PDA

View Full Version : Why would not Newtek cooperate with developers of third-party renderers?



OFF
05-27-2018, 11:02 PM
The main problem of LW, in my subjective opinion, today is not even the lack of any new tools or OGL performance level when working with deformers, but in rendering. Actually, this is an old LW problem, which, unfortunately, did not go away with the release of the 2018 version.
Today there are quite a number of developers of third-party renderers, both commercial and open source (appleseed (https://github.com/appleseedhq/appleseed/releases/tag/1.9.0-beta) for example). Some developers of 3D programs actively cooperate with these developers. Blender already got a free addition in the form of Octane, as an additional renderer (albeit with limitations in the form of the number of video cards connected to the render).
It seems reasonable if Newtek initiated co-operation with any third-party renderer manufacturer, which would raise the marketing estimate of LW in the eyes of many users. In fact, up to now, we have only two suppliers of stronneders - Octane and Kray (which was originally created under LV and very little known on the market). At the same time all "peers" of LW have long acquired a whole set of third-party renderers.
I believe that one day the native render of LW will be brought to a high-performance level, etc. But for the time being it is not known when this will happen - many today find themselves in greater limitations compared to users of other 3D programs. Especially those that are freely distributed.

LIST OF THE BEST 3D RENDER ENGINES COMPATIBLE WITH BLENDER

Vray
Appleseed (free).
Octane (now is free for two GPU limit).
RadeonProRender
Lux Render
Renderman
Indigo
Nox
Vray
Maxwell Render
Corona
Thea Render
Yafaray
Mitsuba
POV Ray
RedShift
Keyshot

3D Kiwi
05-27-2018, 11:33 PM
Newtek have stated before they are happy to work with 3rd parties, I just don't think its worth it for the 3rd parties. Eg, Vray, Redshift.

Its funny Redshift are looking for Blender Devs to work on a pluging for Redshift and Blender but nothing for Lightwave.

CaptainMarlowe
05-28-2018, 12:34 AM
Well, appleseed, radeonprorender and luxrender (which development as started again for v2.0, I believe) are free but need a programmer to write the plug-in from Newtek’s side, since they won’t develop it themselves. Appleseed is CPU, and the two other ones are GPU, based on OpenCL, which would be a good thing for people with AMD GPUs. Writing a plug-in for radeonprorender or luxrender would certainly be a good thing to offer some more choice for LW users, but I don’t know if NT has the worfkforce nor the will for that.

Asticles
05-28-2018, 01:29 AM
An an enterprise, if I have to choose, I would go for Radeon prorender, to have cpu or gpu, but this needs workforce.

CaptainMarlowe
05-28-2018, 01:36 AM
As a mac user, I would like radeon prorender too, as it is not only amd enabled but also compatible with Apple’s Metal API. :)

Asticles
05-28-2018, 02:37 AM
As a side note, Nox, Corona, Thea and Mitsuba seems discontinued. Yafaray is evolving, but at slow pace. Edit: Yes, to me Thea for Blender is discontinued, until they show what they will do with new version.

And Luxrender is now Luxcorender.

Regards.

ideart
05-28-2018, 02:40 AM
The main problem of LW, in my subjective opinion, today is not even the lack of any new tools or OGL performance level when working with deformers, but in rendering. Actually, this is an old LW problem, which, unfortunately, did not go away with the release of the 2018 version.
Today there are quite a number of developers of third-party renderers, both commercial and open source (appleseed (https://github.com/appleseedhq/appleseed/releases/tag/1.9.0-beta) for example). Some developers of 3D programs actively cooperate with these developers. Blender already got a free addition in the form of Octane, as an additional renderer (albeit with limitations in the form of the number of video cards connected to the render).
It seems reasonable if Newtek initiated co-operation with any third-party renderer manufacturer, which would raise the marketing estimate of LW in the eyes of many users. In fact, up to now, we have only two suppliers of stronneders - Octane and Kray (which was originally created under LV and very little known on the market). At the same time all "peers" of LW have long acquired a whole set of third-party renderers.
I believe that one day the native render of LW will be brought to a high-performance level, etc. But for the time being it is not known when this will happen - many today find themselves in greater limitations compared to users of other 3D programs. Especially those that are freely distributed.

LIST OF THE BEST 3D RENDER ENGINES COMPATIBLE WITH BLENDER

Vray
Appleseed (free).
Octane (now is free for two GPU limit).
RadeonProRender
Lux Render
Renderman
Indigo
Nox
Vray
Maxwell Render
Corona
Thea Render
Yafaray
Mitsuba
POV Ray
RedShift
Keyshot

Thank you!
Personally what I would need to keep working in Lightwave is an ArchViz renderer (Vray, Corona).
Unfortunately Kray is an old, buggy (in animation) with horible anti aliasing.
I am shifting to 3ds/Vray but it is a slow process because I have more projects that I can handle.
My personal opinion is that LW should do whatever is necessary to attract Vray.

Asticles
05-28-2018, 02:45 AM
Kray seems as good as vray in speed, but development is very slow.

tyrot
05-28-2018, 05:41 AM
Octane is your cure ... best investment that you can ever do for LW..

hrgiger
05-28-2018, 05:56 AM
It's more a question of whether it's worth it to the 3Rd party renderers to work with NT. No one is going to put in a lot of time porting to lw if only a few hundred people might buy the renderer.

Marander
05-28-2018, 08:26 AM
It's more a question of whether it's worth it to the 3Rd party renderers to work with NT. No one is going to put in a lot of time porting to lw if only a few hundred people might buy the renderer.

Yeah agree. And additionally to the small LW user group, they are typically not the 3d users that like to spend alot of money.

Asticles
05-28-2018, 09:34 AM
I think we are presupposing things we do not know.

hrgiger
05-28-2018, 02:05 PM
I think we are presupposing things we do not know.

Ask Oliver or another third party dev for LW. They'll tell you the same thing.

Same for Blender (though they have a large number of users). The app being free attracts a lot of people who simply don't want to spend a lot of money.

Ztreem
05-28-2018, 05:18 PM
Ask Oliver or another third party dev for LW. They'll tell you the same thing.

Same for Blender (though they have a large number of users). The app being free attracts a lot of people who simply don't want to spend a lot of money.

I think youíre right to some degree. I also think that many plugins for LW is things that you should not need to buy as plugins. I mean a LW upgrade costs 295 and to get a weight paint in layout you need to buy a plugin for 129. It just feels wrong to me, weight paint should be a native tool included in the base app. So most popular plugins for LW is for tools that are native in other softwares. Some people may not care and can buy everything whatever the cost, good for them. I compare prices like I do whatever I buy, if its toys for the kuds or food, I always compare prices. So if another app gives me the same functionality with similar workflow but half the price? Why would I not choose that one?
I just bought the flip fluids addon for blender for $50 that is a plugin worth its price. Amazing value!

tyrot
05-28-2018, 05:24 PM
haha how about asking Juan for octane licenses...

HR .. stop trolling every thread... ....

hrgiger
05-28-2018, 07:17 PM
I think you’re right to some degree. I also think that many plugins for LW is things that you should not need to buy as plugins. I mean a LW upgrade costs 295 and to get a weight paint in layout you need to buy a plugin for 129. It just feels wrong to me, weight paint should be a native tool included in the base app. So most popular plugins for LW is for tools that are native in other softwares. Some people may not care and can buy everything whatever the cost, good for them. I compare prices like I do whatever I buy, if its toys for the kuds or food, I always compare prices. So if another app gives me the same functionality with similar workflow but half the price? Why would I not choose that one?
I just bought the flip fluids addon for blender for $50 that is a plugin worth its price. Amazing value!

Not trolling, tyrot, as much as you'd like to believe that. Its just my honest opinion.

Well Ztreem, you can't expect NT to do everything, third parties are there to fill the gaps in these applications and you should support your third party developers. As far as the same functionality, that's all relative. Not everyone finds the same value in every tool so you just can't say, hey this is half as much as this thing and base your decision on that, you should really (when possible of course) buy what you genuinely believe to be the better tool no matter the cost.

That said, I'm picking up Blender myself and also bought Flip Fluids, Blender can be quite good for VFX if you find Houdini a bit too heady.

Ztreem
05-28-2018, 11:39 PM
Not trolling, tyrot, as much as you'd like to believe that. Its just my honest opinion.

Well Ztreem, you can't expect NT to do everything, third parties are there to fill the gaps in these applications and you should support your third party developers. As far as the same functionality, that's all relative. Not everyone finds the same value in every tool so you just can't say, hey this is half as much as this thing and base your decision on that, you should really (when possible of course) buy what you genuinely believe to be the better tool no matter the cost.

That said, I'm picking up Blender myself and also bought Flip Fluids, Blender can be quite good for VFX if you find Houdini a bit too heady.

Yes, youíre right. NT canít do everything and third party plugins is needed for filling the gaps in all apps. I just feel (this is just my opinion) that weight paint, lattice deformer, undo and unification is something that NT should fix and it is also something a lot of people have requested for years. I got to the conclusion that it will never happen and I will not wait for third party to add a working undo system.

50one
05-29-2018, 02:15 AM
Yes, youíre right. NT canít do everything and third party plugins is needed for filling the gaps in all apps. I just feel (this is just my opinion) that weight paint, lattice deformer, undo and unification is something that NT should fix and it is also something a lot of people have requested for years. I got to the conclusion that it will never happen and I will not wait for third party to add a working undo system.

I share the sentiment, we're not talking about advanced fluid solvers or hair and fur systems. Stuff like this is needed integrated.

- undo
- basic painting(weights etc)
- pass manager
- deformers as mentioned

hrgiger
05-29-2018, 02:16 AM
Yeah on things like that, absolutely.

Ztreem
05-29-2018, 04:11 AM
haha how about asking Juan for octane licenses...

HR .. stop trolling every thread... ....

This says alot about the state of LW. Once famous for it's renderer and now the top selling plugin is a third party renderer...

Fotofashion
05-29-2018, 05:16 AM
Think it would be really interesting to get amd pro render into Lw. Been playing with it on blender, and it really do speed up render times. Its great that it allows you to use cpu and gpus at the same time, much more datapower!

fishhead
05-29-2018, 05:16 AM
@ Ztreem: Well, you could say that for all A***d*sk products as well, right? At least LW actually has a native "modern" render engine. Even if some might not find it fitting their needs....

tyrot
05-29-2018, 05:19 AM
@ Ztreem: Well, you could say that for all A***d*sk products as well, right? At least LW actually has a native "modern" render engine. Even if some might not find it fitting their needs....

oh yes :)

Ztreem
05-29-2018, 05:55 AM
@ Ztreem: Well, you could say that for all A***d*sk products as well, right? At least LW actually has a native "modern" render engine. Even if some might not find it fitting their needs....

Arnold is native i Maya and also own by Autodesk. Maya is more famous for animation not rendering. I donít get your point?

Ztreem
05-29-2018, 06:24 AM
@ Ztreem: Well, you could say that for all A***d*sk products as well, right? At least LW actually has a native "modern" render engine. Even if some might not find it fitting their needs....

Funny, that you say it like Lw is the only one with a "modern" native renderer. So Arnold, Mantra, ProRender, Cycles and Modo is not "modern"? these is some of the native renderers available in other major 3d softwares. These apps also have "modern" unified environments with painting, sculpting, non destructive workflows and undo etc that LW lacks.

raymondtrace
05-29-2018, 06:42 AM
...did not go away with the release of the 2018 version.

It almost sounds as if you think 2018 is a step back or a step aside. 2018 brings the PBR material workflow, which is used in other renderers. So you're oddly asking why NewTek is not cooperating when they're blatantly moving toward greater compatibility.

Keep in mind that even though those other render engines you listed are compatible with Blender, Blender devs still focus on their own renderer(s). There's still value in that.

I may be using the internet wrong, but I do see other renderers promoted by NewTek. https://www.lightwave3d.com/third_party/

fishhead
05-29-2018, 07:39 AM
Arnold is native i Maya and also own by Autodesk. Maya is more famous for animation not rendering. I don’t get your point?

according to the official supportsite: https://knowledge.autodesk.com/support/maya/troubleshooting/caas/sfdcarticles/sfdcarticles/Batch-Rendering-on-one-machine-with-Arnold-produces-Watermark.html
So you might be able to use it for images produced while you have a current viewport session but if you wish to expand on that you will have to purchase a "real" license... Which basically means if you actually have to purchase a plugin to work beyond sheer hobbyist tasks. The other renderers you mentioned are NOT provided by the company that starts with an "A"

If you want to discuss this more I suggest lets keep this via PM as I am afraid we get a bit off from the topic as this has not so much to do with LW per se. My point was just to put your statement into perspective about what it might mean for the state of LW that a 3rd party renderer as Octane-for-LW might be such a good selling product...

Ztreem
05-29-2018, 08:35 AM
according to the official supportsite: https://knowledge.autodesk.com/support/maya/troubleshooting/caas/sfdcarticles/sfdcarticles/Batch-Rendering-on-one-machine-with-Arnold-produces-Watermark.html
So you might be able to use it for images produced while you have a current viewport session but if you wish to expand on that you will have to purchase a "real" license... Which basically means if you actually have to purchase a plugin to work beyond sheer hobbyist tasks. The other renderers you mentioned are NOT provided by the company that starts with an "A"

If you want to discuss this more I suggest lets keep this via PM as I am afraid we get a bit off from the topic as this has not so much to do with LW per se. My point was just to put your statement into perspective about what it might mean for the state of LW that a 3rd party renderer as Octane-for-LW might be such a good selling product...

I still donít get what Autodesk has to do with Octane being a top selling plugin for LW?
No need to go more off topic. LW is lacking support from third party renderers and thanks to Octane some small group of users still use LW for rendering. Rendering is the least problem for me with LW.

pinkmouse
05-29-2018, 10:01 AM
Why would not Newtek cooperate with developers of third-party renderers?

Wrong question. I think a better one is "Why should third-party renderers cooperate with Newtek ?"

Tim Parsons
05-29-2018, 12:05 PM
according to the official supportsite: https://knowledge.autodesk.com/support/maya/troubleshooting/caas/sfdcarticles/sfdcarticles/Batch-Rendering-on-one-machine-with-Arnold-produces-Watermark.html

What a rip-off! All the fanfare and glitz when they announced this, but the reality is it really doesn't come with it. Well it does but yet it doesn't. Autodesk makes me puke.

SBowie
05-29-2018, 12:11 PM
Wrong question. I think a better one is "Why should third-party renderers cooperate with Newtek ?"Oh, let's just leave it as it is. It makes it easier to identify it as a loaded question, similar to the ever-popular "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

shrox
05-29-2018, 01:44 PM
App gap. I liked that one...

VonBon
05-29-2018, 03:42 PM
Why would Newtek not develop a native render engine?

I would rather them not waste resources trying to be
compatible with every single 3rd Party render engine.

I don't wanna have to buy a 3rd Party render engine.

I wanna know, whats so great about these render engines?
Are they actually that great or is it just Trendy to be
using what these large studios use. Examples Please, cause
a lot of the work done in studios has post work all over it.

VonBon
05-29-2018, 03:55 PM
I haven't used Vray or LW2018, so what is
so different between the two render engines.

Marander
05-29-2018, 04:06 PM
I haven't used Vray or LW2018, so what is
so different between the two render engines.

Speed, quality, control, features (frame buffer post effects like glare and bloom), GPU support (all tough not yet there completely), ALShaders, sub-poly displacement, atmosphere simulation, outstanding hair rendering, cut-through rendering, great reflection shaders, camera exposure, ease of use and production proven, learning material / tutorials, lots of high qualy models and texture packs.

I would say what LW2018 lacks most of these (for me) are speed, conductor / metallic quality, camera exposure, sub-poly and atmosphere simulation. Volumetrics seem easier in LW for me compared to Vray (but I haven't used both volumetric systems much yet).

VonBon
05-29-2018, 04:07 PM
show me some examples.

Post some pics of the Options panels.
Post some pics of the same scene (if someone has access to both).
post some render times.

Marander
05-29-2018, 04:32 PM
show me some examples.

Post some pics of the Options panels.
Post some pics of the same scene (if someone has access to both).
post some render times.

I don't know if this is allowed according to the forum rules... but check out some site like Render&Beyond for archviz examples of Vray4C4D.

Marander
05-29-2018, 04:42 PM
And not to forget in favor of LW, Vray alone costs as much as the whole LW package (depending on the platform and LWs current price).

tischbein3
05-29-2018, 04:50 PM
Currently I think its the best to wait how this AGE OF RENDER WAR (TM by me )
will actually play out. If a render takes 32 minutes while the other just takes 28 minutes to
render it, I do not care. Much more important is that they are reliable. That they scale with
the complexity and their optimisation does not introduce artifacts on more complex scenes.
(Unwanted surprises). Like LW 2015 did.

Also to compare it with blender is a bit unfair, every new renderer wich wants to have a big
userbase has to support it in some ways. Also workflow is a point. Some of them need you
to go through a complex export path to get some results (= non interactive renderer)
wich ultimatively throws you back 10 years.

LW has the big advantage to have a renderer wich can somewhat play in the same league
and with octane has a good gpu side coverred, wich is enough for the next 5 years
to be useable.
Until then we can see wich of the new and old fancy renderer will have
a userbase big enough to be worth supporting (also pricewise)

Marander
05-29-2018, 04:54 PM
Looking at the chaos group site - the list of products / supported platforms is huge, it seems LW is the only 3D application missing.

OFF
05-29-2018, 09:16 PM
It almost sounds as if you think 2018 is a step back or a step aside. 2018 brings the PBR material workflow, which is used in other renderers. So you're oddly asking why NewTek is not cooperating when they're blatantly moving toward greater compatibility.

Keep in mind that even though those other render engines you listed are compatible with Blender, Blender devs still focus on their own renderer(s). There's still value in that.

I may be using the internet wrong, but I do see other renderers promoted by NewTek. https://www.lightwave3d.com/third_party/

I do not think Newtek took a step back. I think that the logic of its development has not changed for a very long time and belongs to the past epoch. If you are not the manufacturer of some highly specialized product, such as DAZ 3d, etc. - there is no sense in refusing to compete with the best representatives of the industry. Such as Max, Maya, Cinema 4d and already even Blender.
Because if you do not want to stand on a par with the best - one day you will be left behind forever.
All software developers want to attract users - as a rule, you need to follow what users want. But Newtek tries to convince users that it's better for them not what they want, but what the company offers them.
Six months have passed since the release of the new version of LW - but during this time there was not a single confirmation that some of the third-party renderers are preparing their versions for the new LightWave.
The answer is not simple. In my opinion, this is because Lightwave has long established itself as a project with very slow and not deep development. That predetermines not even the outflow of old users, but not enough interest from potential users.
I think that one of the factors of the breakthrough in this regard, along with the improvement of the program functionality and the correction of bugs (the third update is coming out, but the old Dynamics module has not been amended) is the company's own initiative to attract partners such as third-party renderers or simulators of liquids and gases, etc.
Each new step in development today leads to the complication of already complex codes. No company is able to provide its users with all the necessary tools today. Which group of the same number of specialists will release, for example, a more perfect tool for dynamics - one that does this as part of a whole 3d program or one that does just this tool?
It's not that bad specialists are in Newtek - the fact is that they can not break into all directions and make all the functionality of the level of the highest standards of the industry.
Therefore - it is necessary to establish a dialogue with some developers, so that they write their plug-ins under the Lightwave. This and the consistent improvement of the modeling and animation environment of the Lightwave itself can have the most beneficial effect on the influx of new users.
We all love Lightwave because, in my subjective opinion, that in the very beginning it was created under very good logic. But unfortunately its further development was only the exploitation of this logic with, for the most part, cosmetic changes. The farther away - the more painful it felt and so it continues to this day. Every time we get some small and very nice gifts, against a background of almost unchanged foundation.

Why is there so much criticism right now, after the long-awaited release of a fundamentally new version of LightWave? Not because the new version is bad, but because in the very attitude to users and the development of the product, which many of us rely on in their professional work, lies unwillingness to reckon with the desire of users to see the LightWave as a full-fledged 3D product capable of competing in all major areas with industry leaders.

As for the fact that the new Lightwave in combination with Octane renderer gives everything to anyone - it's not so, because, firstly, Octane has its limitations and I can not do everything through the Octane, which I can do through my native Lightwave render. Secondly, Octane itself costs almost 600 dollars (standalone+one license). But to this amount, you need to add about at least $ 1500 more, since you will most likely need to purchase rather expensive graphics cards (thanks to the miners!), A more powerful power supply or even make a full upgrade of the equipment. That today is quite expensive.

So, the more modern tools, including third-party, will be used in lightwave - the better for us, users, and for the company, in the end. In my opinion.

VonBon
05-29-2018, 09:56 PM
I don't know if this is allowed according to the forum rules... but check out some site like Render&Beyond for archviz examples of Vray4C4D.

I checked it out but I do think you can get that quality from LW.

pixym
05-29-2018, 11:10 PM
Just seen this, (Path Tracing with Optix's AI assisted Denoiser from Hurley Works) and I share it here :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLvzAaNYDAs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QmPWOxs_20

hrgiger
05-29-2018, 11:23 PM
Dont' know why people keep asserting that GPU rendering is vastly more expensive than CPU is. You're getting a larger return on your dollar from GPU rendering than CPU. I just recently priced out a new AMD thread ripper system which is even cheaper than a intel system of similar performance. At least 3K and that's factoring in that I would keep my current GPU (1080Ti). On the other hand, I could spend another 1k to 1.2k and pick up another 1080Ti and just kill that new thread ripper system on rendering times. There's a limit to how much you can do in a workstation on CPU, yet GPU will continue to scale the more GPUs you throw at it. People also keep talking about the limitations of GPU yet despite that, the rise of GPU rendering continues to grow and more and more people are adopting it.


There are some nice things about the latest release but I do think NT spent a lot of time throwing out the old renderer and creating a new one from scratch. Other vendors have been able to add PBR rendering to their renderer without throwing out the whole thing and starting over. And it didn't take them 3 years to do it.

Fotofashion
05-31-2018, 04:28 AM
Dont' know why people keep asserting that GPU rendering is vastly more expensive than CPU is. You're getting a larger return on your dollar from GPU rendering than CPU. I just recently priced out a new AMD thread ripper system which is even cheaper than a intel system of similar performance. At least 3K and that's factoring in that I would keep my current GPU (1080Ti). On the other hand, I could spend another 1k to 1.2k and pick up another 1080Ti and just kill that new thread ripper system on rendering times. There's a limit to how much you can do in a workstation on CPU, yet GPU will continue to scale the more GPUs you throw at it. People also keep talking about the limitations of GPU yet despite that, the rise of GPU rendering continues to grow and more and more people are adopting it.


There are some nice things about the latest release but I do think NT spent a lot of time throwing out the old renderer and creating a new one from scratch. Other vendors have been able to add PBR rendering to their renderer without throwing out the whole thing and starting over. And it didn't take them 3 years to do it.

My testing shows that I would need 3x 1080 Tis to beat the 1950x in render time, a bit disapointed bout the render time for octane.

141900

samurai_x
05-31-2018, 06:09 AM
Other vendors have been able to add PBR rendering to their renderer without throwing out the whole thing and starting over. And it didn't take them 3 years to do it.

Yeah its too bad.

Anyway regarding gpu, cpu, why do people insists its one or the other. It can be a hybrid.
I've been doing benchmarks all week using Cycles. Even though I hate using blender, the latest update with the hybrid renderer is just waaay coool.
We have some coreI3 dualcores that renders 4 times slower the speed of a typical corei7 quadcore.
I slapped a super cheap 1030 gt on the corei3 and turned on hybrid mode. It renders faster than the coreI7.

corei3 cpu - 12 min
corei7 cpu - 3:37 min

corei3 with 1030gt hybrid mode - 3:08 min

Gpu really makes renderers fast. Especially if the user knows what they're doing. Too bad we got a cpu only renderer in 2018.
Like I always mention, octane is slow. Only reason it was fast is because its gpu. Maxwell would be faster on gpu. Compared to Redshift.....

Chris S. (Fez)
05-31-2018, 08:36 AM
Eh. I'm eager to see how Lightwave's new render engine progresses.

Fotofashion
05-31-2018, 12:04 PM
Yeah its too bad.

Anyway regarding gpu, cpu, why do people insists its one or the other. It can be a hybrid.
I've been doing benchmarks all week using Cycles. Even though I hate using blender, the latest update with the hybrid renderer is just waaay coool.
We have some coreI3 dualcores that renders 4 times slower the speed of a typical corei7 quadcore.
I slapped a super cheap 1030 gt on the corei3 and turned on hybrid mode. It renders faster than the coreI7.

corei3 cpu - 12 min
corei7 cpu - 3:37 min

corei3 with 1030gt hybrid mode - 3:08 min

Gpu really makes renderers fast. Especially if the user knows what they're doing. Too bad we got a cpu only renderer in 2018.
Like I always mention, octane is slow. Only reason it was fast is because its gpu. Maxwell would be faster on gpu. Compared to Redshift.....

yes that would be really something usefull, been playing at it with me self. But with amd pro render.

hrgiger
05-31-2018, 04:31 PM
My testing shows that I would need 3x 1080 Tis to beat the 1950x in render time, a bit disapointed bout the render time for octane.

141900

So youre comparing an unbiased renderer to interpolated? And 10000 samples... That might have something to do with it... If you configure octane properly, you will find different results.

Cageman
05-31-2018, 04:31 PM
Arnold is native i Maya and also own by Autodesk. Maya is more famous for animation not rendering. I donít get your point?

Arnold is native, yes... but also limited, unless you pay up for it, as an extra cost, per rendernode!

cresshead
05-31-2018, 04:43 PM
Hybrid is a great option

iray
vray
cycles
renderman

arnold is wip

Fotofashion
06-01-2018, 12:33 AM
So youre comparing an unbiased renderer to interpolated? And 10000 samples... That might have something to do with it... If you configure octane properly, you will find different results.

Yes, I run a test scene as is.
Well the lw native render is set to high samples to, as in camera samples, wich we know really hits render time.

Nothing would have made me more happier if 2x 1080ti, could be faster then my cpu. then I would have added octane as a renderer.

vncnt
06-01-2018, 02:23 AM
How much render work does one exactly need in order to make profit on GPU rendering, compared for instance with buying extra computers with strong CPU's but simple GPU, fast drive, fast network and built-in power supply?

Include:
- learning process
- surface/material/light conversion and tweaking for each model/scene
- hardware selection/buying/installation/maintenance
- hardware compatibility and driver issues
- risk spreading (hw failures, up-time optimization, ...)
- discussions in newsgroups
- alternative use for GPU's and computers while not rendering (modeling, painting, research, multiple employees, ...)
- external renderfarm

There must be a formula for this so that each user can decide for himself what the best solution is.

I think I don't need that kind of complexity in my systems but I understand some of us are willing to overcome this. For them, I hope NT will build a giant golden plug + manual for external developers.

However, animators are looking forward to see some improvements on the feature side of animation.
Speed has a lower priority to me (us?) because I donīt need gigantic speed for storytelling - I do need a smarter timeline, weight painting, and deformations.

Animation is the area that needs more development in my opinion.

Marander
06-01-2018, 03:20 AM
How much render work does one exactly need in order to make profit on GPU rendering, compared for instance with buying extra computers with strong CPU's but simple GPU, fast drive, fast network and built-in power supply?

Include:
- learning process
- surface/material/light conversion and tweaking for each model/scene
- hardware selection/buying/installation/maintenance
- hardware compatibility and driver issues
- risk spreading (hw failures, up-time optimization, ...)
- discussions in newsgroups
- alternative use for GPU's and computers while not rendering (modeling, painting, research, multiple employees, ...)
- external renderfarm

There must be a formula for this so that each user can decide for himself what the best solution is.

I think I don't need that kind of complexity in my systems but I understand some of us are willing to overcome this. For them, I hope NT will build a giant golden plug + manual for external developers.

However, animators are looking forward to see some improvements on the feature side of animation.
Speed has a lower priority to me (us?) because I donīt need gigantic speed for storytelling - I do need a smarter timeline, weight painting, and deformations.

Animation is the area that needs more development in my opinion.

These are some good thoughts.

One thing to consider (and I mentioned this before 2018 was out), that users have to relearn texturing, lighting and rendering in LW 2018 because of the new shading and rendering system. So moving from 2015 to 2018 requires additional learning and efforts to modify existing content - The same way as if you move to a different renderer. But this should have been clear, I don't understand why some users are puzzled that they have to learn something new. And it's not rocket science anyway.

For GPU rendering I would like to add to your list that from my experience the GPUs are not so endurable like CPUs when used 100% all the time. When rendering long scenes with GPUs you can most likely expect to replace them after around 3 years (or earlier). Also power consumption and cooling needs to be considered. For long renders (several days) I prefer using CPU and not have my GPUs under 100% load for such a long period, while I can run 100% CPU utilization (even overclocked) for weeks.

Asticles
06-01-2018, 04:14 AM
Also a bad update and bam! you're dead. Software faulting, speed loss, etc.

Gpu is a very volatile world. I prefer CPU, with smart algorithms.

Have you noticed the lag when loading the scene on gpu memory? No way to me.

tyrot
06-01-2018, 04:44 AM
salvador dont risk your own business..... did you see scene loading on Octane 4 ?

Chris S. (Fez)
06-01-2018, 08:44 AM
salvador dont risk your own business..... did you see scene loading on Octane 4 ?

Speak for yourself.

Asticles
06-01-2018, 08:52 AM
Yeah, I've seen it has improved a lot.

Worth have a try, I'm waiting to test it with denoiser also.

The problem is today I had two layout crashes when importing a live material, and lost about half an hour of work. This is what I mean of stability.

- - - Updated - - -

I think is better LW develop some architecture to use gpu as an assistant to the cpu render, for example for the interpolate calculation.
Or like clarisse, to add optix denoiser only.

samurai_x
06-01-2018, 09:29 AM
How much render work does one exactly need in order to make profit on GPU rendering, compared for instance with buying extra computers with strong CPU's but simple GPU, fast drive, fast network and built-in power supply?


However, animators are looking forward to see some improvements on the feature side of animation.
Speed has a lower priority to me (us?) because I donīt need gigantic speed for storytelling - I do need a smarter timeline, weight painting, and deformations.

Animation is the area that needs more development in my opinion.


Buying a cpu render node even with the cheapest components plus windows os is more expensive than a mid tier gpu(1060 gtx). That gpu is atleast 3 times faster.
The low end 1030 gt is dirt cheap and performs faster than a coreI7 quad. Its cheaper than windows os itself. Upgrading a couple of old computers with it is very cost effective.

I do agree there are more pressing issues than the renderer in lw 2018 such as the core workflow being split, animation, rigging.
I personally didn't have a problem with lw 2015's renderer which is still more versatile.
Probably better to spend more dev time on other aspects and not the renderer again and again. Too many lw upgrades have focused on rendering.
Would much rather they try to integrate Cycles if it turns out to be the cheapest hybrid renderer out there.

tyrot
06-01-2018, 09:38 AM
Speak for yourself.

what you mean.. GPU rendering - is very solid .. and it can bring you fortune.. it did to me.. so plus Octane 4 is just so promising .. i cannot wait ..

Chris S. (Fez)
06-01-2018, 11:03 AM
what you mean.. GPU rendering - is very solid .. and it can bring you fortune.. it did to me.. so plus Octane 4 is just so promising .. i cannot wait ..

Octane is great! I'm saying just because you are not personally using Lightwave's native render engine in your pipeline does not mean that others are not content to use the new engine for particular projects. Being able to render on a CPU farm is still extremely cost effective.

I'm saying I'm tired of members or former members of this community reacting to Lightwavers who still use the native engine with bafflement or disdain.

samurai_x
06-01-2018, 11:55 AM
Renderfarms are like renting software. It works for others who are willing to rent.

Like I always mention, GPU is targeted for small to medium studios. Instant render speed for not so much money. It fits lightwavers who are usually in the budget market.

Adding gpu support for Arnold.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqnhhoA99As