Leaderboard

Seems a bit extreme. You're using a light with a brightness of 3400 (your 1000 strength light material has no texture source, so it defaults to linear colour grey, so many of the samples are only doing a third of the work they could be doing) So 2/3 of the samples are wasted. Your material is mid grey, so half the brightness is lost off the first bounce then only half the brightness is received, so 75% of the samples do nothing. Multiply the above together and it means 90% of the samples arent doing anything useful. Adaptive sampling is off so 90% of the samples are flying off into space to do nothing. We're down to 1% efficiency now? 16 light bounces are very wasteful on a scene where only 1-2 bounces can possibly have a meaningful impact. So we're down to... 0.1% efficiency in terms of render time. Youre using geometry to emit light instead of a light. Octane can more efficiently render a scene if the bulk of the light comes from a light instead of polys. When you have this many samples, you can 100% turn the denoiser on. And finally, the scene is so utterly beyond overexposed, you're effectively cranking a noise with a brightness of 5-10 (0-255 scale) up to 100, which is going to exaggerate the noise you see. This is the worst case scenario of worse case scenarios. As for the c4d physical engine version. You're using irradiance caching, this just slaps a bit of light on, blurs it together than adds it to the brightness. Effectively c4d is running a denoiser on the secondary light, something you're not letting the octane engine do. An apples to apples comparison would be setting physical to QMC + QMC with 16 bounces, but you can't because the slider tops out at 8 bounces.

The render wars explosion of a few years ago seems to have died down a bit. And I was wondering about peoples opinions on the big 2 GPU renderers looking ahead. Is reshift gradually going to become dominant as the integration with C4D becomes closer, and as it is used in more non-C4D pipelines? Will Octane become more of a niche c4d thing? Or will users begrudgingly need to use both. Do the old tropes still hold true (Octane easier and better looking, Redshilft more adaptable and faster)? Is redshift stumbling in its development, or keeping a good trajectory? Interested in the communities opinions. (Personally, I stopped using Octane a few years ago as Corona simply worked better for my needs, but I'm always keeping an eye on a second renderer for compatibility and speed purposes).

It looks like LW 2023 beta is showing some stuff. I'm not sure why they priced themselves so high. Maybe they're going after the nostalgia crowd like me who used it a long time ago. Still not sure considering there are more competitively priced apps like Houdini Indie and of course Blender. Now where know where TFD went: It'll be awkward if their procedural nodes end up being more robust than scene nodes this soon in dev.

Elastic band, quick and dirty 🙂 elastic_band.mp4 226_Elastic_band.c4d

The denosier needs to be balanced against sampling for details like Mash describes above so accurately. These are state of the art render optimizations in the year 2023 which make Octane what it is. Octane is the master of high end algorithms combined with rendering shortcuts. The genius of Otoy was their balancing of all the tricks under the hood which made it the renderer so fast to kick off the age of GPU rendering. Throwing it away takes the strength of Octane away. Maxon is implementing multiple of Octane's approaches into RS already and even more to come. For example RS RT's new experimental implementation of pixel based displacement mapping is basically the technique Octane uses for years so efficiently.

Oh lordy, thinking particles, no idea, I havent used that mountain of misery since the day it came out. Probably your best bet is to not use the particle system to make the particles rotate, but instead put the confetti object in a null and just animate it spinning around the axis you want. That way when you emit the particles they have the animation you want prebaked into them. Just make 3-4 different versions with different rotations to mix it up a bit.

Sure. This bug is around for 3 or 4 previous releases and basicly when we are using fields, and for example we select a spline object as field, and if we use one of the curve/spline editors in a separate window, it show as blank. I'm putting some screenshots here to illustrate this issue. This issue however happens only with certain objects. perhaps that's why is hard to spot. Anyway it has already been reported.

Maybe they should invent some camera alignment tools so the logo isn't sat off to the side.

You don't use coherent ratio, no adaptive sampling, no denoiser and no multi GPU rendering. Gi clamp is too high for that scene. These are non optimizedrender settings. Sorry

I personally love the look of Octane's unbiased path tracer. It's the closest thing to shooting with a real camera as you can get, but as with even the most expensive real world cameras, its big weakness is noise. Scenes that use motion blur and camera dof will look beautiful and dreamily real, but scenes that should depict a fixed, razer sharp camera image cannot be rendered completely noiseless, even with prohibitively high sampling settings. The scene below used 16,000 samples and 3.5 minutes to render. More samples make no difference after a certain point, and so pixel peeping such a scene rendered in Octane is unlikely to be very satisfying. In such cases biased renderers such as Physical and Redshift will render much cleaner. OctaneWeaknessMV2.c4d

I mainly use Octane in C4D although I have been playing more with Redshift in the last few versions. Octane is faster and easier to get a beautiful and realistic shot. If you have a background in real cinematography/photography like I do, Octane works much more like you would expect than Redshift. It's just easier and faster to get a beautiful shot in Octane. You can get the same result in Redshift but you will have to work harder to get there. Octane is also better for non-realistic stuff. Octane has a good Toon shader, for example, while Redshift does not. Finally, the Octane Node Editor in C4D is a pleasure to work with, much better than C4Ds Node editor. In some ways, Octane feels more integrated in C4D than Redshift, even though Redshift is the new standard renderer for C4D. Ironically, I have been using Redshift A LOT in Maya. It basically replaced Arnold for me and my students in Maya: the integration is REALLY good (it's as well integrated as Arnold), and it gives me the speed and flexibility I didn't have in Maya before. Meanwhile, Octane's integration in Maya is HORRIBLE, it's really disastrous, full os questionable UI decisions like controlling the rendering settings not in the rendering setting menu (like every other renderer in Maya) but in the attribute editor. But in the end of the day, both Octane and Redshift are getting behind: Unreal is simply eating their lunch. For most use cases, Unreal 5 is more than good enough and much faster than either Octane or Redshift. The only reason it didn't totally take over is because the process to use Unreal as a render engine is still cumbersome and annoying. I wish Redshift would invest more in the RT mode to reach something closer to the Unreal engine - then I would probably use Redshift more in C4D. For now, Octane is the better option in C4D and Redshift the better option in Maya.

https://github.com/bgstaal/multipleWindow3dScene