Purchase this item to leave a review!

• leehenshall

  about 3 years ago

  I purchased all the major procedural cloud/sky add-ons I could find on Blender Market.

  True Sky, Pure Sky, Ultimate Sky & Stratus.

  Unfortunately, Pure Sky was a big disappointment. The UI and overall functionality gets a pass, it is clean and easy to understand. But the volumetric clouds are incredibly slow compared to True Sky and the moon/night sky does not look as realistic. Also the sky/atmosphere simulation is generally not as good.

  I found that a large volume cube and a high quality HDRI produces might better results and renders much faster whilst adding no node group dependencies to the scene.

  But if you need to art direct a procedural sky such as control the clouds and time-lapse animation etc. Then I strongly recommend Stratus. It is much faster to preview clouds. It's basically an semi real-time procedural HDRI baker but for most of my use cases this is actually faster and more efficient than full volumetric clouds. Plus once rendered the only dependency is an HDRI sequence.

  There are times when you may want to wait for full volumetric to render such as Ariel shots or any composition where you want to see parallax in the clouds. But for all those use cases True Sky is faster and has better quality results.

  I contacted the seller for a refund but they declined the refund based on there technically being nothing broken about the add-on. While this is technically true, I think the store page makes the add-on seem like it can get better results out of the box than it actually does. There is quite a lot of set-up and tweaking required and even when you do get good results, it will take a very long time to render.

  I thought the sellers decision to decline the refund was quite mean and the developer could have showed more understanding.

  I won’t make the same mistake twice and will not be purchases add-ons from this creator in the future. Not a satisfied customer.

• Gabo Out

  about 5 years ago

  Compatibility with cyles is very poor. It does not optimize the GPU.
  It is very expensive for what it offers.

• 

  3DVision

  about 5 years ago

  Generating volumes is one of the most resource consuming things on Blender, you need to have a good machine configuration, which is not your case. I can't be held responsible for that, sorry.
• Washington Filho

  about 5 years ago

  As we are a company working with Cycles mostly, It doesn't work well. Its soo slow and soo different from the teaser result that makes the whole workflow very much useless. I wish we can get the money back. If I figure out a work around on It I will change my rate, but for now this add on should be called Pure Eevee Sky, not Pure Sky (Eevee + Cycles)

• 

  3DVision

  about 5 years ago

  It's a pity that you didn't take the time to read the technical sheet, all the information concerning the cycle compatibility is detailed there. You understand that I could not have added all these infos in the title of this product. And for info if the rendering was slow for you with cycle, it's simply because the volumes are not compatible with Cycle as it is mentioned in the introduction and the datasheet, it would have been enough to remove the nodes of the volumes to have a fluid navigation.
  And you have to have realistic expectations too, generating volumes requires more machine performance and this is true even for other software like Unreal Engine.

• Displaying ratings 81-83 of 83 in total