Leaderboard

The Subdivision Surface object is a generator, so you are not operating at its level - only its inputs, in this case a single face of the cube that drives it, which is selected. If you want to select faces on the generated SDS result then you need to make that editable via the 'C' command, bearing in mind that it will use the Render subdivision level OR assign a Correction deformer which will allow you access to component level whilst keeping things procedural. CBR

You could write company press releases and promotional material because that sure sounded like it but I thought this was a discussion about Octane vs Redshift in 2024, which really boils down to a discussion of biased vs unbiased rendering, as things currently stand today. The thing I want others to know about Octane, if you are comparing it to Redshift or any other biased renderer is that, mostly because of the nature of what it is and how it works (and limitations of today's computers rendering power) an unbiased path tracer, it has a very high noise floor compared to what can be achieved with biased rendering tools. Octane's big innovation is having a great denoiser. Without the denoiser it would be pretty hard to impossible to do almost anything in Octane. And yet anyone who uses Octane knows very well it can be a tricky balancing act between preserving necessary detail vs reducing noise. This can be especially tricky if the detail in question is itself noise (as with a noised based bump map), or noise-like (small craters on the backside of a moon, metal flakes in car paint). And it's a destructive process, that is, once you denoise it, you can't go back to the un-denoised state that contains the original information unless you deliberately save a copy of that as well. Biased renderers have a bunch of different scene sampling methods and options that let the user dial in where and what and how rays are directed and how things are sampled (monte carlo, semi monte carlo, directed, targeted, etc.). The downside to this is, 1) it sometimes feels like too many choices and 2) a possible lack of photographic realism resulting from the different user settings and scene evaluations methods composited together into the final result. If you look at Maxon's old Physical renderer for example, different settings here and there can lead to vastly different results, but the final result may be best for product advertising or architecture or whatever because it looks good and clean and not because it is shaded photorealistically perfect. A biased renderer should probably also offer additional compositing options, since the render itself is a composite. I personally prefer using Octane because it looks most real to me compared to anything else I have used, and I simultaneously dislike the layered or composited look of biased renderers. That said, I wanted to acknowledge the weakness as well as the strengths of both.

I agree. Very likely an AI article. And a very bad one...lol In what world is Arnold the best renderer for...speed???

I'd take that with a big ol' pinch of salt. Are you telling me that for 8 different tasks there just so happens to be 8 different best render engines? The entire article reads like someone regurgitated some TLDR notes on each engine then just assigned each one to a category. They didnt even get the right prices for each engine, apparently redshift is £100 per month. "Iray reasons to avoid: computationally expensive"... What? 3d rendering is computationally expensive? no shit. 95% chance of AI article.

I will quote Noseman here "you don't need Scenenodes if it can already be done without Scenodes".