Jump to content

michalfranczak

Members
  • Posts

    46
  • Joined

2 Followers

Personal Information

  • Country
    Poland

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

michalfranczak's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

10

Reputation

  1. If I would have to choose between Unreal or Unity I would choose both There are strenghts and weaknesses of both engines, but from my experience: 1. Unreal is a nice package "out of the box" - you have your post-processing tools, volumetric lighting, nice skydome and lighting, node-based material editor, good import of static FBX files and they work hard to make better integration with 3ds max with Datasmith. It is widely used, has really good forums and many eye-candy visualizations were made with that engine. It's capable in this field and proven. You can also sell your scenes without hassle - it should work at the clients side as on your side in the given Unreal version. Weaknesses: not-so-friendly camera sequencer (but it does not matter unless you make some truly cienamtic-grade stuff), really messed up import of animations, not to great particle system (and hard to edit), no integration with Blender files and non-modularity (most of the things that you find on Unreal Market are assets, plugins are rare and they do not extend Unreal capabilities). It's closed system. What you install is what you get,l it will not get better unless they make an update. 2. Unity: out-of the box is stripped down of many features, luckily there is TON of simple add-ons (many of them free) that can make it look on-par when it comes to graphic quality of Unreal. It has great lighting, realtime GI with Enlighten, new Progressive sampler that works really decent, easy to use sequencer (and four more that you can buy from store), good post-processing stack (in my opinion much more user-friendly than the one in Unreal). It is easier to learn (subjective matter), it accepts everything you throw at it (FBX, OBJ, Alembic, Substances, blend files, animations), it updates assets automatically - no need to constantly "reimport" things, it is modular - which means that you can have better post-production, camera filters, better antialiasing, reflections, camera tools, etc with just few clicks. It launches much faster than Unreal and almost none of the operations require restarting the engine. A great knowledge and userbase. And they are going into cinematic / visualizations bussiness also. It has already Octane integration in-engine. Weaknesses: you have to gather some nice plugins to make it shine, luckily Asset Store + forums are doing a good job with that. Not so good: many things will cost you some bucks, but generally they are worth it. No node-based material editor in vanilla version, but you can get one from Asset Store and people say it is comparable to the Unreal material editor - i tested it too short to be an advisor on that matter. Selling scenes is difficult, if you rely on third-party plugins - you cannot include them in your project AFAIK so you cannot transfer the scene to the client with the same quality. I use Unity for my personal projects and we use Unreal in our company - so I can say that both of them make a good work.
  2. Hi, guys! Maybe you will find it interesting. From some time our company started exploring Unreal Engine possibilities for architectural visualizations. We learned a thing or two and recently released our second collection of UE scenes. We also recorded seven short videos that can be usable for arch-viz artists that want to use Unreal engine in their works. grab them here: http://www.evermotion.org/tutorials/show/9714/seven-pro-tips-that-will-improve-your-unreal-visualizations Best regards
  3. Maybe this tutorial will help? http://www.evermotion.org/tutorials/show/8109/tip-of-the-week-advanced-refractive-material-techniques-in-vray
  4. Philip, music is very entertaining creative field, but hard and expensive one if you want to do it right It took me years to understand the rules of composing, mixing, arranging tracks, so if you want hear the music in your animations, I think the fastest way is to hire someone, as nicnic said. But iIf you are truly convinced to make music, start learning. Some essential skills (in my opinion): 1. Playing keys, even in a basic way. Learning chords, improvisation etc. 1-2 years for begginer level. 2. Arranging - lots and lots of listening to tracks that you like, finding key elements, learning how it was all assembled together, where are culmination points, what are tricks to rise tension, direct the feelings of the listeners of your music 3. Chosing the right sound and knowing when your sound is bad - lots of testing different drum libraries, bass sounds, synth sounds, finding what works together and what does not. 4. Recording and mixing - mainly EQ, compression, modulation fx and reverb. You need to master those tools. There are other topics like side-chain compression, double tracking, fx automation, but there are not needed in every track - it's good to know them, though. 5. Final touch or "home-mastering", especially needed for albums - controlling volume and eq of different tracks so they sound equally loud. Essential gear: - studio monitors - take the most expensive you can get - keyboard - pc or mac with DAW software - some VST fx and instruments - audio interface with ASIO drivers if you plan to record vocals, you will also need - microphone (even decent dynamic like Shure SM) + stand - closed headphones Some resources: http://www.musictech.net/2013/06/beginners-guide/ https://makingmusic.ableton.com/ https://www.musicradar.com
  5. Yes, both Reaper and Cubase can do advanced stuff. I prefer Reaper and it's cheaper, so it's obvious choice for me. But it wasn't money that convinced me - I don't like compromises in music - I like it to be as 'pro-grade' as it is possible. Reaper does not stand in the way of this task, I was tired with some Cubase limitations. That was the point. Of course, I cannot deny that you can make good record with Cubase, in fact my first LP was mixed entirely in Cubase. But I cannot justifiy this expense anymore. There is much more expensive stuff that is needed in music production - interface, monitors, microphones, keys, audio treatment, silent and fast PC, not to mention stands, cables and all minor stuff...
  6. That only means that you didn't take time to learn it. Manual is the answer. I cannot name one thing I couldn't do in Reaper in my daily music production and I use it for MIDI, audio, some simple video tasks, used it in the studio, on the stage, for lectures, complicated electronic music, rock music, etc...
  7. Yet you *do not* recommend Reaper. That statement was the reason of my rant, because I know both apps very well and I think that's most unfair thing to say about Reaper.
  8. Not even remotely that fast as in case of Reaper, when it comes to simple drag and drop or one-click action to make folder, assign or unassign tracks to it, color them automatically according to track name, automate any parameter, etc. Possible in Cubase, but slow. I'll emphasise: you tell Reaper what your favorite workflow is, not the opposite. You cannot change Cubase workflow, you have to adapt to it. Reaper is a different beast and it really makes it faster. Id does not stand in a way of creation. I spend thousands of hours - both in Cubase and Reaper. I don't want to return to Steinberg's software - it's pre-designed workflow has too many flaws. It's simple: Reaper has very fair licensing system and can be installed portable. You can install it on pendrive or any machine you own and activate it with single license. Buy once, install everywhere. And installation does not require a dongle. It takes literally 10 seconds. Ultra-mobile solution. I would need to dwell little longer, but there were some tests with "how many plugin instances can you enable before drop-out" and Reaper wins in this kind of competition. If you have plugin-heavy project every CPU cycle counts. If you are performing live, you need big headroom to be safe from any drop-outs. Reaper shines here. It's better to have more (and cheaper) tools than expensive, limited software. Now for some unique features, that are not in Cubase: - parameter modulation - a unique Reaper feature that can automate any parameter according to built-in LFO or signal from any track. It can lead to many creative effects with just bunch of clicks. You can make dynamic eq from a simplest eq plugin. Many possibilities there. - mass-track actions - you can with two-clicks make changes to selected or all tracks - change volume (relative or absolute) by give value, remove all fx, reroute tracks, etc. Cubase does not allow fast way for that. - custom action - you can chain actions in strings and make your own. It means that in one click you could order Reaper to change multiple track or items parameters, just like custom actions in Photoshop. - super-fast stem rendering, - multi-stage freezing, - wildcards of rendered files, - flexible backup system, - region rendering queue ...and coming in v5: - VCA groups - more video features - scripting The userbase of Reaper is huge also. And when it comes to exchanging tracks between studios, you always need to render stems, because you cannot be sure if studio has all plugins and instruments you used. It does not matter in which software you prepare those stems. They are in standard WAV format. Yes, multiple versions, like Cubasis, even more crippled than main version. Last but not least - there is no need to take my words for granted, see for yourself - download uncrippled, fully functional free version of Reaper. You need to buy it after 60 days, it's more than enough to decide if it's good or not: http://www.reaper.fm
  9. Chris Macdonald - you haven't used Reaper if you say that it's just a soft "to save a few pennies". Reaper can do everything that is needed when it comes to music production. Tell me what you can't do with this software before you make such bold statements. I used Cubase for years, it is not even close to reaper capabilities when it comes to workflow speed and flexibility. It's better to "save a few pennies" on overbloated Cubase DAW and spend them on VSTis and FX or hardware.
  10. I am using cockos Reaper and I recommend it to everyone. I used Cubase, Sonar and Nuendo but they are OVERPRICED. Hugely. they cost hundreds of dollars, Cockos Reaper costs $60. And it is capable of doing everything that its competition in a faster, more convenient and flexible way. More and more people are switching to Reaper. I switched for following reasons: - ultra-flexible routing - you can easily make folders, route signal between tracks, very useful in mixing, side-chain compression, unusual signal paths. - You are not limited to make "audio", "midi" or "fx" tracks, each track can hold any data, any number of audio channels or even mixed data. It speeds up workflow - Flexible UI - you can make your own toolbars, place them where you want and make some custom commands (in reaper they are called "actions") - the software adapts to your workflow, it does not limit you to the workflow that designers wanted. - Theming possibility - Very light weight (ab. 10 MB), written in Python, like Blender. - very stable and it isn't resource-hog. You can mix much more complicated projects on reaper than on Cubase on the same machine. Of course, Reaper is not all you need. You need either real instruments, microphones, preamps and audio interface with ASIO drivers or VST instruments + audio interface with ASIO drivers and controller keyboard. But that's another story. What I use and I recommend is: - Reaper as DAW - Native Instruments Kontakt as sampler (+ libraries for piano, strings, etc.) - Reveal Sound Spire as substractive synth - Omnisphere as all-round sound library - Slate FG-X as mastering limiter / compressor - Fabfilter Pro-Q2 as all-round EQ It's a biiig topic and cannot be covered here. I recommend to learn more on gearslutz.com and search for interesting plugins on kvraudio.com. And don't expect that you will make studio-grade stuff without decent monitors like for eg. Adam Audio AX7 or higher. Making music is much more expensive than making 3d graphics
  11. Hope that you will find it interesting "Five steps to photorealistic renders" - an interview with Ciro Sannino, certified V-Ray instructor: http://www.evermotion.org/articles/show/9549/five-steps-to-photorealistic-renders
  12. Philippe: in this first release we focused mainly on scenes, collection of models is rather an addition to it. That's why it's in low price (it will be available separately for €60, scenes will be for €120. Now bundle of those two costs €130 so basically customers are getting models for €10, how cheap is that? ). I agree that models collection could be more diverse, but for that price I think it's fair amount of decent models. As for plans for the future: It will take some time to analyze impact of UE bundle release. If we'll be happy with it, I can assure you that we will make UE versions of our models / scenes, so there will be no need to buy standard models and struggle with optimization for UE, we will do it for you And BTW, here are some single model shots from AM for UE vol. 1:
  13. Hi! Stephen: I will do my best to answer, but please note that it wasn't I who made this collection, we have specialists from our studio who did this. I passed your questions to one of our cg visualizers (Andrew) and that's what he said: The most time consumming (except learning UE of course) is making proper uv for all of the models - each one has to have no overlapping UVs. Other time consuming thing is baking the lighting - unreal lightmass is similar to vray light cache, so you need a lot of resolution (samples are distributed per area) and big textures. If you bake with "production settings" but your maps are too small, you will get bad result. First you need to ask yourself: how long would it take to unwrap all your models (flatten mapping isn't always the option, because it needs huge textures and seams are real issue here). Bake rander time (for very high quality) can easily take up to 10-15 hours (you bake the lighting only once). Rendering is on the fly (to be precise, your FPS is the number of "renders" you get per second) Ben: We are entering new grounds with these collections, but I can assure you that if we will be happy with user feedback, we will provide more optimized Archmodels for UE collections. Best regards Mike.
  14. We (Evermotion) are going Unreal path, it's more intuitive, requires less programming. (Spam warning, khem) Here is the link to our latest release for Unreal and walktrough videos.
  15. You can find it interesting - Evermotion is celebrating 10 years anniversary and we're giving free collection of quality lamp models - Archmodels vol. 152. More details here: http://www.evermotion.org/articles/show/9320/download-free-collection-of-76-highly-detailed-lamp-models- Evermotion also announced discounts of 10 other collections. More details on anniversary page: http://www.evermotion.org/main/anniversary
×
×
  • Create New...