Flamingo nXt

easy rendering for Rhino in Windows

PC : CPU 5300 Dualcore 2,6 GHz 800MHz- RAM 4GO - VIDEO Nvidia G210

scene : Day with Sun and HDRI MtMonadnock_1.hdr background : Highland-Road_1920x1200_3562.jpg

same params in canals and image

any post traitment

7mn - Default render

7mn - Path Tracer


Views: 1716

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

30mn Default Render

30mn - Path Tracer

1h00 - default render

1h00 - Path tracer

2h00 - Default Render

2H00 - Path Tracer

4h00 - Default Render

4H00 - Path Tracer

Stop after 6H00 - Default Render

Stop after 6H00 - Path Tracer

Default render: we obtaint  a usable and presentable rendered made ​​more quickly, but he seems to have problems :
I also noticed that some things escaped him at the angle of the object as the passenger side front window or back window driver side .... Sunlight seems to cause problems because of the artifacts appear white on the image .... The reflection of the sky is good but beware of the first pass: it may suggest that you have too much reflection as they will reduce thereafter to disappear .... As against the grain of the paint n 'appears not in the picture, giving it a made ​​too smooth, "too clean "....
and shadows are too hard


Render path: If at first it seems slower, it is not necessarily the reality: in fact if the material is simple, it is certainly slower, but if the material is complex, so it's actually faster and produces a more realistic that the default rendering. but it tends to be worse on the glare as he is better on the grains. also creates dark artifacts (visible on the rearview mirror driver). In the end it produces a more realistic and less smooth than the defaultrender, but that goes more ... he better get by on the angular blend.

Finally in both cases, the varnish does not appear even if it was more the effect of reflection on the failure on the path ....
There are too many differences between the first five passes and the final result on the angles, reflections, grain .... which can be misleading and believe that we must adjust the material. The default is the other big difference between the pre-rendering of the material in the editor and what it will give the final renders. A final point is the placement of the sun and hdri from the model could be improved ...

this is done to improve flamingo ntx: I do not make personal attacks because I think flamingo is probably one of the best interfaces (understandable quickly) I know (if not the best ...) compared others Render softwares.


I have tests with neutral studio, exterior night, and this...

I forgot to mention that in both cases, there should be a shadow gradient on the lower body, yet it is not made.

it took 6 hours to find the correct setting of the scene and the material (even if it is not yet perfect) because the pre-rendering is too different from what is returned and the first rendering passes are misleading ... and it took 6:00 to compute the scene. 12H is $ 50 = $ 600 (pc + depreciation, amortization software, electricity, coffee, coffee and more coffee)

Too bad we can not work on rhino as the rendering is, logically, as the information is already transmitted to flamingo ntx, it should be possible right?

Interesting experiments.  There are many differences between the two rendering engines.  I agree with you basically that the default render gives usable results earlier, but the pathtracer can produce more realistic results. Generally, given enough time, the two engine will end up in the same place.


When I work with the rendering engines I notice the big difference in the reflections.  The default renderer will always start out with sharp reflections that will blur over time.  The pathtracer will start off with blurred reflection right from the start.  So, if you see a material in the default tracer that looks good at the start, but gets "worse" overtime, then make the material a little more sharp. 


In the rendering you are showing here, I tend to like the 7 min. and 30 min.  default tracings for material reflection.  That would lead me to increase the sharpness to get a slightly sharper reflection with the pathtracer.


I also think this is a good experiment in time vs quality.  When using NXT, at some point the extra passes do not increase the quality of image enough to justify the extra time.  

if you look at the templates of the material (balls)
with the default render: we see the floor of the ski hdri, so it is reflected in the body
with the path traced: we see the hidden groundplane (white), is why there is no reflection hdri groundplane....

There is a basic difference between the pathtracer and the default renderer.  The pathtracer will take lighting calculations from the complete HDRI sphere.  The default render will only take lighting from the top half of the hemisphere.  I believe this is what you are seeing.  


The HDRI has bright beach sand?  This brighter areas of the car when using the pathtracer may be from the bright sandy beach.  The default render ignores this brightness and in this case makes the lower part of the car darker. 

the HDRI is MtMonadnock_1.hdr

after what I see in the material sphere, it is rather the pathtracer (images low) makes a calculation that half of the sphere, as we see the groundplane default (white) when we should see the rocks the hdri. In the Default render (high image), it is all the HDRI sphere is projected onto the material sphere and the car ...

Although the reflections are better made ​​with the default render it produces an image too clean, too render. in short times, there are too many differences between the two types of render to judge the Qualter. and it takes some time to have a fine grain with pathtracer which gives a usable image and the image only 6 hours is sufficient. And the default render it difficult to make short reports with angles on transparent and reflective surfaces and creates errors. and create artefact with sun activated.

I think the biggest flaw is the difference between the sphere of the material in pre-rendering and rendering real-be it in the studio, with or without external hdri. I believe it is necessary to improve the pre-rendering the material

Are you using the normal Sky in lighting, and the MtMonadrack_1.hdr for reflections?

If possible, you can send me the model?  Roy and I will take a look.  I have setup a similar model, but the exact car you have would be great.  You can use this upload link if it is large:




my email is:  scottd@mcneel.com

I have the background image and the HDRI, so you do not need to send those.



© 2019   Created by Scott Davidson.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service