hey Dingto,
is there any easy method of exporting out material node configs from blender into xml to be used with the standalone version of cycles?
Thanks, this is looking really exciting!
Will hair rendering be supported in Cycles standalone soon?
Any update of Cycles standalone ?
Hi
Any info update of Cycles standalone ?
What happened with Apache license now that Brecht left ?
so… whats going on here? xD
Nothing special happens. The license is still apache.
I have no idea what is the point in porting another not so outstanding renderer to Max, while it has industry-proven solutions (the same for Cinema4D or Maya). I mean I think other apps & features should be ported to Blender, not the opposite.
another not so outstanding renderer
This can turn in a flame war. 
If you are a plugin developer for maya you can sell your plugin and get Cycles engine for free or you can give plugin for free too.
Outstanding render results you get from outstanding artists.
Cheers, mib
I hope it will not as it is not necessary.
I’m not a plugin developer, I just know that there are tons of 3rd party rendering engines for the biggest platforms without markeable market shares and the most widespread ones are could be freely included (like MR) or cost a lot (like VRay), but both offer leverages on production level compared to the others.
‘Outstanding render results you get from outstanding artists.’
Half true as render result is not just about quality in production environment.
I just wish if developers would focus more on improving Blender instead of projects like this, but that is just a wish.
If you were paying attention, you would notice that the standalone build of cycles has gotten almost zero attention for the past year. see how there was a 9 month gap in the timestamps between posts 44 & 45? But I’m pretty sure that you are just trolling at this point. You have made your one opinion blatantly clear. Cycles doesn’t work in a production environment because it isn’t the ‘industry standard’. Got it. Can we move on? or do you want to try to explain your point again? Who are you trying to convince?
I would kill for Cycles fully integrated into Maya. I guess I like poor amateur renderers over professional ones.
'If you were paying attention, you would notice that the standalone build of cycles has gotten almost zero attention for the past year. see how there was a 9 month gap in the timestamps between posts 44 & 45? ’
No, I haven’t paid attention to that. This topic came up and I wrote my opinion.
‘But I’m pretty sure that you are just trolling at this point.’
You have the right to think that. From my side pointing on the obvious and having suggestions is anything but not trolling.
‘You have made your one opinion blatantly clear. Cycles doesn’t work in a production environment because it isn’t the ‘industry standard’.’
No. You didn’t get it, so maybe I have to say it again. It doesn’t work in some specific production environment, because it does not meat the expectations of the industry in that field. As an example, Corona - which is also not an industry standard (yet), meets these expectations more in its current stage.
'Can we move on?or do you want to try to explain your point again? ’
Well, I think that explaining my points is the only option to make people understand my points, what could lead to solutions what offers good things for the whole Blender community.
‘Who are you trying to convince?’
Anyone who can help in making Blender better.
can you guys stop that fighting and act normal? Man it is getting tired of all that head bashing. Blender users really can be known as radicals.
I’m sorry if it seems to be a fight from my side; I’m definitely not fighting as I use facts when I’m arguing about something and also my goal is to make Blender - and its reputation - better. By facts, not emotions. 
Your argument was “why bother” because Cycles (in your opinion) wasn’t as good as other available renderers.
This is very shortsighted, especially for someone who claims they want blender to improve.
If cycles gains traction in other 3d apps (and it could if it had good integration), then you would likely see Cycles development get picked up by interested parties outside of the blender community. Imagine if a company like Image Engine or BUF or Blur started evaluating and using Cycles in production. They would probably throw a programmer or two at it to help code in some areas where Cycles may be lacking. This has been a goal of the Blender foundation for years, to get “hollywood” investing in blender, rather than blender catering to Hollywood.
Not to mention Cycles IS quite capable as it currently is and having free unlimited “licenses” of a renderer can REALLY improve the bottom line of a studio who normally has to fork over tens of thousands of dollars yearly to maintain their render farms.
Cycles could potentially make an impact if well integrated into Max or Maya.
But yes, cycles is lacking compared to other render engines. No OAVs, no texture caching, no rendertime support of displacements, no opensubdiv support, etc. But to say “why bother” when these features could potentially get implemented as a result of Cycles gaining popularity in other apps is short sighted.
Keep in mind, you will likely never see caching features like final gathering, photon mapping, importons, etc in cycles. Archviz is not really what cycles was designed for and those kinds of caching methods go against the way Cycles is intended to work. But you never know, maybe if more max users were using Cycles their own community might decide to incorporate those features in for their own purposes.
Dear fahr,
I carefully used the expression ‘not so outstanding’, which means what it means exactly.
From my point of view the development and improving Blender should be very straightforward and should focus on the areas where Blender doesn’t really shine and what could open the gate for more PRO users (and in this case I mean not artists, who produce excellent PRO results, but users who could rely heavily on Blender when making their primerely business) .
I wrote about these areas into various topics formerly and yes, rendering is one of the areas where Blender needs improvement (and in this case I don’t mean Cycles, I mean additional options to cover all production needs). I also picked up a field where these improvements could start (archviz), because I’m familiar with it and it has a ‘should have’ feature list what is not so difficult to collect, but results great improvements for everyone, not just for archviz dudes.
‘If cycles gains traction in other 3d apps (and it could if it had good integration), then you would likely see Cycles development get picked up by interested parties outside of the blender community. Imagine if a company like Image Engine or BUF or Blur started evaluating and using Cycles in production. They would probably throw a programmer or two at it to help code in some areas where Cycles may be lacking. This has been a goal of the Blender foundation for years, to get “hollywood” investing in blender, rather than blender catering to Hollywood.’
Let me to be honest on this. I cannot count how many engines I tried under Blender and Max in the last 10 years and in my opinion there is no need for any additional engines if they do not offer something outstanding (the same way that there is no need for another Chinese tablet or smartphone brand what delivers average products). To port the 100th of the ‘average’ engines to anywhere is wasting the time of developers; most of these trials are DOA (Dead on Arrival).
‘Not to mention Cycles IS quite capable as it currently is and having free unlimited “licenses” of a renderer can REALLY improve the bottom line of a studio who normally has to fork over tens of thousands of dollars yearly to maintain their render farms.’
That is true partially, but I don’t want to go onto details again, as you do it later.
‘Cycles could potentially make an impact if well integrated into Max or Maya.’
Max comes by default with different built-in renderers like Mental Ray or iRay (GPU).
‘But yes, cycles is lacking compared to other render engines. No OAVs, no texture caching, no rendertime support of displacements, no opensubdiv support, etc. But to say “why bother” when these features could potentially get implemented as a result of Cycles gaining popularity in other apps is short sighted.’
I don’t think for a moment that Cycles itself should get popularity.
What I believe that Blender with Cycles should get popularity and Blender needs popularity because it is underrated now.
I’m talking about the fact that Blender is a very capable tool and should be wide known, cause even with missing features it is like a swiss knife for an artist.
‘Archviz is not really what cycles was designed for and those kinds of caching methods go against the way Cycles is intended to work.’
This is what I told in another topic, related to an article what rated Cycles production-ready for archviz.
I am interested in trying something basic with “sweet home 3d”, but now I can not download as zip.
The reason why it should be ported should be obvious. If other packages have better renderers as you say then that will only help Cycles grow and get better to be on par. It will also probably get more production use than it does with just Blender. Maybe even the possibility of more people joining the project to work on it and benefiting everyone. Right now Cycles is only used in Blender. If cycles wants to improve it needs to be allowed to grow on it’s own outside of Blender, be used in production level situations, with production level tools (not saying you can’t do amazing things in Blender, but let’s be serious in comparison to something like Houdini, or even Maya).
With all the respect, it is not obvious. As I wrote before, other packages like Max has tons of 3rd party renderers. Porting anything only makes sense (for Max users) if it offers more than the available ones in production environment.
As I would like to see Blender as a complete package developed, it is reasonable to focus on Blender improvements and the cheapest way to do that is not porting Cycles to another app, but checking the features of other renderers and porting their features to Cycles plus making industry standard renderers available in Blender with full support.
Also as the resources of Blender development are limited, it makes sense not to waste them on supporting other tools, but use them internally.
If you checked the 2015 Blender plans, you can feel that part of the resources are already wasted.
I would like to have my take on this, and kindly disagree with AlmaTalp.
The fact that 30 renders are available is not a solid point for not having another one, especially if to get any other 30 you need to pay.
Cycle is a fantastic opportunity (due to its open core) for further expansion and improvements (see what AMD have done), also for the fact that its aim is for animation/vfx industry and not design (although does work really well in there as well),it’s something which makes it play on the same side as Arnold and PRman (also has Open Shading language available).
Having this in Max seems quite cool to me, I wouldn’t spit on this opportunity.
Now back on the subject , standalone cycles. Is there any roadmap for it ?
L.