PDA

View Full Version : Redshift for lightwave



samurai_x
10-11-2016, 05:30 AM
Lightwave next has no firm release date and no info coming at all that thirdparty devs might think there aren't any lightwave users around. Might as well let devs know that there are still ightwave users in this link at redshift forums.

https://www.redshift3d.com/forums/viewthread/5626/

There's 1 page for lightwave users. 1 freaking page. No wonder maxwell dropped lightwave support.

12 pages for modo users. And modo already has sweet vray integration.


Lightwave implementation would be fantastic.

https://vimeo.com/129346968

lardbros
10-11-2016, 06:13 AM
This would be great, but can't imagine there are a great deal of LW users who would invest.

Anyone buy Arnold for LW? How many have bought Octane? (Octane may be a different matter, as I think the release of the LW version came at a good time).

Hopefully I'm totally wrong, and Juanjo might help make Redshift a possibility for LW too?

rustythe1
10-11-2016, 06:24 AM
but is this maybe a positive? people don't see the need for a second renderer (although I have to admit I was looking around for alternatives a while back and redshift was one I was looking at)

MichaelT
10-11-2016, 08:46 AM
Well, we know nothing about the new renderer. It could also be because the new renderer is so good, that theirs really doesn't offer that much. They probably know more about what is coming, than we do (but are under NDA) and saw that the possible sales just aren't there. Speculations of course. But I am just saying, that it might not have anything to do with LWG being silent. We just don't know why.

samurai_x
10-11-2016, 08:48 AM
but is this maybe a positive? people don't see the need for a second renderer (although I have to admit I was looking around for alternatives a while back and redshift was one I was looking at)

Options are always welcome. Especially superior options.
Modo already has a really good internal renderer.
But people still wanted octane and vray and they have it now.
Vray! Some people have been asking for this in lw. The renderer they used for Kingsglaive Final Fantasy XV


12 pages long on the redshift forums from modo users. 1 page for lw. :confused:


Interesting article on biased vs unbiased renderers.
https://labs.chaosgroup.com/index.php/rendering-rd/the-truth-about-unbiased-rendering/

ianr
10-11-2016, 09:13 AM
Please don't shout Hobbist here, or Elitist cos, everything trickles down. The point is that an option to use such a efficient renderer is 5 star paramount,

that is why you should get behind a lobby for this, no matter your curve on the station. If It CAN be LightWaved it should be forum backed for when such need arises.

The Need is here, more quicker jobs pay for more hardware & so it goes....



In Redshift for example, scene translation from the host app is by necessity a CPU operation & Lightwave NeXt will be CPU, but is multi threaded which is very good when needed.

The Up-lift in RedShift, is for who wants to leverage a Renderer farm CHEAPER than before, i.e. A small shop or Scale up Vertically for a CHEAPER FILM in hardware/ cost terms.

PLEASE DON't shout here ask Renderer Farms cos' many times they are BUSY.

The RedShift Ticket is Simple = A saving a at least of 5 times over previous Hardware/ Farms setups in efficiency/ time/Cost.


If you wish to know the thinking to get the most out of multi-GPU systems, many power users choose to render multiple frames concurrently on each system.

For example, on an 8 GPU machine, you could choose to render 8 frames concurrently, each with 1 GPU, or 4 frames concurrently, each with 2 GPUs.

The benefit of this approach is that even single threaded CPU operations are parallelized leading to linear scaling of the total frame time.

For example, rendering 4 frames concurrently means you will be doing scene translation on 4 different frames in parallel.

A number of render manager App's out there (e.g. Deadline) make this very easy as they let you treat a single machine as multiple render nodes (Deadline calls this feature “GPU affinity”).

Note that when you choose to render concurrent frames on a single machine, you will need to watch out for system RAM and CPU cores.The fact that the total frame time is not 100% GPU time.

A good rule of thumb is 2 CPU cores per job and system RAM equivalent to 2x that of the highest VRAM GPU on the job.

For example, with a 8x GTX 1080 system running 4 concurrent jobs (each with 2 GPUs), recommended at least 8 cores and 64GM system RAM.


It cost alot to get LIGHTWAVE when historically, it was welded to the TOASTER, think of GPU's as project assist( A Toaster's Cost ) these days.

Surely the quicker a Boutique turns out a finished shot is paramount , it is the major priority for the customer.

jasonwestmas
10-11-2016, 12:23 PM
I posted my support for GPU Redshift. Been using it in maya, really nice.

tburbage
10-11-2016, 07:28 PM
I guess I'm ambivalent about Redshift for LW because of the theoretical but as yet completely unknown actual potential for the rendering update in LW+next (and the already available and presumably fairly mature implementation of Octane in LW). For me, it would seem foolish to add more investment on top of LW 2015 without clear knowledge of what the next step is.

I've started an evaluation process for iRay, Redshift, and Octane just to try to understand the pros and cons of each, but have a way to go to have come to any clear conclusions. My use of iRay or Redshift would be in Maya. Octane could be Maya or LightWave. iRay with its integration into the Substance tools, and MDL support, I find very interesting.

Anyway, I'd be curious to know for those who want Redshift in LightWave, or are using Redshift in Maya, why Redshift and not Octane?

Schwyhart
10-11-2016, 08:03 PM
Personally, I'd rather have an awesome internal render engine. It can be a real pain sometimes to get everything over to another renderer.

tyrot
10-11-2016, 08:07 PM
trust me octane integration is rock solid. Download demo and see

samurai_x
10-11-2016, 08:33 PM
Anyway, I'd be curious to know for those who want Redshift in LightWave, or are using Redshift in Maya, why Redshift and not Octane?

I have octane v2 for lw and been using it since the alpha days. Its just not close. So I've decided to drop octane until its fast enough.

Have you seen the maxwell gpu renderer? Its super slooooow. :D

I tell people just compare vray and maxwell. No contest vray is super fast that's why its industry standard.
I don't think anyone would question how slow maxwell is no matter how much they say its physically accurate. CG is all fake and tons of vray renders compare well to maxwell renders. Nobody would render a full feature film with maxwell. Lots have done it with vray.

Now do the same comparison with redshift and octane, gpu powered biased renderer vs gpu powered unbiased renderer.

I don't know if Juanjo is still interested with lightwave. He's not made any comment on redshift status.
Maybe he completely moved to Houdini and will drop octane lw, too, sooner than later.

js33
10-11-2016, 08:48 PM
It didn't help that the Maxwell demo was done with a 960. If you are trying to show the world how great and fast your GPU renderer is it doesn't make a lot of sense to use a below gaming budget card. What they should have done was show it with a Titan X Pascal or 1080 and show that it still performs on a 960.

But I agree I didn't think it looked that good no matter how fast or slow it rendered. Vray, Octane and Redshift have nothing to worry about.

juanjgon
10-12-2016, 02:41 AM
Maybe he completely moved to Houdini and will drop octane lw, too, sooner than later.

Don't worry, I've no plans to drop the Octane for LightWave development or support ;)

-Juanjo

tyrot
10-12-2016, 06:05 AM
touchdown!

erikals
10-12-2016, 06:33 AM
http://erikalstad.com/backup/misc.php_files/smile.gif

ianr
10-12-2016, 09:07 AM
I guess I'm ambivalent about Redshift for LW because of the theoretical but as yet completely unknown actual potential for the rendering update in LW+next (and the already available and presumably fairly mature implementation of Octane in LW). For me, it would seem foolish to add more investment on top of LW 2015 without clear knowledge of what the next step is.

I've started an evaluation process for iRay, Redshift, and Octane just to try to understand the pros and cons of each, but have a way to go to have come to any clear conclusions. My use of iRay or Redshift would be in Maya. Octane could be Maya or LightWave. iRay with its integration into the Substance tools, and MDL support, I find very interesting.

Anyway, I'd be curious to know for those who want Redshift in LightWave, or are using Redshift in Maya, why Redshift and not Octane?


Well Thurbage, Redshift has taken a lot of London boutiques by storm,

& obivously the bigger houses are evaluating.

See my post & Samurai's -SPEED- I mean turn-round time.

Join the Redshift forums ask about what projects are hooked up to it?

Waver's should be lobbying to be on that boat, S.S. Redshift

jasonwestmas
10-12-2016, 03:04 PM
Anyway, I'd be curious to know for those who want Redshift in LightWave, or are using Redshift in Maya, why Redshift and not Octane?

Mainly for stylistic reasons and obvious ones like the ability to use onboard ram along with the GPU Vram. But if your main priorities lie in unbiased, physically accurate scenes that don't require large polygon counts then there is not much incentive to use Redshift. Then there are speed reasons of course which is an advantage of using an biased render engine.

samurai_x
10-13-2016, 02:12 AM
Don't worry, I've no plans to drop the Octane for LightWave development or support ;)

-Juanjo

Are you considering redshift for lw? You already know lw inside out.

S0nny
10-13-2016, 04:13 AM
Are you considering redshift for lw? You already know lw inside out.

Bump for interest, the only gpu option for lw is octane right now, and the price is the same as Redshift.

About Maxwell, yes gpu render is not quite there yet, very slow imho. I guess there is some disappointment around, since the forum is 404 since the launch. There's just one short video, with a very simple scene and very simple materials, rendered with a GTX 960(!). Looks like they put the adv material for v4 launch a bit in a hurry. Anyway there is the demo available, maybe I'll give it a try.

ianr
10-13-2016, 04:59 AM
Are you considering redshift for lw? You already know lw inside out.

Maybe you can let us know after the Houdini port, if you can't say now Juanjgon. nda's and all that?

50one
10-13-2016, 06:55 AM
Given the unwillingness to communicate with outside world and the shrinking community thanks to those actions I highly doubt Redshift will be ported to LW, I'm guessing it will be part of Autodesk in near future anyway haha.

I'm still waiting for the NEXT renderer, as I absolutely have no idea how LWG is developing a renderer from scratch that will be production ready from day one, I really want to see that.
My guess is that this is the major culprit of this imminent release :rolleyes:

I know redshift is fast and beesknees but holymacaroni, its users are ready to eat your heart out if you dare to question anything, even Blender fans are not that hardcore:D.

Edit: I said Autodesk but I know those guys are working closely with one company so it might be an idicator who's the buyer with priority and it could be interesting.

jasonwestmas
10-13-2016, 07:35 AM
Given the unwillingness to communicate with outside world and the shrinking community thanks to those actions . . .
I know redshift is fast and beesknees but holymacaroni, its users are ready to eat your heart out if you dare to question anything, even Blender fans are not that hardcore:D.


Sounds familiar haha.

S0nny
10-13-2016, 07:59 AM
Edit: I said Autodesk but I know those guys are working closely with one company so it might be an idicator who's the buyer with priority and it could be interesting.

Interesting. AD have just implemented Arnold in Maya 2017, but Redshift has also the Houdini plugin and an alpha (or beta) of C4d, and the next one will probably be Modo. Maybe it can be interesting for Thefoundry because of Nuke and Mari also.

Anyway, just one _industry standard_ render for lw would be something...

THIBAULT
10-13-2016, 08:37 AM
Perso, i choose render engine according to the developer ! Juan, for LW, nobody else.
You have to see the work done on Octane !
Perfect and always listening.

tyrot
10-13-2016, 10:25 AM
I feel like ... Juan is not so into Redshift ... If he says "guys .. octane is all the way" then Octane is all the way.. for LW

ianr
10-13-2016, 10:44 AM
Well you two last posters,

Octane is great for static Hi Rez,don't get me wrong.

But Juan IS the MODERATOR on the Redshift Houdini Forum section,that is why

There are for bonuses for both, never say never in innovation....

tyrot
10-13-2016, 03:13 PM
hmmm then this is a great news !

jwiede
10-13-2016, 03:23 PM
hmmm then this is a great news !

Or as easily could wind up having no meaningful impact on LW users at all.

tyrot
10-13-2016, 04:10 PM
john :) come on now ... how many times we discussed.. If JUAN wants there is no limit for him. His free work was Arnold for LW :)

samurai_x
10-13-2016, 08:49 PM
I feel like ... Juan is not so into Redshift ... If he says "guys .. octane is all the way" then Octane is all the way.. for LW

Or he doesn't want octane lw sales eroded if he announces redshift for lw is in development.
He seems to be really focused on houdini and even became a moderator for houdini. :D

m.d.
10-13-2016, 10:18 PM
How many more people are going to buy octane for LW that haven't already?

A couple days ago he was abandoning lightwave remember....:)

Redshift for lightwave would be awesome, but people have been pestering Juan to port every new render that comes along to Lightwave for the last couple years....remember indigo and corona?
Basically every time a new shiny render appears someone starts a thread trying to pressure Juan into porting it to lightwave
He only has limited time and can't work for free.
Although Redshift is an awesome render the LW interest so far is low because of the expectations for LW 2017

Octane was a far more popular release (so far) and the plugins were paid....much more attractive as a business model for a developer.

Juan has to decide whether this will be a good venture for him, or this is another random plea to port the latest render only to be abandoned by the next one that comes along.

samurai_x
10-13-2016, 11:33 PM
How many more people are going to buy octane for LW that haven't already?

A couple days ago he was abandoning lightwave remember....:)

Redshift for lightwave would be awesome, but people have been pestering Juan to port every new render that comes along to Lightwave for the last couple years....remember indigo and corona?
Basically every time a new shiny render appears someone starts a thread trying to pressure Juan into porting it to lightwave
He only has limited time and can't work for free.
Although Redshift is an awesome render the LW interest so far is low because of the expectations for LW 2017

Octane was a far more popular release (so far) and the plugins were paid....much more attractive as a business model for a developer.

Juan has to decide whether this will be a good venture for him, or this is another random plea to port the latest render only to be abandoned by the next one that comes along.


I wouldn't assume majority of lw users have octane. Its not a game changing renderer. Does everyone have kray back then? Probably not, too. Fprime was a game changer back then.

I never asked Juan for corona or indigo. I have indigo, too, but not requesting Juanjo to port that to lw. Only redshift because its effect to production and deliverables is like fprime.
Octane was popular because it was one of the pioneers of gpu powered renderers.
But I've abandoned octane for redshift and I'm not the only octane user who switched to redshift.

There's no contest biased renderers will always be faster.
Quality is not an issue Kingsglaive: Final Fantasy was rendered on vray.

Anyone asking him to work for free? Where?

tyrot
10-14-2016, 04:04 AM
dude what are you smoking ? Octane is a game changer for a LW user ... period..

m.d.
10-14-2016, 09:37 AM
I never asked Juan for corona or indigo. I have indigo, too, but not requesting Juanjo to port that to lw. Only redshift because its effect to production and deliverables is like fprime.


So your no longer interested in him porting Corona render?

http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?143355-Corona-renderer-vote-for-integration&p=1400235&viewfull=1#post1400235

jasonwestmas
10-14-2016, 11:59 AM
Although Redshift is an awesome render the LW interest so far is low because of the expectations for LW 2017

Octane was a far more popular release (so far) and the plugins were paid....much more attractive as a business model for a developer.

Juan has to decide whether this will be a good venture for him, or this is another random plea to port the latest render only to be abandoned by the next one that comes along.

Why would a serious user have an interest in only a single render engine? I think the smart move is to learn the benefits of both cpu and gpu rendering and to recognize that hybrid (gpu/cpu) rendering has it's pluses for certain types of projects.

I'll discard any suspicions that Lightwave is an app. for cheap skates who have little interest in 3rd party rendering. The best way to get support is to give the people who are interested a chance to make a plugin popular; Not to just assume we all want and expect everything from LW3G.

m.d.
10-14-2016, 05:01 PM
Why would a serious user have an interest in only a single render engine? I think the smart move is to learn the benefits of both cpu and gpu rendering and to recognize that hybrid (gpu/cpu) rendering has it's pluses for certain types of projects.

I'll discard any suspicions that Lightwave is an app. for cheap skates who have little interest in 3rd party rendering. The best way to get support is to give the people who are interested a chance to make a plugin popular; Not to just assume we all want and expect everything from LW3G.


Preaching to the choir...
I don't disagree with anything you said, but don't see any relevance with anything you quoted from me

I run every external render available for lightwave, so not sure where the cheapskate line is coming from...

jasonwestmas
10-14-2016, 08:16 PM
Preaching to the choir...
I don't disagree with anything you said, but don't see any relevance with anything you quoted from me

I run every external render available for lightwave, so not sure where the cheapskate line is coming from...

I was stating that I don't think the lack of interest in redshift is because of interest in Lightwave 201x. I think the integrity of the lightwave workflow is going to be maintained, (that is if enough users will still be around to use it). So using a future version of Lightwave will not be a hard leap for the users of today. The consistent users will easily adapt, so waiting and avoiding 3rd party options now to see what the shiny new Lightwave will bring is a unproductive way to think. We need 3rd party support now and not tomorrow to keep up with things. Not to mention this new base for Lightwave is so infantile, why limit ourselves to that.

Lightwave users today are often labeled as non-adventurous, inefficient cheap skates (ironic considering how much cheaper software is in general now) because they want to save a few more bucks; Are loyal to a fault and aren't into learning new things that are being used in other packages either just because. . . . Which is why its hard to get more expensive (as a whole) plugin developers that develop for Lightwave these days. (Then add on top of that the slow LW development) It's merely something that I see in the attitudes of people and plugin developers towards lightwave users. I don't think I'm exaggerating.

Despite all that, I would encourage anyone questioning the capabilities of Lightwave User Support towards 3rd party developers to give us less questionable people a chance; A chance to make their software more popular (showing it off and the like in a lightwave pipeline) in regards to selling "plenty" of licenses. Yes it's a gamble I would say please do it for the good of competition in general and not just doing what is easiest at the time.

Of course there are other packages in line that have yet to have redshift implemented. Why are lightwave users always last? I guess we have to wait because of the fact that lightwave users are the quiet box turtles and not the screaming eagles of the 3d industry??

But as you said: Preaching to the choir. :) I merely mention these things to provoke others to pay attention to what is going on in the big picture and perhaps be a little more adventurous.

samurai_x
10-14-2016, 09:34 PM
dude what are you smoking ? Octane is a game changer for a LW user ... period..

Its not a game changer for lw. Tbh its very slow. Fprime was a game changer but not octane.
Too bad you know nothing, only what you have access to. :D

samurai_x
10-14-2016, 09:41 PM
So your no longer interested in him porting Corona render?

http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?143355-Corona-renderer-vote-for-integration&p=1400235&viewfull=1#post1400235

That's not a definitive request, is it? So how about doing a search of how many times I posted Juanjo to port Redshift for lw since you have a lot of time to waste. What a pity.
Obviously jealous of redshift because octane is being left in the dust. :rolleyes:

m.d.
10-15-2016, 12:09 AM
That's not a definitive request, is it? So how about doing a search of how many times I posted Juanjo to port Redshift for lw since you have a lot of time to waste. What a pity.
Obviously jealous of redshift because octane is being left in the dust. :rolleyes:

No I recognized your post style....how do you think I knew it was you :)
I could go into details, but not here to pick a fight.
I have no brand loyalty....if redshift kicks *** I'll switch the day it becomes available so the jealously remark doesn't hit home as much as you think....

tyrot
10-15-2016, 02:31 AM
Its not a game changer for lw. Tbh its very slow. Fprime was a game changer but not octane.
Too bad you know nothing, only what you have access to. :D

ok you are a serious smoker :) Are you an Octane user ? Or you just tested Octane demo with a pathetic GPU ? wait ... whatever ...

rustythe1
10-15-2016, 03:39 AM
Its not a game changer for lw. Tbh its very slow. Fprime was a game changer but not octane.
Too bad you know nothing, only what you have access to. :D

yep, I have never got any of the demo versions to run on my machine, it seems to have an issue with something and just crashes my whole pc if I try to render, vpr worked but with bugs like that it didn't give me the confidence to bother trying to fix it as NVidia release a new driver every few weeks, its only fast If you can afford a whole bunch of expensive gpus, and you also rely on the developer and NVidia not screwing things up where as cpu is much more stable,

tyrot
10-15-2016, 06:26 AM
oh boy ... you have 3 GTX 970s and you could not manage rendering with octane ? i think there is something very wrong with your system. And Juan one of the best programmer not only for his stable code but also awesome support.

Plus they are NOT ... i repeat NOT relying on NVIDIA for future :) Plus .. i never had a single crash with my well 5 different GPUs with very moderate systems compares to yours.

So i think you have other issues dude...

ianr
10-16-2016, 06:27 AM
We DO know that LightWave 2016/7 NeXt will be a CPU Renderer No GPU
capabilities this was said/ posted by LINO for sure. Right?

So time doesn't stand still.
Octane is great, Rene aka LW guru blows me
away with that he pushes Octane to do.

But there is room also for Redshift as well as Octane, its NOt a Battle,
they serve different markets, I keep on saying this..

Redshift has come from the Game industry engines were Speed Is God.
I keep on saying this.

Anything that gets us closer to a CGi Creator's Heaven
before the sun goes down has gotta be a good thang!

erikals
10-16-2016, 08:58 AM
you have 3 GTX 970s and you could not manage rendering with octane ?

yes, this does indeed sound a bit strange.

js33
10-16-2016, 10:58 AM
Yes it does as I have only one 970 and rendering with Octane is great. It gives you an instant update of the scene while moving the camera, adjusting surfaces or lights then quickly resolves the scene. Now this is not final render quality but is damn fast compared to the VPR which itself is pretty fast.

erikals
10-16-2016, 11:05 AM
Outdoor scenes with instanced grass looks great and renders fast in Octane.
in LightWave you get into AntiAliasing and Flicker challenges pumping up Rendertimes.

not saying Octane must be the Holy Grail, but...
https://www.google.no/search?q=Holy+Grail%2C&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&ei=MrMDWPeCFJKCNMuIshg#q=holy+grail+monty+python&tbm=vid

tburbage
10-16-2016, 12:59 PM
Given the unwillingness to communicate with outside world and the shrinking community thanks to those actions I highly doubt Redshift will be ported to LW, I'm guessing it will be part of Autodesk in near future anyway haha.
Yep. If I were a 3rd party developer, I would be sitting the fence at this point. Things just seem too unsettled and indeterminate. Until the next LW release, people who prefer to center their 3D work in LW will not have a clear idea of the choices they are making per 3rd party renderers when looking down the road a year or two.

Jason, you made a comment earlier about what "serious" users would want or do, but it is important to remember that 3D software is used in many contexts, and by people who may have very different objectives in their work. Many people are primarily single frame render-oriented, while the intent of others is to need to render long form off-line render work. For some, their end-of-pipe renderer is a real-time one as in Unreal, Unity, etc. The rendering facilities needed by each of these people can be quite different. Some are seeking a full replacement for their default renderer, others something that simply augments or enhances their workflow, e.g. fast lookdev, fast baking, or faster rendering of elements which the native renderer is especially slow at. Although FPrime was capable of being the final renderer, for me it was its fast IPR ability while still using the native cameras, lights, materials, and post-processing that made it so useful to me (in the pre-native VPR era).

Just as a final thought, the work that is being done on LW's rendering pipeline *may* include API changes which make it easier for 3rd party renderers to tightly integrate, but we won't know until we see it. 3rd party developers such as Juanjo presumably have the LW3DG connections to learn of those now under NDA, so we'll see.

erikals
10-16-2016, 02:13 PM
well, based on new plugins, it seems LWG has made it possible for 3rd party developers to make more powerful plugins.
also, as far as i recall (.) the Turbulence plugin for LW2017is ready to be shipped once LW2017 gets a launch.

- OD Toolset
- Advanced Placement
- 3rd Powers

samurai_x
10-16-2016, 08:28 PM
Outdoor scenes with instanced grass looks great and renders fast in Octane.
in LightWave you get into AntiAliasing and Flicker challenges pumping up Rendertimes.


That depends on what type of grass. Instanced or displacements. Instanced grass is fast. Displacements not so much. Lightwave native renderer is capable of rendering instanced grass faster because you have unlimited render nodes. :D

If you're interested in grass I assume its for viz work. I would invest in Unreal3d rather than waste time with offline renderers.

erikals
10-16-2016, 08:48 PM
nope. animated Instanced grass with bearable AntiAliasing isn't fast. (compared to Octane)

samurai_x
10-16-2016, 09:03 PM
nope. animated Instanced grass with bearable AntiAliasing isn't fast. (compared to Octane)

What's your hardware?

tyrot
10-16-2016, 10:15 PM
Dude what is YOUR hardware ?

Did you EVER render anything for an archviz client ?

You really compared LWnative with Octane .. ON anti aliasing ... Anti Aliasing?

Are you writing these posts for fun ? I mean i do not blame you .. waiting next Lightwave can cause some serious issues .. ..

samurai_x
10-16-2016, 11:05 PM
Dude what is YOUR hardware ?

Did you EVER render anything for an archviz client ?

You really compared LWnative with Octane .. ON anti aliasing ... Anti Aliasing?

Are you writing these posts for fun ? I mean i do not blame you .. waiting next Lightwave can cause some serious issues .. ..

Archiviz? Lol! That's boring. Maybe ask me that 10 years ago. I do moving pictures. :D
I am investing more time in Unreal3d for the past year. Offline renderers will be extinct for viz work.
You will be extinct if you don't adapt to new technology.

30 render nodes. 2 980 gtx.

I think your octane bandwagon is still strong. Stay off the fumes its only diesel compared to redshift. :D

tyrot
10-17-2016, 06:17 AM
By the way .. do not poo poo Archviz .. at least financially .. some of us like to have big checks from construction companies or big hotels :)134822

erikals
10-17-2016, 07:01 AM
Nice!  http://erikalstad.com/backup/misc.php_files/smile.gif

mummyman
10-17-2016, 08:19 AM
By the way .. do not poo poo Archviz .. at least financially .. some of us like to have big checks from construction companies or big hotels :)134822

Wish I could pick your brain on archviz!!! or anyone's for that matter.

samurai_x
10-17-2016, 11:03 PM
By the way .. do not poo poo Archviz .. at least financially .. some of us like to have big checks from construction companies or big hotels :)134822

I was being sarcastic. I was using lightscape way back to render viz stuff. Then vray, then kray. But then kray was standstill for years without significant progress so there's no option for lw right now unless you want to wait for noise and blotches to clear with unbiased renderers.

But I did really move on to unreal to do viz work when I need to. But I still want the fastest offline renderer for general animation work because that's my work now. Right now redshift is just the fastest renderer on earth. Imagine vray with gpu powered.

Some former lw, octane users weigh in on which is the bang for the buck renderer redshift, octane and vray for modo.
http://community.thefoundry.co.uk/discussion/topic.aspx?f=4&t=126522

I only see redshift and vray recommended. No suprise.

js33
10-18-2016, 02:00 AM
Octane should add a biased option as well. It may not be so easy but it seems like they could make some changes to give you a biased option and use unbiased only when you need to.

tyrot
10-18-2016, 04:58 AM
afaik ... octane kinda has biased with direct lightning when you use diffuse option... gotta check with juan though...

samurai_x
10-18-2016, 07:11 AM
afaik ... octane kinda has biased with direct lightning when you use diffuse option... gotta check with juan though...

the-truth-about-unbiased-rendering
https://labs.chaosgroup.com/index.php/rendering-rd/the-truth-about-unbiased-rendering/


How one VFX artist made these 3 minutes of madness with redshift
https://www.fxguide.com/featured/how-one-vfx-artist-made-these-3-minutes-of-madness/

m.d.
10-18-2016, 08:35 AM
afaik ... octane kinda has biased with direct lightning when you use diffuse option... gotta check with juan though...

The entire direct lighting kernel is biased by design....no question you can check the manual

You can bias the crap outta the path tracing kernels as well. I lower GI clamp from its default of 1,000,000 down to 3 and use heavy caustic blur.

I generally use it over direct lighting now because of caustic blur you can get less noise faster then direct lighting.

It's your choice in octane to go biased or unbiased.....most people don't even touch the settings or have any clue what they do.

Octane default setting are tuned to their most 'unbiased' state, it's up to the user to leave it there or not.

ianr
10-18-2016, 09:40 AM
Redshift is NOT gamechanger for LW it is ESSENTIAL for keeping LW inside Industry
Pipelines, what with it's ‘out of core’ architecture that will keep LW on the animation radar.

There is a reason that a product gets a 5 out of 5 rating & 10 out of 10 in 3dWorld magazine.
Just ask Ben Vost aka BeeVee, he used to be the editor of one, the reviews are not faked.
http://www.creativebloq.com/3d/review-redshift-51620313

It’s apples & oranges, Octane with its great framed images is the apple in Lightwave’s eye.
Where as Redshift is an orange that has the Juice, the juice to make it the quickest renderer
on Earth.
All this bickering must be music to other Apps ears , (Modo & CD4D chuckling away ) as we
can’t get behind even a start vote for such a great tool, why has this thread being derailed
into Octane, I know the conversational connector is Juan, but it’s about exploring positive
add-ons, not threats to existing tools.

What do potential third-party Devs see (RedShift), not much to get inspired about, caustic
bad manners back and forth that do not inspire anyone, even if some evangelists mean well.
I would be comfortable with everyone doing some back research first be before they post,
and I thank TBurbage for his very balanced post. Let’s Group Up & Renderer, or has the
psychological damage wrought in these forums by sheer silence finally taken its toll.

ianr
10-18-2016, 09:42 AM
This the current description REDSHIFT:

Redshift is the world’s first fully GPU-accelerated, biased renderer.
Redshift renders scenes many times faster than existing CPU-based renderers.
Save time and money, and unleash your creativity!

Redshift is a biased renderer, it uses approximation & interpolation techniques to achieve
noise-free results with relatively few samples,making it much faster than unbiased rendering.
Redshift supports several biased global illumination techniques including:
Brute Force GI
Photon Mapping (with Caustics)
Irradiance Cache (similar to Irradiance Map and Final Gather)
Irradiance Point Cloud (similar to Importons and Light Cache)

Redshift uses an out-of-core architecture for geometry and textures,
allowing you to render massive scenes that would otherwise never fit in video memory.
A common problem with GPU renderers is that they are limited by the available VRAM on the video card
– that is they can only render scenes where the geometry and/or textures fit entirely in video memory.
This poses a problem for rendering large scenes with many millions of polygons and gigabytes of textures.
With Redshift, you can render scenes with tens of millions of polygons and a virtually unlimited number
of textures with off-the-shelf hardware.

Redshift supports geometry instancing allowing you to render massive scenes with large numbers of repeating objects,
like grass or trees, efficiently with almost no memory overhead.
Redshift also supports render proxies which allow you to place previously exported geometry in your scene
but loading into memory only at render time when it is needed.
With proxies, you can render scenes that would otherwise not even load in the host DCC application.
Like regular geometry, Redshift proxies can be instanced, making rendering scenes with billions of instanced polygons possible.

50one
10-18-2016, 10:26 AM
I haven't used it yet nor seen it, but can confirm it's super fast.
:D.

rustythe1
10-18-2016, 11:20 AM
hey, well here is an idea, rather than trying to get developers to integrate these renders into host apps, would it not make sense to have a standalone version that can import FBX and then save to a native format, most of these renderers already have standalone command line versions and their own file formats, this would open a ton of host apps with interchange, and also negate the need to update plugins every time an app is updated.

tyrot
10-18-2016, 11:39 AM
The entire direct lighting kernel is biased by design....no question you can check the manual

You can bias the crap outta the path tracing kernels as well. I lower GI clamp from its default of 1,000,000 down to 3 and use heavy caustic blur.

I generally use it over direct lighting now because of caustic blur you can get less noise faster then direct lighting.

It's your choice in octane to go biased or unbiased.....most people don't even touch the settings or have any clue what they do.

Octane default setting are tuned to their most 'unbiased' state, it's up to the user to leave it there or not.

thanks m.d. great post ! it is really super workflow! wow!

jwiede
10-18-2016, 12:08 PM
hey, well here is an idea, rather than trying to get developers to integrate these renders into host apps, would it not make sense to have a standalone version that can import FBX and then save to a native format, most of these renderers already have standalone command line versions and their own file formats, this would open a ton of host apps with interchange, and also negate the need to update plugins every time an app is updated.

Maxwell, Thea and others have tried this, but each encountered lots of customers loudly demanding stronger integration and less reliance on standalone app. Customers will use the standalone to handle features inaccessible from 3D app integration on occasion (special material attributes, special primitives, etc.), but loudly complain against being required to jump into standalone render app for rendering. Given the companies who offered standalone apps by and large have all subsequently made strong efforts at more comprehensive integrations into 3D apps, it appears "the market has spoken". At the same time, those companies still offer those standalone apps as well, and for lesser-featured 3D app integrations, the standalone apps are an important bridge and means of accessing features -- customer just apparently resent being _required_ to jump into the standalone for everything.

rustythe1
10-18-2016, 12:29 PM
Maxwell, thea, Vray and octane all currently have standalone versions, surely making a standalone version alongside the common plugins instead of making say the modo plugin would make more sense as you then open up all the CAD apps, I expect whats really happening here is companies like autodesk are paying substantial sums towards development to not allow third parties to smaller companies, I suspect that's why there has been an influx in modo addon interest since it joined forces with the foundary, considering that modo up until 2015 at least was quite a way behind lightwave in market share (in fact in 2014 lightwave had 8%, maya had 19% and modo only had 5% max had over 50% I think) and at the end of 2014 early 2015 according to a financial report (cant remember where) newtek reported a 43% increase in trade (although that could be from other areas but lightwave is still listed in newteks top 3 products)

jwiede
10-18-2016, 01:10 PM
(in fact in 2014 lightwave had 8%, maya had 19% and modo only had 5% max had over 50% I think)

Please cite your source. Those numbers don't approximate any remotely recent numbers from either Jon Peddie or IDG.

Also, what are C4D's and Houdini's market shares in the numbers you're citing? :rolleyes: What ranking is C4D at, for that matter?

S0nny
10-18-2016, 02:51 PM
Having a dedicated plugin is a huge benefit in time saving for setup, for the worflow, for the features, for almost anything. Unfortunately for lw there's only Octane and the old Kray.

Thea is really really fast, super easy to learn, in just some hours you can produce some nice simple product or studio render, but imho it's a no go, i.e. it does import only obj and 3ds, no fbx, no alembic no others, and the material editor is not node based. Editing materials it's a bit clunky, inelegant just like the standard surface editor in lw or any other non-nodal based editor (imho).

Maxwell 3 and older was an example of very good integration in lw. I didn't tried the v4 standalone yet, but I read somewhere that the gpu render have some big limitations for now, also it looks pretty slow. Not interested in this state, if I have time I'll do some test, but I guess it's better to wait for some updates.

Octane, it's very fast, right now I have the demo with the stupid limit on resolution which is also fixed in horizontal and can't be used in vertical frames, so I can't tell myself if it's suitable for interior or complex high res archviz projects. The integration in Lw is very good. Not tried the standalone yet, but I'll wait to invest in 2 or 3 gpus and the software itself after lw next, not before.

Redshift, I tried the demo just today, I could spend only two hours, it wasn't my computer, but I did some testing. If someone is interested I'll post some impressions tomorrow, I did some very very basic renders because I was just looking at the basic stuff. I can't tell if it's faster than Octane, this kind of test needs more time and some criteria. but it looks like very responsive, the settings are pretty straightforward, well organized, it looks like well integrated with Maya. The demo doesn't have the resolution limit like Octane, so you can test full size renders with watermarks. Also for the price of one license you get all the plugins available.

samurai_x
10-18-2016, 08:16 PM
would it not make sense to have a standalone version that can import FBX and then save to a native format

That never works for complex scenes. You need proper integration in the host app to take advantage of the tools available there.
In Unreal I could do viz work because that's mostly static models with camera movements. But say tv commercials, medical animation with particles, etc, will not be transferrable to Unreal.
In the early days of octane we only had the standalone with very limited animation tools in it. No way that was useful except for stills.




Also for the price of one license you get all the plugins available.

Yep. So anyone buying one license can use it on any of the supported host app.
Cheaper than having to buy each plugin if you use multiple appz. Buying for a render node there's also no need to buy standalone+plugins.

m.d.
10-18-2016, 10:00 PM
I just logged on to Redshifts forums to register my support for lightwave integration.....

Just 14 people interested (including me) and the developer saying they have no plans for integration.

I really don't see this happening anytime soon without a drastic change.

I love the multiple plugins with each license...(I may end up buying one for Houdini) but I think the problem lies there....Redshift obviously is contracting Juan to develop integration for Houdini and with 14 people interested that wont justify his development time for LW.

Not sure of the appetite for new render for LW users....good or bad, Octane came first....and sucked up all market share, and with LW 2017 render on the way as well it may be a soft demand for a new render engine

Photogram
10-18-2016, 10:40 PM
Don't worry, I've no plans to drop the Octane for LightWave development or support ;)

-Juanjo

Hello Juanjo, what's up with Arnold? any news?

samurai_x
10-19-2016, 01:50 AM
I love the multiple plugins with each license...(I may end up buying one for Houdini) but I think the problem lies there....Redshift obviously is contracting Juan to develop integration for Houdini and with 14 people interested that wont justify his development time for LW.

Not sure of the appetite for new render for LW users....good or bad, Octane came first....and sucked up all market share, and with LW 2017 render on the way as well it may be a soft demand for a new render engine

its cheap considering you get all plugins at that price.

At the pace they're developing its the gpu version of vray. Lwvers don't want to get left out again on the best out there. Doesn't matter who was first, only the best matters. :D

Modo users will have the best options soon whether gpu, cpu. 14 pages of modo users asking for redshift.

Vray already giving modo users the option to work with other vray users by using vrayscene exporter. That's a big advantage imo to be able to load scenes from other appz and continuing to edit and render. Lightwave totally missed the boat on that one.





Hello Juanjo, what's up with Arnold? any news?

Arnold will go the Mudbox path. Dead, not just mostly dead. They will probably stop selling licenses when they totally integrate it into the borg.

Danner
10-19-2016, 03:16 AM
Speaking of render engines I tried Clarisse. I don't recommend it. The render itself is quite fast, but the material setup is horrible, lots of clicks to get anything done.

rustythe1
10-19-2016, 04:07 AM
Speaking of render engines I tried Clarisse. I don't recommend it. The render itself is quite fast, but the material setup is horrible, lots of clicks to get anything done.

well it fast becoming the industry standard already adopted by all the big effects houses, ILM, MPC, DN, yes it can be a little difficult to navigate but its incredibly powerful and fast, and considering how long its been around they have done well (it was used for most of the desert and planet shots in star wars FA and the station on startrek due to its powerful instance and scene placement)

its also relatively cheap as its a standalone, scene editor and compositor all in one (and supports LWO!)

jwiede
10-19-2016, 07:03 AM
well it fast becoming the industry standard already adopted by all the big effects houses, ILM, MPC, DN, yes it can be a little difficult to navigate but its incredibly powerful and fast, and considering how long its been around they have done well (it was used for most of the desert and planet shots in star wars FA and the station on startrek due to its powerful instance and scene placement)

Clarisse's gigapoly display nav perf. makes it excellent for huge-scale cityscape and terrainscape work, as does the excellent instancing handling, and so forth.

I think they're putting more into a kind of scene-scape / lookdev niche, the absence of modeling/fx/sims/etc. isn't really a problem in those areas (vaguely similar to where Katana is aimed), but even for a lot of visualization-type use cases it's got some pretty impressive perf.

Danner
10-19-2016, 07:11 AM
I think what bugged me the most was that it was needlessly convoluted, they centered their efforts in performance but not in workflow or user interface. I was able to see the power of it, the speed and ease of cloning and placing, but surfacing is painful. Maybe the big boys have scripters making this easier.

bazsa73
10-19-2016, 07:36 AM
What is this hype about Redshift anyways? I mean there are hundreds of thousands of renderers aout there. Why redshift? Tomorrow we do not even remember the name.

jwiede
10-19-2016, 07:48 AM
What is this hype about Redshift anyways? I mean there are hundreds of thousands of renderers aout there. Why redshift? Tomorrow we do not even remember the name.

Redshift is gaining popularity and mindshare notably quickly due to very high perf even among GPU renderers, and quality of results.

jasonwestmas
10-19-2016, 07:52 AM
There is only one way to find out for sure what the hype is about. Read about it and try out the demo. :)

Danner
10-19-2016, 07:56 AM
When Blizzard Entertainment started using it as their go-to render engine is when I took a hard look at Redshift.

S0nny
10-19-2016, 08:01 AM
What is this hype about Redshift anyways? I mean there are hundreds of thousands of renderers aout there. Why redshift? Tomorrow we do not even remember the name.

Everybody say it's fast, but nobody seems to bother to post some test, or render or anything actually. I guess the point is it'll be another industry standard boat that lw will jump.

I prefer to experience first hand and try the software when I can: I have some quick renders with the Redshift demo in Maya, but really very basic stuff because as I said before I had little time to test (it wasn't my computer). In my test I can pretty much replicate the standard plastic and metal shader with my custom nodes*. Again, super simple scene with just one object, one hdri and one light, but I'll post something soon if anybody is interested. I kept the rendertimes because I have an Idea on how to compare with octane speed**.

edit: explainations, because I'm writing really bad:
*I mean in Lw I can replicate the basic plastic and metal redshift shader, almost identical, not the opposite of course
**because the speed really can't compare with Lw, at least in this simple tests

mummyman
10-19-2016, 09:23 AM
We had a huge amount of renders to pump out the past year or so. The XSI crew here decided on Redshift for all these: http://www.xvivo.net/hillemans-unsung-quest-to-save-the-worlds-children/

There was lots of talk about what to use for rendering. I have to say, Redshift is very fast. No, I don't have numbers, etc. But early on we tried a subsurface test of a full frame. And we were talking LW = 5-8 minutes a frame vs 1 min depending on quality settings and content. So lots of LW animation that was rendered in XSI / Redshift. There were many bumps in the road... but that's because it was still adding features (I think) I don't know how to use Redshift, so that's all I can come up with for plugs for Redshift. Anything faster, is better in my eyes. But you do have to miss out on some features until it gets added in. Same with Octane as they add more and more.

m.d.
10-19-2016, 09:36 AM
The real hype about redshift is not that it is biased GPU render.....Octane can also be biased

The hype is, it is a successful implementation of GPU photon mapping and final gather type algorithms

That you don't currently have in any other render.

However the LW integration is just a hope at this point....

Octane 4 will give this a major run in the speed department with the integration of the Brigade engine.
This is brigade running on 2x Titans....
https://youtu.be/FbGm66DCWok
This is one from 2014...2x Titans
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BpT6MkCeP7Y

They are currently having close to realtime with a single 980 now, and are working on a UE4 port for real time path tracing in games. And it's bi-directional path tracing, not unidirectional like Arnold and Furryball (maybe new LW too??) so I'm not sure how it does it so fast

THIBAULT
10-19-2016, 10:05 AM
We had a huge amount of renders to pump out the past year or so. The XSI crew here decided on Redshift for all these: http://www.xvivo.net/hillemans-unsung-quest-to-save-the-worlds-children/

There was lots of talk about what to use for rendering. I have to say, Redshift is very fast. No, I don't have numbers, etc. But early on we tried a subsurface test of a full frame. And we were talking LW = 5-8 minutes a frame vs 1 min depending on quality settings and content. So lots of LW animation that was rendered in XSI / Redshift. There were many bumps in the road... but that's because it was still adding features (I think) I don't know how to use Redshift, so that's all I can come up with for plugs for Redshift. Anything faster, is better in my eyes. But you do have to miss out on some features until it gets added in. Same with Octane as they add more and more.

Hi Brett and thank for your comment. Can you say what scene in your web site was made with WSI/Redshift. Thanks in advance

rustythe1
10-19-2016, 10:14 AM
ohhh, you grabbed my attention with that one, I may look back into octane when that comes about, apart from my crashes with test versions the fact you have to purchase the renderer and plugin is a bit of a bummer as it works out more than I pay for my lightwave upgrade, I kind of begrudge paying more for an add on than I do for my main software, but with that kind of speed it may tempt me

mummyman
10-19-2016, 10:16 AM
Hi Brett and thank for your comment. Can you say what scene in your web site was made with WSI/Redshift. Thanks in advance

Every video that is linked from the above Hilleman’s Quest videos on that page were all rendered in XSI / Redshift.

m.d.
10-19-2016, 10:39 AM
Wow....excellent work. Looks great

THIBAULT
10-19-2016, 11:03 AM
Thanks Brett ! For you and your speciality, XSI is the first choice ?

OjN
10-19-2016, 12:22 PM
Redshift3d is fast render core, no doubt. But the big question is: "fast to setup?". If it is, " Yes, We need it!". By the way, Fprime was the big deal a time ago, every single Lightwaver user love how fast Fprime speed up the setup of complex materials or difficult lighting.

The Lightwave forte (big sales point) is the good combo of render setup and production. Here a little interior example showing why I love Lightwave. I do less than 10 minutes interior renders like this without postpro (no Ps) with a complex lighting really fast. You can look a lighting setup example here: [URL="http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?147814-Render-for-archiviz-interiors"]

134859

People don't appreciate how fast Lightwave can render a scene with a lot of area lights (and many different ones thanks some free plugins). This speed and flexibility is something Vray users waited for and is only avalaible in Vray3 (you can control the area light quality individually plus the lightgroups render output now). Before Vray3, they were force to use a lot of mesh lights in large scenes like Modo users.


Lightwave users today are often labeled as non-adventurous, inefficient cheap skates (ironic considering how much cheaper software is in general now) because they want to save a few more bucks; Are loyal to a fault and aren't into learning new things that are being used in other packages either just because. . . . Which is why its hard to get more expensive (as a whole) plugin developers that develop for Lightwave these days. (Then add on top of that the slow LW development) It's merely something that I see in the attitudes of people and plugin developers towards lightwave users. I don't think I'm exaggerating.

Today, I believe Lightwavers know well a couple of 3d suites. Some use Softi or Maya (for tv animation/film), Houdini or Maya (Fx), Cinema/Max (mograph, archiviz) or Blender (animation/uv/sculpt).

mummyman
10-19-2016, 12:38 PM
Thanks Brett ! For you and your speciality, XSI is the first choice ?

You are welcome! At the time, it was the first choice. This was started on a few years ago. So in-house, we have more people invested in XSI. So that was almost a no brainer because of RedShifts speed. I'm not as XSI friendly, so I did most of the animation and ported it over to XSI for them. There was still a lot of crawling in renders, but it was more a learning curve of the software I think. To me... having Lightwave and being able to see displacements, etc. is a huge advantage over other packages that can't see maps until rendertime. I'm so used to Lightwave's workflow. But I don't have Octane.

MY first choice is always always Lightwave!

S0nny
10-19-2016, 01:38 PM
Nice works mummyman, bravo!

mummyman
10-19-2016, 03:17 PM
Nice works mummyman, bravo!

Thanks! I didn't render anything.. just some animation on a few of the clips. LOTS of file transfers / baking. Craziness. But it all worked out in the end.

S0nny
10-19-2016, 04:19 PM
This are some of the renders I did yesterday during a super fast session on a testing machine with Maya + Redshift demo.
Nothing fancy, I didn't have much time to spend and I do not have any experience in Maya, so I had to keep it very very simple, and try to just understand the workflow.

During the test I thought that it could be useful to setup a simple scene with some basic settings, and try to match the same quality in lw to have just an idea of how much it cost in term of work, setup, rendertime etc, even if it's uber basic.

This is not a comparison or anything scientific, I did the test just for me, also it's too simple to be meaningful for production.
But in the end I thought that with some math this renders can provide some infos about the ratio between Lw cpu render and Redshift gpu render times, not in general, but at least for this specific cases. So I decided to post it here, maybe someone is interested.

I know, apples and oranges etc, but with the same scenario and a very similar output quality it's something we can compare to octane, for example. The demo doesn't allow me to do similare renders, they are cropped because of the stupid size limitation.

Anyway, here's the first, I'll attach the others in the dropbox link here (http://tinyurl.com/jsz2dhq)

134860

Lw on the left, Rs on the right, settings for both:

- brute force gi, 4 bounces (in redshift 1st engine irradiance cache, 2nd brute force)
- same ior, 1.5 for plastic, 50 for metal
- same reflection blur for both (0.2 in this case)
- same diffuse RGB values for both (RGB 180 grey for the plastic)

Most of the work is done in the Lw shaders, because Rs shader is pretty straightforward and doesn't require any nodal network to do this simple task. This are a modification of some of my latest custom made shaders, which behave surprisingly similar to Rs. I did some modification to have a better match where possible.

In the file name you can see the difference in reflection blur for every render: R0.1 means refl blur 0.1 in a scale of 0 to 1.

Rendertimes:

For plastic R0.2: Lw 300" Rs 21" ratio ~14:1
For plastic R0.1: Lw 290" Rs 19" ratio ~15:1
For metal R0.2: Lw 364" Rs 6" ratio ~60:1
For metal R0.5: Lw 374" Rs 8" ratio ~47:1
For metal R1.0: Lw 285" Rs 6" ratio ~48:1
For plastic R0.2: no hdri with artificial light (10cm sphere): Lw 100" Rs 11" ratio ~9:1 (no suprise here, since there's no reflection blur and it's all spec blur)

About the hardware. I find more useful to use some benchmark as reference, because any config is different it doesn't really matter which graphic board or processor if there's no numbers to compare.

In this case this is a pretty old Cinebench R15 1100 score Cpu, and an Octane bench 126 Gpu.

You can do the math based on how your hardware perform. If you have a machine that does 2200 Cinebench points, just cut in half the Lw times, if you have a 250 octane bench gpus (2x gtx 980ti) cut in half the Rs times, etc.
Just keep in mind that Having a 3000 Cinebench point means a very expensive dual xeon machine, but you cut only about 3 times the Lw rendertimes.

One note aside, I discovered that you can't texture map in Maya if the objects has not UVs (like cubic, planar etc in Lw), is that for real?

m.d.
10-19-2016, 04:52 PM
One note aside, I discovered that you can't texture map in Maya if the objects has not UVs (like cubic, planar etc in Lw), is that for real?

Haven't used it in a few years....but I think all you need is a place2dTexture node in the hypergraph

samurai_x
10-19-2016, 07:45 PM
What is this hype about Redshift anyways? I mean there are hundreds of thousands of renderers aout there. Why redshift? Tomorrow we do not even remember the name.

To put it into perspective, would people like a gpu powered lw renderer that's atleast 10x faster? :D

How fast is lw renderer compared to maxwell rendering animations? You don't really see animations in maxwell because its really really slow. Lw renderer is used a lot in animation because its fast and produces great results.

Imagine maxwell that's gpu powered. So boosting rendering performance at least 10x. That's octane and cycles. Now its actually feasible to render animation. But you need at least 2-5 highend cards. One gfx card won't cut it.

Imagine lw renderer that's gpu powered. Boosting performance at least 10x. That's redshift. Afaik redshift is the first renderer to implement similar lw, vray type engine. 2 highend gfx cards is already enough. One is still ok.

People can wait for lw next renderer but that's still cpu. No way it will be half as fast as a gpu renderer.
And Lino already posted in facebook its not going to be avail soon. That could be a year from now or more.

S0nny
10-20-2016, 02:03 AM
Haven't used it in a few years....but I think all you need is a place2dTexture node in the hypergraph

Exactly, this is what I've done. Now, I don't have Maya on my computers, but as far as I remember the place2dtexture offered only settings for UV mapped objects. I can think hundreds of situations where simplu cubic/cil/spherical maps without UV saves me tons of time.

I'll try to make other tests maybe next week if my friend's computer is available again. Btw the level of customization of Maya is awsome, i.e. you can configure all the panels in the hypershade and develop all your materiale directly there. Still I don't like the 3dsmax like way of manage the non nodal connections between inputs and outputs.

bazsa73
10-20-2016, 02:23 AM
Okay. I see. Thank you for the detailed explanation forum mates.

S0nny
10-20-2016, 06:20 AM
Guys I'm tring to setup the same scene in Octane, but with the demo I can't really get the same render size.

Also, a small question: how do you make a spherical light with octane lights?

If anybody want to try, here's the scene (http://tinyurl.com/jsz2dhq)

The hdr is included, it's from the free sIBL archive on hdrlabs, so I guess there's no problem to redistribute.

rustythe1
10-20-2016, 07:33 AM
To put it into perspective, would people like a gpu powered lw renderer that's atleast 10x faster? :D

How fast is lw renderer compared to maxwell rendering animations? You don't really see animations in maxwell because its really really slow. Lw renderer is used a lot in animation because its fast and produces great results.

Imagine maxwell that's gpu powered. So boosting rendering performance at least 10x. That's octane and cycles. Now its actually feasible to render animation. But you need at least 2-5 highend cards. One gfx card won't cut it.

Imagine lw renderer that's gpu powered. Boosting performance at least 10x. That's redshift. Afaik redshift is the first renderer to implement similar lw, vray type engine. 2 highend gfx cards is already enough. One is still ok.

People can wait for lw next renderer but that's still cpu. No way it will be half as fast as a gpu renderer.
And Lino already posted in facebook its not going to be avail soon. That could be a year from now or more.

version 2 of clarrise was cpu and it was faster than redshift and octane, the new PBR is a little slower but they have said that will speed up on the next release as its a first implementation, I think Rob has hinted the same with lightwaves new renderer (he referred to the fact hardware has advanced so there is now the opportunity to advance the renderer and we are happy with the speed, reading between those lines says to me it has slowed a little but matters not because the current hardware has advanced to make up the time)

rustythe1
10-20-2016, 07:47 AM
3 billon polys at the start of his scene, a lot more by the end
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cCFauCQHJY

and some star wars stuff
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxnA_VuIcIM

ianr
10-20-2016, 11:08 AM
The real hype about redshift is not that it is biased GPU render.....Octane can also be biased

The hype is, it is a successful implementation of GPU photon mapping and final gather type algorithms

That you don't currently have in any other render.

However the LW integration is just a hope at this point....

Octane 4 will give this a major run in the speed department with the integration of the Brigade engine.
This is brigade running on 2x Titans....
https://youtu.be/FbGm66DCWok
This is one from 2014...2x Titans
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BpT6MkCeP7Y

They are currently having close to realtime with a single 980 now, and are working on a UE4 port for real time path tracing in games. And it's bi-directional path tracing, not unidirectional like Arnold and Furryball (maybe new LW too??) so I'm not sure how it does it so fast


I wish them well but the noise, people, & the build- time

Who's coding in real time denoiser like Altus?

Redshift is now not over a green hill of promises

I hope Otoy solve the Brigade problem , I would like it.

But Redshift is NOW.

samurai_x
10-20-2016, 09:18 PM
3 billon polys at the start of his scene, a lot more by the end
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cCFauCQHJY

and some star wars stuff
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxnA_VuIcIM

I looked at clar a while back. It was very expensive but looked very fast and can handle huge data set. They kept dropping the price. I thought they would be bankrupt or be sold.
Then doublenegative announces that it will be their main lookdev. Now its taken off. Mostly big facilities. Its still a bit expensive imo and the lack of other tools in it is like having a third LAYOUT.
I would rather work within the host app.

m.d.
10-20-2016, 10:37 PM
I wish them well but the noise, people, & the build- time

Who's coding in real time denoiser like Altus?

Redshift is now not over a green hill of promises

I hope Otoy solve the Brigade problem , I would like it.

But Redshift is NOW.

Redshift is now, but unfortunately not inside LW.....I let my Maya license go years back, so for me in the near future...Octane will be it
Octane 3.1 is on the horizon in the next few months....will include Altus denoiser and adaptive sampling. AS is reducing render times by 50% on in house testing. Altus already works inside of 3.0 (otoy internal builds)...and the coding is done by Altus :)
The real hold up is the AMD porting going on with 3.1.

samurai_x
10-20-2016, 11:02 PM
https://www.redshift3d.com/cms/assets/blog/3DWorld_Rs2.0_Sep_2016_Review_.pdf

Review from 3dworld. Killing 3 birds with 1 stone. :D

“…the flexibility of a biased render engine such as V-Ray, combined with a high-quality finish, ease of use and, reminiscent of Arnold, the ability to handle datasets. Mix that with the speed of GPU render engines like Octane and you’ve got a renderer that leaves the artists who use it with a massive grin"



Montréal’s Digital Dimension: delivering 36,000 frames a week with Redshift on Discovery Science’s enlightening Machines: How They Work

They also rendered Rainbow Six cinematics on Redshift.

https://vimeo.com/148146988

m.d.
10-20-2016, 11:27 PM
I know, apples and oranges etc, but with the same scenario and a very similar output quality it's something we can compare to octane, for example. The demo doesn't allow me to do similare renders, they are cropped because of the stupid size limitation.

Anyway, here's the first, I'll attach the others in the dropbox link here (http://tinyurl.com/jsz2dhq)

134860



In this case this is a pretty old Cinebench R15 1100 score Cpu, and an Octane bench 126 Gpu.



Ya hard to do a direct comparison....and this scene is pretty simple.
In Octane of course there is no reflection blur....just roughness values

So these are a glossy surface with roughness of 6% and 50%
Both render at about 16 seconds....there is zero difference in render times when changing the amount of roughness

Octane bench 121 (not the greatest as I had to pull a GPU)

134877
134878

samurai_x
10-21-2016, 12:03 AM
Wonder why Juanjo picked houdini over lightwave?

There's a reason why maxwell dropped houdini and lightwave.
Houdini isn't the right market for redshift imo. They deal with fx and mantra can do it better than anything.
Even vray is not commercially available in houdini. Trying to render fx with thirdparty renderers is more troublesome. Speaking from experience with fumefx and trying to render fumefx with any thirdparty renderer was problematic and slow

I think Juanjo will be disappointed with houdini redshift sales. Mantra is solid for houdini.
Now redshift for modo, lightwave makes a lot of sense imo. These two are for rendering pretty pictures. Pretty pictures 10 to 20x faster with biased gpu renderer...grin!

After katana, modo will be next for sure. They already have vray.
Lightwave will be left with inferior options.

tyrot
10-21-2016, 02:14 AM
is there a forum filter ... automatically corrects depressive lightwave posts :)

samurai_x
10-21-2016, 02:34 AM
Bottom paragraph.
http://www.digitalmediaworld.tv/vfx/684-redshift-renders-faster-with-biased-rendering-gpu-acceleration

"Glassworks animation and VFX studio in London, Barcelona and Armsterdam, used Redshift to make an intriguing commercial for Cadbury"


https://vimeo.com/101585188

http://www.glassworks.co.uk/

S0nny
10-21-2016, 09:00 AM
Ya hard to do a direct comparison....and this scene is pretty simple.
In Octane of course there is no reflection blur....just roughness values

So these are a glossy surface with roughness of 6% and 50%
Both render at about 16 seconds....there is zero difference in render times when changing the amount of roughness

Octane bench 121 (not the greatest as I had to pull a GPU)



Interesting m.d., but I think the material is not correct, it should be RGB 180 and IOR 1.5 without thin film. And yes, for reflection blur I mean roughness.
Render time via F9 (not ipr) seems quite fast to me, is this direct light or path tracing? It should be slower, but I could be wrong.

This is my partial render in octane demo, it's a crop because the limitation of output size:

134881

As you can see in the reflection the fresnel match the others, it's just a tiny darker. Roughness 6% which is similar to 20% of other two, path tracing kernel.

It took me 69" with an old school 54 point octane bench graphic card, and if my math is right with yours it should be around 30-32" with same settings, or something similar because mine is cropped (don't know if octane still calculates the full render anyway and blacks it out).


Anyway, my experience with octane is not going very well honestly, it's not because the gpu power actually, but some stuff I don't like, I expected more.
As I said in another thread (http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?151851-Questions-for-Octane-users-about-surfacing-and-lighting), the Octane Glossy shader behaves in a way that doesn't make sense. Try to replicate the same metal I posted, you'll see that to match the same look it's very tricky unless you build a nodal network like I did for LW, or mixing different materials since octane lacks of specific math and mixer nodes.

In Redshift all this work is done automatically by the shader, no wonder all this hype around: it took me a lot of work to build the metal Lw shader, Octane should have a physical correct shader by default, and it's not. It took me one click to do that in Rs, and it was the first time I used it... every settings are all in one shader also, honestly I find the Diffuse, Glossy and Specular nodes redundant, they should be just in one. The roughness is very aggressive also, like in Lw, and it's something I find very bad when using textures as input. In Lw I can easily solve this with nodes, not in octane (at least from what I see now).

I'm stil wating to see the message I posted yesterday on otoy forum about this, it's still in moderation after 22 hours, I could probably be very wrong about this, but who knoes.

Asticles
10-21-2016, 10:05 AM
This are some of the renders I did yesterday during a super fast session on a testing machine with Maya + Redshift demo.
Nothing fancy, I didn't have much time to spend and I do not have any experience in Maya, so I had to keep it very very simple, and try to just understand the workflow.

During the test I thought that it could be useful to setup a simple scene with some basic settings, and try to match the same quality in lw to have just an idea of how much it cost in term of work, setup, rendertime etc, even if it's uber basic.

This is not a comparison or anything scientific, I did the test just for me, also it's too simple to be meaningful for production.
But in the end I thought that with some math this renders can provide some infos about the ratio between Lw cpu render and Redshift gpu render times, not in general, but at least for this specific cases. So I decided to post it here, maybe someone is interested.

I know, apples and oranges etc, but with the same scenario and a very similar output quality it's something we can compare to octane, for example. The demo doesn't allow me to do similare renders, they are cropped because of the stupid size limitation.

Anyway, here's the first, I'll attach the others in the dropbox link here (http://tinyurl.com/jsz2dhq)

134860

Lw on the left, Rs on the right, settings for both:

- brute force gi, 4 bounces (in redshift 1st engine irradiance cache, 2nd brute force)
- same ior, 1.5 for plastic, 50 for metal
- same reflection blur for both (0.2 in this case)
- same diffuse RGB values for both (RGB 180 grey for the plastic)

Most of the work is done in the Lw shaders, because Rs shader is pretty straightforward and doesn't require any nodal network to do this simple task. This are a modification of some of my latest custom made shaders, which behave surprisingly similar to Rs. I did some modification to have a better match where possible.

In the file name you can see the difference in reflection blur for every render: R0.1 means refl blur 0.1 in a scale of 0 to 1.

Rendertimes:

For plastic R0.2: Lw 300" Rs 21" ratio ~14:1
For plastic R0.1: Lw 290" Rs 19" ratio ~15:1
For metal R0.2: Lw 364" Rs 6" ratio ~60:1
For metal R0.5: Lw 374" Rs 8" ratio ~47:1
For metal R1.0: Lw 285" Rs 6" ratio ~48:1
For plastic R0.2: no hdri with artificial light (10cm sphere): Lw 100" Rs 11" ratio ~9:1 (no suprise here, since there's no reflection blur and it's all spec blur)

About the hardware. I find more useful to use some benchmark as reference, because any config is different it doesn't really matter which graphic board or processor if there's no numbers to compare.

In this case this is a pretty old Cinebench R15 1100 score Cpu, and an Octane bench 126 Gpu.

You can do the math based on how your hardware perform. If you have a machine that does 2200 Cinebench points, just cut in half the Lw times, if you have a 250 octane bench gpus (2x gtx 980ti) cut in half the Rs times, etc.
Just keep in mind that Having a 3000 Cinebench point means a very expensive dual xeon machine, but you cut only about 3 times the Lw rendertimes.

One note aside, I discovered that you can't texture map in Maya if the objects has not UVs (like cubic, planar etc in Lw), is that for real?

I would like to see it with complex interiors.

Just to compare,

134882

22.8s 1 bounce with modo internal on a i7 4700MQ

134883

32.5s 4 bounces.

Sorry, rgb was 0.71 of 1, so not the same diffuse amount, should be 0.706, I think

m.d.
10-21-2016, 10:12 AM
On my phone ATM, but this is pathtracing.....direct lighting was actually slower.
But the render is tuned to the fastest I could get it with noise similar to your redshift render.

This test will never be scientific, but there's no sense in leaving octane at its default of 24 bounce when you are rendering with 4-5 in RS. Also this is tuned in the path term and coherent ratio and parallel samples. So this render is heavily tuned compared to yours, probably the speed difference.

I'll see if I have time later to match (octane does have material mixers and math nodes)....I just slapped a glossy node on and hit render, as the render times they didn't change based on the glossy shader settings at all....so matching or not this will still give you some rough approximation of render times between the 2

S0nny
10-21-2016, 10:23 AM
I would like to see it with complex interiors.



Yes, me too. If I have time I'll try something when I'll put again my hands on Rs, but I guess that in interiors the ratio between cpu and gpu will be much much slower.
Now that I think about it, if Maya have the 30 days trial I can probably install it with Rs on my test machine, but I don't know if has some limitation on 3rd party plugins.



Just to compare,

134882

22.8s with modo internal on a i7 4700MQ

Sorry, rgb was 0.71 of 1, so not the same diffuse amount, should be 0.706, I think

Actually to my eyes the diffuse looks very similar, but the shadows are much darker, it's like it has 1 bounce or 2, the overall look is more fake. Keep in mind that this test are done with brute force gi, 4 bounces, non interpolated, this is why the cpu-gpu ratio is so high in the tests.

Asticles
10-21-2016, 10:32 AM
Yes, S0nny, forgot the bounces, I updated the post

But in redshift is iradiance cache + brute force. Is not a real brute force also.

S0nny
10-21-2016, 10:41 AM
Yes, S0nny, forgot the bounces, I updated the post

But in redshift is iradiance cache + brute force. Is not a real brute force also.

Yes, it seems a bit unfair, but it's about the whole 'non biased' stuff that Rs can do. Gi + Gi it's like the others.

Asticles
10-21-2016, 10:42 AM
You should set the two software to the fastest settings available to get the same quality. Comparing a gpu biased solution with a cpu biased engine set to render like unbiased is not really fair (talking about lightwave).

S0nny
10-21-2016, 10:49 AM
On my phone ATM, but this is pathtracing.....direct lighting was actually slower.
But the render is tuned to the fastest I could get it with noise similar to your redshift render.

This test will never be scientific, but there's no sense in leaving octane at its default of 24 bounce when you are rendering with 4-5 in RS. Also this is tuned in the path term and coherent ratio and parallel samples. So this render is heavily tuned compared to yours, probably the speed difference.

I'll see if I have time later to match (octane does have material mixers and math nodes)....I just slapped a glossy node on and hit render, as the render times they didn't change based on the glossy shader settings at all....so matching or not this will still give you some rough approximation of render times between the 2

I express myself bad, it is 4 bounces path tracing (4 diffuse, 4 glossy), for default I meant that I did not touch anything else, if I remember correctly also Rs is 1000 sampling at default but I need to check it out. About the nodes, yes I saw the mixer material and texture nodes, but they are just based on amount, there's no choice on how they mix (like multiply, additive, subtract etc).

I know it's not scientific, but getting into it it's something useful anyway... I guess.

S0nny
10-21-2016, 11:09 AM
You should set the two software to the fastest settings available to get the same quality. Comparing a gpu biased solution with a cpu biased engine set to render like unbiased is not really fair (talking about lightwave).

I see your point, but it's two different test. They say about Rs unabiased quality with biased speed, and I'm interest in this particular aspect. Of course I can use Lw interpolated, but to get the same quality as bruteforce you need to push so much that you'll not cut much in rendertime, maybe half? It depends on the scene of course, this is too simple to appreciate the difference probably.
Also we are using static images here, Rs is particularly suited for animation, we need to consider this: interpolated gi is often a big problem (flicker, splotches etc), unless you can cache because you have only camera moving. So it ends that you'll render in brute force and pay much more the renderfarm. At least it happens to me in Lw.

edit: so many typos

Asticles
10-21-2016, 11:10 AM
This is Blender's one with the a recent denoise build.

On cpu, 2min12s, so expect 5 times better time or more with a decent gpu.

134884

Asticles
10-21-2016, 12:17 PM
And without the denoise on gpu (two rx480), 38s, with a little noise.

134885

I think Redshift is the way to go for the render engines, the trully unbiased path is mainly for exteriors, and is difficult to tweak lights to only light one object of the scene. I think that for production the biased lets you to accept all sort of projects without any problem, because is really versatile.

I mainly do archviz renders, and after some time with unbiased renders, although I like the way that you work with them, without thinking so much about material properties and tweaks. I prefer to switch back to biased solutions because in some projects I had a lot of troubles tweaking the lights to get the desired effects or lightning. In that case Lightwave helped me a lot.

The only problem I see for my work with lightwave is that the materials plus the lightning does not have the realistic touch that I've seen for example in octane, luxrender or lately with modo (although I work always with delta and conductor shaders). With Next I expect that I will be able to choose between modo and lightwave depending the project without thinking that will be more difficult for me to achieve realistic results with lightwave. Also, of course, Lightwave is much faster that modo managing heavy scenes (on my experience, personal opinion), and vpr is also faster than modo's.

Linking with the other posts, Redshift can be a really good addition to Lightwave, but must be Newtek (or LW3DG) that should show customer sales numbers to Redshift's people to try to have it. Not forums speculations about how many people are using the software or if it is dead or alive. We are hopping from one lwnext thread to another for a long time, and this does not do any good to the software. I'm too busy at work and at home I don't have so much time either to write posts, but I think here are a lot of people with spare time that can do more profitable things for Lightwave. Please consider that negative comments and yelling is far more visible than positive and helpful posts.

We should start to think to make more threads about what the soft can do, tricks, techniques, how to achieve some effects that have seen on another software... It's a pity that the couple of threads that are always first in the forum are those about the silence of the company. It's so clear that we won't change that, so why don't talk about other things?

:)

Regards.

m.d.
10-21-2016, 12:43 PM
I express myself bad, it is 4 bounces path tracing (4 diffuse, 4 glossy), for default I meant that I did not touch anything else, if I remember correctly also Rs is 1000 sampling at default but I need to check it out. About the nodes, yes I saw the mixer material and texture nodes, but they are just based on amount, there's no choice on how they mix (like multiply, additive, subtract etc).

I know it's not scientific, but getting into it it's something useful anyway... I guess.

Octane does have the control you mention....just you may need a few nodes.
For instance if you want subtractive material mix.... you can add the material inverted through a color correction node etc. Just means more nodes and a bit more work.
They should simply the nodes as you say....i don't think GUI and workflow is their specialty :)

- - - Updated - - -

Those Blender results are not bad....especially considering the price

samurai_x
10-21-2016, 09:05 PM
I think Redshift is the way to go for the render engines

Yep. If you want speed and quality. I think nobody will argue vray is the cpu render king. Its the standard renderer people use in other appz whether small or big studios.

Unbiased render engines have been compared to dumb engines shooting infinite rays that is computationally expensive and a waste of processing. Only gpu made it look fast.
https://labs.chaosgroup.com/index.php/rendering-rd/the-truth-about-unbiased-rendering/

Now that there's a fully optimized gpu biased render engine redshift, it won't take much time before it becomes an industry standard. $500 with all plugins for now. If Juanjo developed the lw plugin we would get all other plugins with it.

erikals
10-22-2016, 03:59 AM
Unbiased render engines have been compared to dumb engines shooting infinite rays that is computationally expensive and a waste of processing.
while there is some truth to that, it's wrong to not include that this statement comes from Vray Chaosgroup! so no wonder.


https://labs.chaosgroup.com/index.php/rendering-rd/the-truth-about-unbiased-rendering/


still, interesting info, never read it black on white, but it's pretty much what i had suspected.
though it's not impossible that Octane for example will tweak it's engine more to become closer to a biased system. (path tracing)

also curious to see what LightWave 2017 will bring on the render front.
if it's good enough, i'm tempted to forget about other render engines all together.
and since a biased render like can use GPUs, there's no reason why a future LightWave can't do that as well.
i'm 100% sure LWG must have thought of this.

samurai_x
10-22-2016, 04:56 AM
Assumed anyone that clicked that linked would have some iq to read the url.
If they didn't know chaosgroup then they must be under a rock for the past +10 years or don't do 3d rendering at all.:D

If lightwave next is trying to copy arnold then you can be sure its easy to use, can handle huge data set, BUT not so fast because its cpu. Nothing will beat gpu renderers in computational speed.

erikals
10-22-2016, 05:21 AM
Assumed anyone that clicked that linked would have some iq to read the url.
a-a-Mister. your comment was a GENERAL comment. don't get smart.

ianr
10-22-2016, 07:30 AM
Hey Sam,
Pedal back Dude, don't upset Peeps we need on aboard for RedShift.

Preview stuff,Doh!

samurai_x
10-22-2016, 08:00 PM
a-a-Mister. your comment was a GENERAL comment. don't get smart.

General comment? Like its slow to use slow renderers. :D

S0nny
10-24-2016, 02:39 AM
Octane does have the control you mention....just you may need a few nodes.
For instance if you want subtractive material mix.... you can add the material inverted through a color correction node etc. Just means more nodes and a bit more work.
They should simply the nodes as you say....i don't think GUI and workflow is their specialty :)


You are right, I guess it's not. I mean, I really can't live without a nodal material editor like the one Lw has, it gives so much control that it's indispensable to me, but I can't believe that Octane doesn't even have a standard bxdf shader which behaves like it should. Today I expect that a software that claims to be physically correct has at least a shader that follow that rule without the need to a complex nodal network. And I'm talking about very basic stuff here.



- - - Updated - - -

Those Blender results are not bad....especially considering the price

Totally agree, even though the shader needs some work, but with the blender nodal editor it's something very easy to do, mush easier than Octans actually.

S0nny
10-24-2016, 02:48 AM
If Juanjo developed the lw plugin we would get all other plugins with it.

That IF is so big it sounds more like it's not gonna happen :-/

jwiede
10-24-2016, 03:49 AM
That IF is so big it sounds more like it's not gonna happen :-/

In the absence of any solid evidence or even serious indication anyone has a LW Redshift integration plugin in development, it doesn't seem particularly likely (at least in any near-term sense).

samurai_x
10-24-2016, 04:22 AM
That IF is so big it sounds more like it's not gonna happen :-/

Its his choice.
I don't think houdini is the correct market for redshift.
If it was vray would be commercialky avail for houdini a long time ago. And maxwell would not have dropped houdini.
It makes more sense for appz that do beauty shots like modo, lw.

I don't know if Juanjo was hired OR if he voluntarily contacted redshift devs but its going to be disappointing if its the latter and he doesn't even consider lw and only volunteered for houdini.
I was excited when I saw him as a moderator over there. There's atleast more chance he can do it for lw than 0 chance before.

S0nny
10-24-2016, 04:44 AM
In the absence of any solid evidence or even serious indication anyone has a LW Redshift integration plugin in development, it doesn't seem particularly likely (at least in any near-term sense).

I guess in a long term sense also, it doesn't seems that the scenario is going to get better for 3rd parties interest in Lw.
At this point It's not even clear how and if Next will gain some interest in the industry again (too late? too little? or both? Who knows): meanwhile every other big app is an industry standard where it excels, with a strong and consolidated pipeline and userbase.

S0nny
10-24-2016, 05:30 AM
It makes more sense for appz that do beauty shots like modo, lw.


I agree, but I guess the logic behind is not if it make sense or not, rather if there enough is interest around to justify the developement. As I see it the interest in Lw is coming from the users like us here in the forum, and unfortunately not from AD or Maxon or Blender users, not from the press, not from the industry (in general).

Asticles
10-24-2016, 09:01 AM
It's important to have a solid CPU solution, because if you buy the software, you expect it works correctly on your machine, regarding you have nvidia, amd or intel card. So for me CPU is a must for the internal engine.

Once you have that, if you want to, and you have the hardware, it should be good to have also a gpu solution within the package. The question is the need of having this already integrated with the package or as an option.

IMHO, as an option should be first. And if LW3DG does have enough resources get it inside the package.

Another matter is if is better to go to opencl (please don't read this fanboys :) ). Currently most of the market has nvidia as the chosen architecture. Only Indigo and maybe Thea and Octane will have opencl. For lightwave, if you invest from the beginning to make an opencl engine, you will be able to render without changing the kernel with cpu in cpu only machines and with gpu and cpu or only cpu in the others. Also, you will be able to render on nvidia, amd and intel cards (if the intel has enough memory). As I know, the latest nvidia 1080 cards are giving very good performance also on opencl.

ianr
10-24-2016, 09:21 AM
Asticles I like your thinking here, but I don't think Rob Powers would give out that Info,

that is why a trusted intermediary like Juanjo could be so important.

But he is not muddying the Houdini build & keeping quiet probably until later & the NeXt launch.


Asticles Quote : Linking with the other posts, Redshift can be a really good addition to Lightwave,

but must be Newtek (or LW3DG) that should show customer sales numbers to Redshift's people to try to have it.


Open CL is the way in other avenues But it's resources v alliances & Mr.Powers should courting & ponying up to people

not acting like an Distant Zeus. RedShift will keep LW in pipelines Simples.!

Asticles
10-24-2016, 09:29 AM
Yes ianr, of course. I think everyone are thinking about tv shows and movies here; if so, you will need an strong simulation and physics engine. Ok. You have the render (redshift) but now?

bazsa73
10-24-2016, 10:23 AM
Meanwhile I learn unreal engine guys, it is a m a z i n g.

S0nny
10-24-2016, 10:29 AM
I could be wrong, but if I remember correctly someone from LW3DG stated that they are not interested in implementing Gpu solutions right now and probably not for the very next releases to come (two years? three?), but even if it sounds likely, with this much info everything is speculation at best.
I agree that cpu power is still more than essential (for any other task of course), the way Presto works in Thea is super smooth, for example.

Edit:

I almost forgot, just another test in Redshift, much trickier this time:

134908

Rs irradiance cache + brute force, 4 bounces, ~17"
Lw brute force 4 bounces, ~540"

Ratio ~31:1

edit 2 note: doing this with luminous geometry with interpolated gi requires a very high settings to remove the splotches. With the Area light Lw is still pretty fast, like 60" with nice contact shadows also, I'll try lumi poly in both renders.
Redshift has physical light, Lw an area inv distance sqr with the same size, but this is the kind of situation that Lw shows its limits, expecially in the shaders and specular.

I'd like to do something more complex, like I was thinking about the Corona Benchmark scene, which is a nice interior, but I don't have any experience in Maya, I need quite some time, which I don't have.

Asticles
10-24-2016, 11:12 AM
I could be wrong, but if I remember correctly someone from LW3DG stated that they are not interested in implementing Gpu solutions right now and probably not for the very next releases to come (two years? three?), but even if it sounds likely, with this much info everything is speculation at best.
I agree that cpu power is still more than essential (for any other task of course), the way Presto works in Thea is super smooth, for example.

Edit:

I almost forgot, just another test in Redshift, much trickier this time:

134908

Rs irradiance cache + brute force, 4 bounces, ~17"
Lw brute force 4 bounces, ~540" (doing this with interpolated requires a very high settings to remove the splotches)

Ratio ~31:1
Redshift has physical light, Lw an area inv distance sqr with the same size, but this is the kind of situation that Lw shows its limits, expecially in the shaders.

I'd like to do something more complex, like I was thinking about the Corona Benchmark scene, which is a nice interior, but I don't have any experience in Maya, I need quite some time, which I don't have.

I still think you should compare to the interpolated render, because you’re working with irradiance cache, what I think is similar to lightwave's interpolated engine.

S0nny
10-24-2016, 11:28 AM
I just edited the post because it was not clear, also added the time with interpolated.

Anyway, with artificial lights there's too much difference in the engines indeed, because of the physical lights and the specularity model of lw, there's no way to correctly match the two, just changing the light intensity or distance produces very different looks. In an HDRI environment with no specular like the previous test is a more fair, but I'm not doing the scientist here, just getting the idea.

Asticles
10-24-2016, 03:40 PM
I just edited the post because it was not clear, also added the time with interpolated.

Anyway, with artificial lights there's too much difference in the engines indeed, because of the physical lights and the specularity model of lw, there's no way to correctly match the two, just changing the light intensity or distance produces very different looks. In an HDRI environment with no specular like the previous test is a more fair, but I'm not doing the scientist here, just getting the idea.

This is really interesting. With the new render engine those differences between redshift and lightwave could dissappear, talking about the physical shader model. If they do their job well, the shaders will be like the industry standard. Or almost one standard, like metalness and roughness plus albedo. This would benefit further integration with software like substance painter. Something a bit tricky by now.

Also the export to unreal or unity would more straightforward. If we have all of this. only the speed will matter with redshift.

And in the case of speed, let's see... because I've tried clarisse, capable of very fast renders with tons of meshes but it struggles a bit with an interior archviz. I think the same happens with Arnold. Will lwnext engine be like this? in that case redshift is a must. But if it is like Thea presto, everything changes, because is really fast in all situations, as I have seen with the standalone, it seems more biased (a feeling). Also it has the option to render just with AO and direct lighting, which speeds up the render and can be enough for some situations.

I suggest you, as you have redshift, to compare also with Arnold. To have a comparison with an optimized cpu montecarlo renderer. Also with hidden indirect light sources (behind geometry).

But to test the different scenarios there should be also another with zillions polygons, and the volumetrics one of course. If you have time.

There are a lot of markets for a generalist package. Will lwnext be good on NPR? Lw it currently excels in speed. Will a montecarlo only engine deliver good noiseless renders as fast as Lw does now? I doubt.

samurai_x
10-24-2016, 07:39 PM
Nice discussion.
S0nny - what cpu, gpu are you using?

If you guys haven't already please vote for lightwave
https://www.redshift3d.com/forums/viewthread/5626/P15

S0nny
10-25-2016, 04:38 AM
@Asticles

This is what I hope for Next release, it's very difficult to keep up with the competition with the standard Lw engine, and it's quite some time now.
There are some stuff that simply can't be done, or they are very tricky to accomplish without a complex nodal network for surfacing or some sorcery in the scene setup. Even when Lw almost match that quality it probably gains so much rendertime it doesn't worth anymore.
A simple nice reflection blur can be hard to achieve in reasonable rendertimes with the right quality, expecially in interiors or in a non HDR environment.

What I noticed in Redshift is that the shaders are very well done and straightforward. Trust me, I'm not exaggerating here. They do the stuff you expect fast and easy. I can't say the same for Octane, and I could be wrong but I bet is one of the reasons it's not an industry standard for anything bigger freelancing or small productions right now.

The Redshift material (which is the one you want to use 100% of the times) is all-in-one layered shader, you can always give weight to the different components is made of (like weight for diffuse, for reflections, for sss etc) and everything you need it's right there, from diffuse to reflection, refraction, coating, to SSS and multiple SSS, etc etc each one with its own controls.
There are so much built-in controls I don't even know where to start, like different fresnel type, GGX BRDF, trace depth per surface, direct and indirect multipliers, etc. Everything has a separated sampling control, plus Rs itself has unified sampling in the render settings which is a very practical choice.

But ss I said, besides the control it gives, Rs is very straightforward in the shader department, in some click it gives you a realistic material which in other software takes a node network to do.

If I have time I'd like to do an interior test, because I think it is one of the best scenario to push the engines.

@samurai_x

Test with Rs is done on a computer with a 126 Octanebench points, which is not mine, so I can't do much testing.
The Lw one is a 1100 cinebench point cpu.
Using benchmark points it's better imho, you'll get a good approximation.just doing some math because it measure the real performance and not the hw models: for example if you have a 3000 cinebench machine you can cut by 2.72 the rendertimes in Lw, or you can cut by half the gpu time if your octane score is 252.

Asticles
10-25-2016, 05:26 AM
S0nny,

As I can see there is also a metalness control for redshift. Interesting.

http://docs.redshift3d.com/Content/I/Material.html#FresnelModeMetalness

I also like the "ubershader" approach. It is a bit complicated to start, but after that I think everyting is very straightforward. It only seems to have some other materials for specific functions.

As I see, there are some people on the forum asking for an opencl solution. Let's see...

Changing subject, I don't really like the vpr performance when the scene is heavy. How is this with redshift? for example, if you want to preview how is getting a fine material bump in a scene.

Also, in Lightwave we don't have material preview window. This should be a good addition to lightwave's internal render.

S0nny
10-25-2016, 07:16 AM
Exactly, for example the fresnel can be driven by simple IOR or complex IOR based on RGB channels and K parameter, or spec color + falloff for edges tint, or metalness for pbr textures input.

When you try the all-in-one shader is not hard and actually it makes a lot of sense, in this regard it has some similarity with maxwell.

About VPR (it's called IPR in Maya), I don't know about complex scene. For what I saw is fast and responsive as much as other gpu renders.
One nice thing is that you can enable or disable the visibility per lights and per objects without reload everything in the gpu and restart the IPR, like in Octane for example, and this is very useful when you try to solo lights or objects. I'm not sure if IPR works on SSS, or if it has some limitations, need to check on this one.

jasonwestmas
10-25-2016, 07:34 AM
Like a lot of previewers, there is no IPR progressive preview for SSS in RS.

I've been using the Redshift IPR for setting up lighting for some involved hallways. Using two video cards, one for display and the other headless, I get super snappy interactive results. I can make model adjustments and move lights around, change values with zero slow down when rendering in the IPR. As far as look dev, that is the ability I appreciate the most about GPU rendering.

samurai_x
10-25-2016, 10:23 AM
I also like the "ubershader" approach.

This is redshifts secret sauce. :D

fishhead
10-27-2016, 03:25 AM
To bad you have to have either one of the A******k Apps or Houdini to test drive Redshift.
I was expecting them to offer a standalone version to try... :-[

THIBAULT
10-27-2016, 03:34 AM
There is IPR windows preview in Maya ! Don't see in 3dsMax ! Interesting to have IPR button, start interactive, like in FstormRender !

ianr
10-27-2016, 06:12 AM
To bad you have to have either one of the A******k Apps or Houdini to test drive Redshift.
I was expecting them to offer a standalone version to try... :-[

Nah,they gotta to pony- up to the big selling apps acceptance first, to gain rapid market share & sales

I think they have done a sound fiscal job in that direction, money coming in to drive forward

their company fast. They done it right at launch, now we (LW) have wait for crumbs & diplomacy.?

Vote 4 It


https://www.redshift3d.com/forums/viewthread/5626/P15

fishhead
10-27-2016, 10:30 AM
well... sure, thats understandable. but a standalone version would have helped to get others access as well -> even bigger potential market, right?
So I will have to wait, and no: houdini is no real option for me, at least not as a main application... However: I voted anyway...
It all sounds interesting but as long as they do not have integration for the tools of my choice I will stick with our native renderer (which still dios deliver great results in very reasonable timeframes) and octane.

ianr
10-27-2016, 10:33 AM
www.thegnomonworkshop.com/blog/redshift-workshop-introduction-to-production-ready-rendering

Above happening tonite.

Octane is lovely fishyhead ,see what LightWave Guru (Rene) gets upto with it right now with Multi-GPU's

fishhead
10-27-2016, 10:42 AM
www.thegnomonworkshop.com/blog/redshift-workshop-introduction-to-production-ready-rendering

Above happening tonite.

yep, noted already. Will have a look once its stored on their channel - it not the ideal time for me as I am located on the other side of the planet... ;-}

KurtF
10-27-2016, 11:01 AM
well... sure, thats understandable. but a standalone version would have helped

A stand alone version with a well documented, text based scene file format so you can script an exporter from your creation software to the renderer.

fishhead
10-27-2016, 12:15 PM
absolutely agree!

samurai_x
11-06-2016, 08:49 PM
https://www.gnomon.edu/community/events/redshift-workshop-introduction-to-production-ready-rendering
Gnomon Redshift webinar

Naughty Dog’s Christophe Desse will discuss the methodology to quickly rendering a vehicle to achieve great results fast.
Some Substance thrown in there.

S0nny
11-07-2016, 03:33 AM
https://www.gnomon.edu/community/events/redshift-workshop-introduction-to-production-ready-rendering
Gnomon Redshift webinar

Naughty Dog’s Christophe Desse will discuss the methodology to quickly rendering a vehicle to achieve great results fast.
Some Substance thrown in there.

Nice, thanks for the link.

Recently I'm playing even more with Redshift and Arnold also in Maya, they both are great pieces of software with a great outpout quality. Redshift is faster (obviously) and cheaper, but Arnold is surprisingly easy to work with and to troubleshoot with his sampling and ray settings. In one day you almost have a 100% understanding of the software.

Just having both the best gpu render and one of the best cpu render available today (replace with v-ray if preferred over Arnold), in one main app, is unvaluable.

Slightly OT, the more I dig into Maya the more I like it: I never liked Max and its UI, but Maya looks very appealing, if it wasn't for AD.

samurai_x
11-07-2016, 04:04 AM
Don't count out vray just yet. They're slowly moving features from cpu to gpu. Speed increase is atleast 3-5 times from cpu version.

jasonwestmas
11-07-2016, 02:19 PM
Not sure if anyone mentioned this but I found out yesterday that if you have a card with 2GB of video ram and another with 4GB installed on the same machine the Vram is card independent in RS. In other words you still get to use all of the 4GB of vram for that card, it doesn't get demoted down to 2GB. That's not true in octane from what I've been told.

I saved about 10 minutes on a 30 minute render with a 770 by adding a 750 Ti on the same computer.

m.d.
11-07-2016, 03:41 PM
With out-of-core memory updates, Octane cards can be 'independent' as far as textures are concerned....out of core will feed textures from system ram if the GPU ram is not sufficient....
But the mesh still has to be contained in VRAM.....so if textures are the limiting factor, Octane functions much the same way....but if polycount is the limiting factor then the smaller GPU ram won't be useable period and you would be running on 1 card at full 4gb RAM with the other card completely disabled as the render won't launch

So generally in Octane they don't function 'independant' unless you are running 4k or 8k textures causing you to run out of GPU....
Redshift must be running everything out of core when needed.

S0nny
11-08-2016, 01:59 AM
Another important thing to consider about Rs is that apparently it won't scale linearly like Octane, when you add gpus.

For single frame scenario some users suggest that the best is to use 2 gpu to get almost 2x the performance: when Rs uses 3 gpus the performance doesn't increase at the same rate, and you'll end up wasting much of power calculation on the third gpu.
Even worst if you have more than 3 gpus.

If you look at Octanebench you'll see a very easy and predictable linear behaviour for more gpus, in Rs it's more or less something like this:

1 gpu = 100%
2 gpus ~ 175%
3 gpus ~ 240%
4 gpus ~ 280%

The solution seems to be Deadline render manager to assign or split the calculation between gpus in a more efficient way: for animation you can render each frame on each gpu (with 4 gpu you'll get ~4x the performance) or you can split one high res frame in tiles for each gpu, or pair the gpus in couples to get ~2x for each couple like job 1 for gpus 1 and 2, and job 2 for gpus 3-4 etc.
At least this my understanding after some reading on Rs forum lately.

samurai_x
11-09-2016, 07:48 AM
Redshift doesn't scale lineary after two cards. Its best suited for animation where you can assign each gpu to one frame for rendering. So its different to other renderers where they do distributed on single frame. I actually prefer redshift way which is typical use when rendering with backburner and vray. Its really too bad we don't have vray. Missed that boat completely.

Modo has the best choices http://community.thefoundry.co.uk/discussion/topic.aspx?f=4&t=127350

jasonwestmas
11-09-2016, 07:58 AM
Very interesting things I did not think about till now. Thanks guys!

ianr
11-09-2016, 08:31 AM
Redshift doesn't scale lineary after two cards. Its best suited for animation where you can assign each gpu to one frame for rendering. So its different to other renderers where they do distributed on single frame. I actually prefer redshift way which is typical use when rendering with backburner and vray. Its really too bad we don't have vray. Missed that boat completely.

Modo has the best choices http://community.thefoundry.co.uk/discussion/topic.aspx?f=4&t=127350


Yeph Yeph, Sam is right so, Two peachy Pascals then a golden-oldy, say a 970 or 980 as a Display card,

there's a considerable drop-off in a third card hook up.

But Mayaristically, that could change due to Panos's finessing of RedShift code.

samurai_x
11-09-2016, 06:27 PM
About Panos.

http://community.thefoundry.co.uk/discussion/topic.aspx?f=4&t=118437&page=1

"Hello,

In all honestly, Redshift had been flying under the radar for long enough where no user group can really be “blamed” for not asking for a plugin.

To give you a better idea of “why Houdini and C4D”: The main reason for Houdini support was the tons of XSI users that went to it. And that some very high-profile companies have been asking for it. And the reason for C4D is that since Redshift’s day 1 there have been tons of C4D users asking for it. Some through the forums, others through email. That is a clear indication that there’s a market for it.

And, now we have this lovely MODO thread! smile In the next several weeks, we’ll do a bit of planning for the year and will probably start asking around for MODO developers. If you know of any good ones, please ask them to contact us directly.

Thanks

-Panos"

jwiede
11-09-2016, 06:41 PM
Panos: "To give you a better idea of “why Houdini and C4D”: The main reason for Houdini support was the tons of XSI users that went to it. And that some very high-profile companies have been asking for it. And the reason for C4D is that since Redshift’s day 1 there have been tons of C4D users asking for it. Some through the forums, others through email. That is a clear indication that there’s a market for it.

And, now we have this lovely MODO thread! smile In the next several weeks, we’ll do a bit of planning for the year and will probably start asking around for MODO developers. If you know of any good ones, please ask them to contact us directly.

The difference between Panos' reaction to MODO users' requests and Lightwave users' requests is... telling.

samurai_x
11-09-2016, 07:39 PM
The difference between Panos' reaction to MODO users' requests and Lightwave users' requests is... telling.

You voted for modo plugin but not for lightwave. :mad:
Come on support the underdog :D
Lightwavers don't know what they're missing with only octane avail for lightwave atm. People who are using vray and octane on modo forums are recommending vray over octane. That's telling. Haha.

S0nny
11-10-2016, 12:32 AM
Panos is talking about "tons of requests" and very high profile companies. Modo thread is like 10:1 in respect to the Lw one, and they just start to considering the developement. Don't even know about how many emails or other requests they got.
If numbers tell me something is that Rs for Lw is unlikely as any other render engine on the market today.

jwiede
11-10-2016, 04:48 PM
You voted for modo plugin but not for lightwave. :mad:

Redshift Lightwave seems like a RoI lost cause with LW market as it stands today (IMO).

Thomas Helzle
11-12-2016, 10:43 AM
Honestly, LW3DG makes it hard to love or support them.
Last year we saw the blog with all the new and shiny things. I expected LW 2016 at the end of 2015. That didn't happen, then the blog ended in March.
Since then, pretty much nothing.
I don't see how external developers would invest time and money in a small community of die-hards who cling to a more and more outdated software with such unclear development and communication. Some of them have already been burnt by the demise of XSI and lost a lot of time and money.

And even with all the updates in the blog implemented, LW is not going to take the market over any time soon.
Developing and maintaining a render integration is a lot of work and a long term commitment - I personally wouldn't support LW either.

In the case of Thea Render, there were actually more votes in a forum poll for Form-Z, a tool I didn't even know existed anymore (a lot of people probably think the same of Lightwave).

If the long silence means that something really big, cool and so far unmentioned is coming, that may change, but ATM, it makes no sense to expect everybody to integrate their renderers into LW, especially since I expect the number of actual buyers of each renderer for LW to be quite low in the end - I don't think the typical LW user is a big spender.

Cheers,

Tom

THIBAULT
11-12-2016, 10:52 AM
Love your works Thomas ! Happy to see you here.

Thomas Helzle
11-12-2016, 10:59 AM
Love your works Thomas ! Happy to see you here.

Thanks! :-)

I no longer am very active regarding LW - Rhino/Grasshopper and Houdini have become my main tools in the meantime.
I still find some interesting nuggets in the LW forum every now and then though... :-)

Cheers,

Tom

ianr
11-15-2016, 08:24 AM
Redshift tutorial with step by step screen shots in 3dArtist issue 91

' Render with Redshift for Maya' ( nice tute)

http://onlinemagazines.org/tag/3d-artist-issue-91-2016/

S0nny
11-15-2016, 09:58 AM
I also suggest the official Rs for Maya tuts on youtube, they are 1 year old, but still valids.

There is also a Rs tutorial on gnomon by that belgian guy who did the free webinar last week, but honestly I don't like much the way he explains. Actually it's like he doesn't know the stuff he explains, he just moves sliders here and there with a too much 'artistic' approach. Maybe the whole paid tutorial is better than the webinar, but I'm not so sure.

Slightly OT, I'm really liking Maya, it absolutely worth a try. I'm finding that some modeling or selection stuff in Lw are still faster, but beside some (annoying) bugs the overall experience feels like a jump in the future for the Lw user.
Funny how the problems I see with Maya are not actually related to the software, but mostly the fact that it's AD. And the price of course, this whole annual fee without the possibility to redeem the app at the end of the contract is nonsense.

samurai_x
12-21-2017, 07:36 PM
A year later, Lightwave 2018 is now official. I wonder if Juanjo will be finally interested to connect the best GPU renderer for lightwave.

https://community.foundry.com/discuss/topic/123450/houdini-doodles-discussions?page=31

"The Redshift integration in Houdini is excellent and is in many ways the best integration of all the available choices due to the sterling work of Juanjo Gonzalez, the developer responsible for the Houdini integration. Redshift in C4D is catching up fast but is still a work in progress. Juanjo is also responsible for the Octane integration in Houdini, but this is held back by the slow pace of development in the Octane core and this means that many of the essential integration hooks Juanjo uses for the Redshift integration are unavailable to him with Octane. By comparison, the Redshift team update the RS core pretty much on a weekly basis so the integration developers are always able to stay the pace with changes to both the host DCC and Redshift itself.

Having said that, the Octane integration in C4D is excellent (e.g. it has a far better UX than Octane in Modo). It's especially well tuned to the needs and requirements of motion design as mograph shot's don't always need the Path Tracer to look great and the Direct Lighting integrator can pump out mograph shot's in a matter seconds per frame. That's not to say Path Tracing isn't used in mograph, more that it's not always essential. Plus the Octane hair shader is better tuned to spline rendering than Redshifts current capabilities.

Coming back to Houdini, Indie is undoubtedly the cheapest way to access Redshift rendering but Houdini is a technical package so it's never going to match the artist friendly nature of Modo or C4D. However the learning curve for Redshift rendering in Houdini is nowhere near as steep as learning to use Houdini's simulation toolsets. If you're strictly looked for an environment to layout and light static shouts, C4D Prime is probably a better option (or better still pick up C4D Broadcast around NAB the next time it's due a 40% discount) but if you're interested in tapping into Houdini's peerless simulation & VDB tools a Houdini Indie subscription will serve you better.

The final aspect to consider with Redshift is that you pay for it once and are then able to use it in as many compatible DCC's as you own. With Octane, each DCC is a separate purchase."

OFF
12-21-2017, 10:08 PM
I think he is interested in this. Perhaps he was waiting for the release of a new version of LW. In any case, in Twitter, he often mentions Red Shift.
Although I also use Octane, after I learned the demo version of Red Shift, my sympathies are on it's side.

tyrot
12-22-2017, 02:04 AM
come on JUAN! one cannot have enough renderer :))

MichaelT
12-22-2017, 02:59 AM
A year later, Lightwave 2018 is now official. I wonder if Juanjo will be finally interested to connect the best GPU renderer for lightwave.

https://community.foundry.com/discuss/topic/123450/houdini-doodles-discussions?page=31

"The Redshift integration in Houdini is excellent and is in many ways the best integration of all the available choices due to the sterling work of Juanjo Gonzalez, the developer responsible for the Houdini integration. Redshift in C4D is catching up fast but is still a work in progress. Juanjo is also responsible for the Octane integration in Houdini, but this is held back by the slow pace of development in the Octane core and this means that many of the essential integration hooks Juanjo uses for the Redshift integration are unavailable to him with Octane. By comparison, the Redshift team update the RS core pretty much on a weekly basis so the integration developers are always able to stay the pace with changes to both the host DCC and Redshift itself.

Having said that, the Octane integration in C4D is excellent (e.g. it has a far better UX than Octane in Modo). It's especially well tuned to the needs and requirements of motion design as mograph shot's don't always need the Path Tracer to look great and the Direct Lighting integrator can pump out mograph shot's in a matter seconds per frame. That's not to say Path Tracing isn't used in mograph, more that it's not always essential. Plus the Octane hair shader is better tuned to spline rendering than Redshifts current capabilities.

Coming back to Houdini, Indie is undoubtedly the cheapest way to access Redshift rendering but Houdini is a technical package so it's never going to match the artist friendly nature of Modo or C4D. However the learning curve for Redshift rendering in Houdini is nowhere near as steep as learning to use Houdini's simulation toolsets. If you're strictly looked for an environment to layout and light static shouts, C4D Prime is probably a better option (or better still pick up C4D Broadcast around NAB the next time it's due a 40% discount) but if you're interested in tapping into Houdini's peerless simulation & VDB tools a Houdini Indie subscription will serve you better.

The final aspect to consider with Redshift is that you pay for it once and are then able to use it in as many compatible DCC's as you own. With Octane, each DCC is a separate purchase."

"best" is a matter of opinion. :)

samurai_x
12-22-2017, 04:08 AM
"best" is a matter of opinion. :)

That's something a second placer always says in a tournament. Lol

MichaelT
12-22-2017, 05:32 AM
That's something a second placer always says in a tournament. Lol

I prefer VRay.. and it is not like I haven't got Redshift :)

Marander
12-22-2017, 07:43 AM
I prefer VRay.. and it is not like I haven't got Redshift :)

Yeah me too. But Redshift I don't have. You should add XP and Cycles4D if you haven't already, it's great.

samurai_x
12-22-2017, 08:41 AM
I prefer VRay.. and it is not like I haven't got Redshift :)

Love vray. Been using it since 3dmax 6. Was pushing for a lightwave version for at least 10 years. Not gonna happen. Just like unification.

Like an Oscar for best film or a sporting event, it is the best if it is the best in many categories. For a renderer, just comparing gpu renderers.
Speed - Redshift
Quality ratio over time - Redshift
Price - Redshift single purchase for plugins, or Cycles since its free
Development - Redshift
Support - Redshift
Scalability - Octane, Cycles

jasonwestmas
12-23-2017, 08:53 AM
I started using Vray again out of curiosity because of the slight boost I get using my GPU cards with the CPU. With Redshift I feel that I am paying an annual fee for something that is not as far along as Vray but I think it is worth it if someone is not short on cash because of other software fees and upgrades. I still like the pricing model where I just buy an upgrade and I get free updates for a few years or more. Who doesn't I guess.

Overall I like the richness of the biased rendering in Redshift, and I've always liked stylistic rendering which I think Redshift is better at and is a great match for a lightwave artist.

I also really like the new Redshift IPR, it's much snappier than the competition.

mummyman
05-21-2018, 11:47 AM
Now that LW 2018 is out.. I wonder if there are any more thought considerations for Redshift for Lightwave. I'd like to see that. Was watching a video on it for Maya and it didn't seem to be that different than the new 2018 stuff. Except for the speed!

samurai_x
05-21-2018, 08:24 PM
This isn't happening. Lw market is too small. Juanjo definitely isn't interested at all.

mummyman
05-22-2018, 07:39 AM
This isn't happening. Lw market is too small. Juanjo definitely isn't interested at all.

Bummer.. Looks like Octane is taking over!

samurai_x
05-22-2018, 08:23 AM
Bummer.. Looks like Octane is taking over!

For lw because that's the only one it has.
Redshift all the way for other people.

TheLexx
05-22-2018, 08:31 AM
Did I once read correctly that LW files can be read by 4D (thus technically making Redshift accessible to LW users) ?

ianr
05-22-2018, 08:57 AM
This isn't happening. Lw market is too small. Juanjo definitely isn't interested at all.

Okay Sam, answer me please, did he (Juanjo) tell you this?

Cos You & I have always been lobbying for it, thanks

jeric_synergy
05-22-2018, 08:58 AM
Did I once read correctly that LW files can be read by 4D (thus technically making Redshift accessible to LW users) ?

I tried last week, and that did not work (LW>c4d).

EDIT: ooops, it worked TODAY. Imported a scene. Surprised!

mummyman
05-22-2018, 09:21 AM
If LW market is too small... then why focus on Octane either? Seems to be working well enough. Both seem amazing and fast as all hell.

Marander
05-22-2018, 10:04 AM
I tried last week, and that did not work (LW>c4d).

EDIT: ooops, it worked TODAY. Imported a scene. Surprised!

Both LWO and LWS loading works, I have done this a lot.


(note that it doesn't require any import menu, just load the file).

Jeric maybe you tried to load an 2018 object which of course is not supported by any other application.

jeric_synergy
05-22-2018, 10:22 AM
Jeric maybe you tried to load an 2018 object which of course is not supported by any other application.
Maybe. Probably, in fact.

ianr
05-26-2018, 05:22 AM
okay sam, answer me please, did he (juanjo) tell you this?

Cos you & i have always been lobbying for it, thanks

hello hello ........................??????????????????????

50one
05-26-2018, 11:24 AM
I thought we have new rendering engine in 2018 so no need for other renderers?