Stefano Strika

I assume RS have some form of volumetric effect for fog and similar, try to activate it and probably you will get volumetric caustics;) I uploaded a video on YouTube, when the laser beam hit the corner the light get diffracted in many different ways, so a few frames would have needed much more photons.

As said any renderer that supports volumetric caustics and dispersion should be able to do that, no need for spectral renderer 😉 Even biased renderer can produce that effect, this was done many years ago on an old version of Vray using the biased engine and it's pretty accurate, this is the scientific test I've used for reference: https://sciencing.com/happens-light-passes-through-prism-8557530.html

I don't know about the internal renderer but most physical engines that supports dispersion and volumetric caustics should be able to create a correct effect without cheating, the last time I've used C4D internal engine I was about 20 years younger so I'm not sure what is supported today. If you want to get a fake effect you will need a directional light to simulate the laser beam, then 3 more colored lights to simulate the dispersion inside the prism, then other 3 lights for the dispersion outside the prism, be aware that due to the internal refraction the light will bend on the prism sides while you made them straight. There is also another option, you can recreate a fake dispersion effect using a mapped plane with a colored gradient, here at 1' 08'' I use this technique for a rainbow but it will probably work for you as well, it's Vray but I'm using C4D shaders so you can do that 100% with the internal engine.

I was having fun with a caustics animation just a few days ago (about 3 minutes a frame on an 8core), done in Vray5 + C4D R25. No fake effects, all physical values and volumetric caustics. I'll post also the animation later, when the laser beam hit the prism at some angle, crazy stuff happens 🙂

Apple offer is quite limited compared to other streaming services, but the ratio of quality vs garbage stuff is much higher compared to the rest (I've Netflix, Prime, Disney+ and other). I do not care that much about dinosaur (my son will though 🙂 ) but there are quite a few nice things right now, Severance, Teheran, Ted Lasso and other. I guess you can take advantage of the free 3 month and see all the best show, than you can disable the subscription since as said the offer is not that vast to justify paying every month (it's cheaper than other services though..).

Looks like a solid update, the new modeling tools look very useful for my workflow.

Thanks Igor, didn't notice the video section, I'll post there in the future;)

If anyone is interested I've uploaded a tutorial for creating embroidered fabrics from scratch, the technique is useful also for many other materials and you can use it with every render engine. Hope you'll find it useful;)

4GB is a very small amount of VRAM, the system will already use some of it so realistically you have even less available for render tasks. You can try to use a small model and small textures, if the problem is gone probably is a memory issue when using larger assets and another 4GB card wont help at all. I'm not sure if RS is more memory efficient compared to Octane, you can download the demo and judge by yourself.

https://www.3dtutorialandbeyond.com/museumvray5/

Thanks;)

No mass exodus in archiviz, top CPU engine are there to remain, one year they may loose a small percentage but the year later they can regain that easily. RT engines are obviously gaining traction to complement CPU engines and I agree that there's a bright future for them, especially on the lower end, but as far as traditional GPU engine, well in archiviz they are not even in the top ten. Of course there are industries like motion graphic that are usually faster on GPU renderer, but it's not a general rule. Hollywood movies are not done on CPU because of large budget, people are still able to do simple math and if GPU engines were 10X faster for a fraction of the price you can be sure that they would adopt GPU very fast. This is not happening because even a simple driver update may screw up their work on GPU and the more complex the stuff is the slower the GPU become compared to CPU, and I'm not talking about memory issues... today you can couple two A6000 ad get almost 100GB of VRAM so the problem is not there most of the time. GPU engines someday will be on par with CPU engines as far as RAM, stability, versatility etc, but when that day will come RT engines will be able to do the same stuff even faster, as said leaving traditional GPU engine in an odd position. I don't pretend to foresee the future and I may be wrong, time will tell.. see you on this topic in another decade 🙂 one decade is already gone.

If you can make anything on GPU then why there no Hollywood blockbuster rendered with it? it's not only about Hollywood movies, even archiviz and other tasks are still mostly done on CPU engine while the lower end is moving to RT engines. For other tasks GPU will be plenty fast and faster than comparable CPU hardware, but again, despite people saying from a decade that CPU is dead, the real world prove that is not going anywhere.

and some other detail:

Hi everyone, I was testing a new build of the software and just to be sure that old files worked correctly I've played a bit with the museum scene posted a while back here on the forum. While playing inside the VFB I've tested a black and white mood, results seems interesting so I've decided to produce a full set of image. The look comes mostly from the frame buffer plus a bit of film grain added in PS. Let me know what you think;) More views:

After 10 years from your prediction CPU rendering its still here, it's the tool of choice for large production, plenty fast depending on your scene (even faster than GPU for many tasks) and nowhere near to be dead 🙂 GPU rendering have his place for sure and it's already faster in selected things but regardless of the predictions I can not see why it should be the future. IMO the future is real time engines for fast results, leaving CPU engines for heavy stuff, this will leave the traditional GPU engines in an odd place and they will need to adapt or converge to RT engine. Ther's also no guarantee that traditional hardware (CPU/GPU etc) will still be there in a decade, Apple already transitioned to SoC, Microsoft is trying to do the same with Qualcomm (other will follow), the fastest supercomputer already moved away from CPU/GPU distinction and is using an ARM SoC, enthusiast system will be the last to survive, I may be wrong of course 🙂

Seems interesting

Temperatures are something to be worry about when using Intel laptops, the machine is cool and virtually silent no matter what you throw at it.

I do not have Corona installed right now so I can not confirm, as far as I know there are large gains going from the Rosetta to the native UB version on M1 machines, seems to be larger gains compared to Vray, don't know if Corona was slower in Rosetta or just faster running native code though... regardless the Ultra should be a capable machine for CPU rendering, even competitive with similarly priced assembled Windows systems and for a fraction of the noise and power consumption.

Please do not take MaxTech too seriously, is very Mac biased and not a 3D guy, running synthetic benchmark is one thing, real work is quite a different one. We have a 16" MBP with a M1Pro(10coreCPU) and is already plenty capable for working in 3D, from our tests on real scenes is about as fast as a 12core Intel/AMD desktop machine, is safe to assume that the Ultra will be about twice as fast. here is a video I've recorded on the MBP, Vray now runs much faster since they fixed a few things including the interactive denoiser: I'm not sure the MP will be showed this summer, most likely for late 2022, it will probably use a smaller TSMC node that wont' be ready for the summer.

It should be simply twice as fast as an M1 Max, better to check with real scene (benchmarks are not native) with Vray or Corona though, in latest years I've seen singnifcative difference between Cinebench and other renderer.

No need to ask for anything, you should do a research about how much you can get from 1.000.000 Youtube views, it may surprise you 😉

I'm sorry if I seemed offensive, it was not not my intention. I'm not emotional at all about this, I just think that is naive to think that these people are rockstars and are going to change something in the 3D world (at least not the one you listed, really.. they are just average Youtubers with lots of views, nothing more). You say that Polyfjord is an "earth mover", among the people that are changing the 3D world, but honestly I fail to see even a single interesting video... that is not even average stuff (see attached image of the Youtube homepage). You really want me to think that this stuff deserve 2.5 million views??: You have indicated his success by the number of viewer but as showed even a big butt girl can do the same or better. There are very talented artists that do not have the same notoriety despite offering far better content but you should know that Youtube algorithms do not reward the best content, only the stuff (quite often mediocre stuff) that attract the most viewers, the more viewers the more money they get from advertising etc. Even in my video if I show a crappy tutorial I get a lot more views than the one obtained with more complex/informative video, this do not mean that the crappy tutorial is better and if I get more subscribers by making mediocre stuff that does not transform me in a rockstar 😉 BTW I don't like the work for my clients and I do not judge that art at all, it's just what my clients want and as a professional I'm trying to do my best to please them, if it was up to me they would all have minimal houses 😄 We have different view of the world we live, you are a top enthusiast and I'm on the opposite side of the spectrum since it's really hard to impress me, I'm fine with that 🙂

After your comment just out of curiosity I went to see the video (only a few seconds..), and no, ther's no PS in there 😉 My videos don't even reach 20.000 views, maybe I should hire that girls for my intro, then I'll be a rockstar too!

We have very different idea of what is deep and rich 🙂 and our world is not a Youtube 3D contest.... since crappy NTF are sold for the same money of a Picasso I guess people are getting out of touch from the reality more and more. I do not consider them top 3d artist. For me a top 3d artist is someone who can produce really stunning results, but beside Hubert those Youtubers are not even very good one to be honest. If we judge people by the number of visualizations then we must conclude that this girl is a genius (just a random video with 3 million visualizations):