface.

In my (admittedly very limited) testing of Maxwell, it is just too slow for me to use on a daily basis. Renderings take hours, not minutes. (although the results are stunning).

I am using EIAS for animation and Global Illumination rendering.
Most GI still renderings of mine render in less than 15 minutes. Some even faster.
Full HDRI support is available in v7 which should be released in mid-november.

for info:
http://www.eitechnologygroup.com/

I gave this issue about product rendering capabilities in CU some more thought.
I think the basic internal renderer is good, the interface is a bit different from what I am accustomed to as it is a wee cryptic, not so visual and drag and drop oriented. But, I think it is more important that there be strong file type sharing options (ie OBJ), or a renderer plugin for making renderings outside of CU (soon to be SharkFX). I say this because I really don't think paying for rendering technologies/capabilities more than once is practical for many CAD users here, especially because those rendering programs are good at what they were designed to do, just as CU is good for ID. Of course, we all want to make our virtual work look as real as possible. So do I, however do we really need this from a CAD program? I know that jumping through file exports and imports is a time waster. There has got to be a better way, but at what cost? Are we all wanting HDRI and GI at the cost of having buggy software? Wouldn't we all rather have all those feature issues on Jol's list resolved? I would sacrifice HDRI (that is already being done well outside of CU) for a much more stable and bug free and feature rich ID CAD program. That is what I bought CU for. I have a great rendering program already that does animation too, but CAD it does not. So, I think that until there is a major reason for investing in photo-realism, that we should hold-off and get those other things taken care of in the mean time.