Question on two 3DGS rendering pipelines (NuRec vs ParticleField) and expected quality tradeoff in Isaac Sim 6.0

Omniverse Core Platform NuRec
1

Hi team,

In Isaac Sim 6.0, using the same 3DGS PLY exported via 3DGruT, I observe two different USDZ outputs:

  • --format nurec (OmniNuRecFieldAsset)

  • --format lightfield (UsdVol.ParticleField3DGaussianSplat)

They behave like two different 3DGS rendering pipelines.

Observation

  • NuRec path: higher 3DGS visual fidelity and stability, but weaker RTX scene integration

  • ParticleField path: better RTX integration (shadows / scene interaction), but noticeably worse 3DGS quality (flicker / noise / instability)

Core questions

  1. Are these two intentionally separate 3DGS rendering pipelines in Isaac Sim 6.0?

  2. If yes, is the reduced 3DGS visual quality/stability in the ParticleField (RTX-oriented) path an expected tradeoff?

  3. Is the long-term direction to maintain both:

    • a 3DGS-fidelity-first pipeline (NuRec-style, no/limited RTX integration)

    • a RTX-scene-integrated pipeline (ParticleField)

Or is ParticleField intended to eventually replace the NuRec-style workflow?

Thanks.

2

According to 3dgrut/threedgrut/export/README.md at main · nv-tlabs/3dgrut · GitHub

“While Isaac Sim 6.0 supports both the ParticleField (standard USD) schema and the NuRec USDZ output, NuRec is going to be deprecated and replaced by ParticleField. Prefer ParticleField for new assets. This is a beta feature and the workflows are likely to change in future versions.”

NuRec USDZ is on the deprecation track, and ParticleField explicitly recommended.

and Isaac Sim 6.0 has one renderer by RTX, it is 2 asset formats fed to one RTX renderer that handles each differently.