I might try to guess some people try to set up the fur using transparency. Although it helps making it look softer, i managed to get quite nice results on my test without any transparency at all.
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 4:10 AM, Raffaele Fragapane < [email protected]> wrote: > At some point, before it even hit SI afaik, it was struggling with some of > the old paradigms for fur rendering. It's since earned this back alley talk > reputation of struggling with fur, despite the fact nowadays it's probably > the single strongest engine of its kind for it out there. > > It's not unlike the myths that you need an RnD department to do anything > with renderman at all, or that you can't do topology work in ZBrush and so > on. > > It should be dismissed, but a rumor will have been around the world before > the truth had the time to put its shoes on. > > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Gene Crucean < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Say what? >> >> How on earth was fur/hair a problem for anyone using Arnold? Something >> else must have been very jacked up for this to make a "con" list. For me >> personally... I could give you a list a mile long about all of the pro's... >> and one single con. Interior rendering. Like the Classroom scene. Even >> then, you can make it look beautiful. It's just the main downside of it is >> that it takes a bit longer to render than all the other stuff. >> >>
