Oh lawd.. I paid and downloaded several months ago but haven't even tried it yet 
Problem?
Problem?
Very nice setup - but, uhm.. isn't there a tire missing?
Trolo
Very nice closeups - and I love the lighting on the last one
Funny how defensive you are about your own renders but so quick to critique someone elses renders.
And arrogant.
And I don't even use 3D Crap Max
Welcome to the other side
VRay may be as good as people say, but it can be timeconsuming to get contact shadows in place - especially good ones to work well with animations.
1. Do sloppy GI work
2. Add AO
3. ???
4. Profit!
Very nice!
Nah. That's why I suggested you should apply to the ground only - it should be possibly to apply/blend AO on top of whatever material you have.
You could do that for all of your materials, but that's just trivial when you have many materials - much easier to do a clean AO render in such cases.
Or possibly a tonemapper with whitebalance adjustment. Kinda looks like it to me (vignette)? Doesn't look bad in this case, but you'd generally want The AO to be without colors or anything else affecting the render.
Thanks
And again, too interpolated GI. Add some ambient occlusion (preferably only on the ground). That's an easy and widely used method to fix it.
Another one for FlameCZE.
This one literally started out as a WIP/Test. I found a background and wanted to do quick test to see how well it would work. So I loaded up my default scene, removed all cars except the XFR and matched the angle and did a preview render.
I then worked with the background in Photoshop. Removed a quadbike and bits of another one and made a forground mask. All in all 5 mins for 3D and 5 mins for Photoshop - and then I started to mix them together. It worked better than expected and before I realized it, I pretty much had something I could actually upload - I did go back to do a full res render though.
The render could have been improved upon - but not bad for a quick setup. My default lightsource and its intensity wasn't even touched at all. Not because it was ok, but I didn't care about it for the test - and it did turn out to be ok anyways. A bit ironic though, because I wanted to record a vid for the real thing. But the real thing never happened
I might make a video of the different steps during the making of it.
This one literally started out as a WIP/Test. I found a background and wanted to do quick test to see how well it would work. So I loaded up my default scene, removed all cars except the XFR and matched the angle and did a preview render.
I then worked with the background in Photoshop. Removed a quadbike and bits of another one and made a forground mask. All in all 5 mins for 3D and 5 mins for Photoshop - and then I started to mix them together. It worked better than expected and before I realized it, I pretty much had something I could actually upload - I did go back to do a full res render though.
The render could have been improved upon - but not bad for a quick setup. My default lightsource and its intensity wasn't even touched at all. Not because it was ok, but I didn't care about it for the test - and it did turn out to be ok anyways. A bit ironic though, because I wanted to record a vid for the real thing. But the real thing never happened
I might make a video of the different steps during the making of it.
Oh, I just recalled. You render with mental ray, right? What FG settings are you using?
Oh well, you should have been more clear in the beginning then :P Not bad and looks like something has improved on the Blender side.
Bose321: Top nice shading going on there and very nice setup as well. I love it
You do need to pay more attention to GI interpolation though. The splotches are dragging your renders down - you might even try some smart blur on the floor/back wall portion only to get it smoother.
Last edited by r4ptor, .
Reason : typooo
Thanks for the comments.
Kiste, I haven't forgotten about you. I have few more to do for FlameCZE, and then you're next in line.
Kiste, I haven't forgotten about you. I have few more to do for FlameCZE, and then you're next in line.
Finally got around to look at a 2 month old request - jeeez, time flies fast 
Also did a screen cap recording while working on them: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFvpdJMExZY
Also did a screen cap recording while working on them: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFvpdJMExZY
Last edited by r4ptor, .
Reason : New thumbs
One thought though - Isn't that XRT kinda.. small?
Last edited by r4ptor, .
Reason : typo
I know you didn't mean it literally but exaggerated to make a point. But there's no need for it - it's a matter of minutes to improves reflections, especially when doing a quick WIPish render.
Mustangman759: I do not agree. Have a look at my site (signature). I have 495 renders online of which 359 were requested. That's a bunch. Just click on the "request" keyword and you'll see all of them.
If it was common for me to request renders then perhaps I'd deserve a kick in the nuts, but I don't. I offer them for free myself, so I think I'm in perfectly fine position to not only critique, but also to know what I'm talking about - and a render like that doesn't need any degree of "pro-ism" to it, to be better, nor would it need 10h work on it. It's about basic knowledge and Leo does not seem to be acknowledging that but instead places the blame elsewhere even though he's been doing plenty of renders before.
Trouble is Leo expects the software and models to do the job and not him. My point was "it's your job to present the render in a workable way" and this is true everywhere. Lowres, highres, photography (can't get more detailed or real than that - still, not everyone can take good pictures. I wonder why?... Rhetorical question!).
It takes lets say 1/100th of a sec to take a good picture and it will take 1/100th of a sec to take a bad one. Whats the difference? The stuff going on in the photographers mind. Same applies to many things in 3d. It not all about enabling features, effects and whatnot. All good renders depend on the person working on them and less on the software or quality of models/textures/whatever used.
I find it very provocative to say that it would require something like 10 hours - well, if it does then you aren't even qualified to speak out about quality.
If it was common for me to request renders then perhaps I'd deserve a kick in the nuts, but I don't. I offer them for free myself, so I think I'm in perfectly fine position to not only critique, but also to know what I'm talking about - and a render like that doesn't need any degree of "pro-ism" to it, to be better, nor would it need 10h work on it. It's about basic knowledge and Leo does not seem to be acknowledging that but instead places the blame elsewhere even though he's been doing plenty of renders before.
Trouble is Leo expects the software and models to do the job and not him. My point was "it's your job to present the render in a workable way" and this is true everywhere. Lowres, highres, photography (can't get more detailed or real than that - still, not everyone can take good pictures. I wonder why?... Rhetorical question!).
It takes lets say 1/100th of a sec to take a good picture and it will take 1/100th of a sec to take a bad one. Whats the difference? The stuff going on in the photographers mind. Same applies to many things in 3d. It not all about enabling features, effects and whatnot. All good renders depend on the person working on them and less on the software or quality of models/textures/whatever used.
I find it very provocative to say that it would require something like 10 hours - well, if it does then you aren't even qualified to speak out about quality.
No one needs to be a pro to be able to do good renders.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG