PDA

View Full Version : GPU Rendering - Anywhere in the development pipeline for Lightwave?



RPSchmidt
02-22-2019, 07:29 AM
I promise, I am not trying to beat a dead horse with this thread.

I'm getting ready to make some significant team software purchase decisions; specifically, to purchase Octane Render for a rather large team (because bless Lightwave, but the render times are killing us).

There are many reasons why I would prefer not to do this that I'm sure many of you are very familiar with; fiscal reasons, learning curve reasons, etc.

I know that this subject has been brought up many times and that requests for development roadmaps are largely ignored by the development group; but it would be irresponsible of me to commit this amount of money on software without at least trying to gather as much information as possible.

Especially in this case, where the purchase would take the place of other software or hardware.

In addition, I feel like asking this question is even more important now that Lightwave has shifted to a much more aggressive development cycle.

So here goes.


Is there any intent on the part of the development team to implement GPU rendering in Lightwave?



If not, is there any intent to expand plug-in compatibility / support to any other third-party GPU renderers (Redshift, Vray, Iray, Thea, etc.)?


We are sticking with Lightwave, regardless; but if there is the possibility that we don't have to commit to this purchase right now, I'd just like to know.

Thank you for any information you might be able to provide and I apologize in advance for bringing up this subject again.

02-22-2019, 07:38 AM
Oh boy, I know that feeling.
I was reading Octane's updated roadmap where it is ALL subscription. Eww... Not really interested in that.

You won't get an answer here on the forums, I would bet. But it is essentially the question in my mind today after the above read.

Joining in for the support of such a notion in LW.
Robert

TheLexx
02-22-2019, 08:46 AM
For business critical decision purposes you have to assume the answer is No, because what might happen can't be allowed to influence that. :) In practise I think all sorts of things go on behind the scenes, some of which come to fruition and some which don't (which probably explains why it all goes on behind the scenes :D).

This question came up around a week ago at the Lightwave Round Table discussion and a NT dev said that they were in talks about AMD Prorender, but no time frame.....but please don't take that to mean that AMD Prorender has somehow been promised after a wait. Dev made point that LW is used in so many scenarios they consider all of those, but NT are aware of the desire to see GPU in LW. I don't know what the practicalities would be of bolting Blender to your pipeline and consider Cycles till something more concrete happens.

Good luck anyway.

hrgiger
02-22-2019, 09:57 AM
Yeah you can't make a financial or time investment in a hypothetical roadmap even if they were to provide you one.
And personally I wouldn't base one off Lightwave development which has changed direction like the wind blows.

That said, all of my investment on the rendering side of things is geared towards GPU.

RPSchmidt
02-22-2019, 10:24 AM
For business critical decision purposes you have to assume the answer is No, because what might happen can't be allowed to influence that. :) In practise I think all sorts of things go on behind the scenes, some of which come to fruition and some which don't (which probably explains why it all goes on behind the scenes :D).

True. I only asked because I have some time before the situation reaches critical mass. We are ramping up some aspects of our 3d development that we hadn't previously had a need for before, which is why I needed to start the process to make sure we can deliver.


This question came up around a week ago at the Lightwave Round Table discussion and a NT dev said that they were in talks about AMD Prorender, but no time frame.....but please don't take that to mean that AMD Prorender has somehow been promised after a wait. Dev made point that LW is used in so many scenarios they consider all of those, but NT are aware of the desire to see GPU in LW. I don't know what the practicalities would be of bolting Blender to your pipeline and consider Cycles till something more concrete happens.

Good luck anyway.

Personally, I take everything with a grain of salt. I guess I am really just looking for an unequivocal "yes" to the question of native GPU rendering, and I am less concerned with a timeline or estimate of any kind.

If I knew there was an internal commitment to providing GPU rendering, it would impact the resources I expended now on an external solution, even without a timeline or estimate of any kind.

Markc
02-22-2019, 11:35 AM
I am actually shocked (but pleased), there is 'rumor' of AMD support.
Being a Mac user, this is good news if it happens.....:)

Tim Parsons
02-22-2019, 11:51 AM
I guess my question would be - what is slow? In my experience with Octane - which is freaky fast with even a moderate GPU - time is wasted setting up materials when comparing it to using native LW2019. I think it really depends on what kind of work you do. I do zero animations so all my hi-res requests render overnight and my day to day stuff (1200 x 1200) renders in the 1 to 2 minute range. That's plenty fast.

Markc
02-22-2019, 11:59 AM
That is one thing that puts me off Octane/Keyshot etc, having to build surfaces for the render engine.
Plus incompatibilities with third party LW plugins.

Ideally LW needs a native gpu (option) within vpr.

RPSchmidt
02-22-2019, 12:34 PM
I guess my question would be - what is slow? In my experience with Octane - which is freaky fast with even a moderate GPU - time is wasted setting up materials when comparing it to using native LW2019. I think it really depends on what kind of work you do. I do zero animations so all my hi-res requests render overnight and my day to day stuff (1200 x 1200) renders in the 1 to 2 minute range. That's plenty fast.

That very much describes our current process exactly, with the difference that we do a fair amount of animation. Your point about setting up materials in Octane is also one of my concerns.

The problem is that previously we were compositing in OBJ sequences in After Effects using Element 3d and Trapcode for particle effects, etc.

Now, we want to move that back to Lightwave to take advantage of some of the new tools and effects.

Unfortunately, rendering a single frame of a similar animation is taking an excruciatingly long time using LW's native render. It looks great... but the time sink is not necessarily worth the results.

robertoortiz
02-22-2019, 03:00 PM
thanks for posting this question

stef3d
02-22-2019, 03:46 PM
Hi ! LW 2919 & Octane 4 are impressive !
It's a viable solution for some pro works ! But ..

01_It really must be remembered that the GPU rendering is still new ! Cards do not have many vram, drivers change all the time, don't forget pci lanes & airflow, power supply, .. The machine + software setup is very important to work ! You need backups of each version, validated in production, for drivers, software versions, plugins, .. Very difficult to do because you have to be permanently connected for the authentications, with all the auto updates to kick .. Winning case : CG update in GPU rendering .. And keep in mind that GTX / RTX cards are "gamer cards", Quadro are expensive, but pro .. BTW, take a good guarantee ! I burn 4 Titans, largely amortized, but never happen in CPU ..

02 _ The rendering engine of LW will always be more precise, and will manage some FX (gradiant vol ligth, gradiant edge celshad, multiple trsp VBD, ..) that the GPU renderings can not yet manage .. It is important to master the 2 renderings ! Octane is just a renderer, what about if Juanjo stop this work ? Otoy will continue LW ?? The stability & the quality of the CPU rendering is the more important ! The render farm is accessible & compatible if needed ! In any case, you have to master the 2, but prepare to enter a world a little more "video games", a lot of R&D is needed, as well as bigggs hardware tests !

But it's playable, I've been doing it for 5 years, ok, i love risks, we have only a life for rendering ! On the other hand a big BRAVO to the development team, the new LW 2019 is superb !!! An integration of Cycles can be interesting, but it will always be simplified .. Can't wait to see the new creations of users with the new CPU native engine ! LW powa !!!

BTW, nice continuation to you ! And take the time to work on your workflow ! He will return it to you ! :D
_

rdolishny
02-22-2019, 03:59 PM
I love the look and of course speed of Redshift, but for every commercial project we have GarageFarm on standby and send all of our frames there to render. It's like having a personal render farm (well, really, it is) It's fast and accurate and we love it. Render times really don't mean anything to us.

Now, with Redshift maybe I would change our workflow back to local rendering.

TheLexx
02-22-2019, 05:09 PM
I love the look and of course speed of Redshift, but for every commercial project we have GarageFarm on standby and send all of our frames there to render. It's like having a personal render farm (well, really, it is) It's fast and accurate and we love it. Render times really don't mean anything to us.

Now, with Redshift maybe I would change our workflow back to local rendering.

Are you rendering Lightwave in Redshift springboarding via another software, or do you just use different softwares and renderers ?

Re Ocatne, one thing I dislike is the way they introduced a turgid dongle license which still has to connect to the net every few months to update.

CaptainMarlowe
02-23-2019, 12:43 AM
I am actually shocked (but pleased), there is 'rumor' of AMD support.
Being a Mac user, this is good news if it happens.....:)

I filed a feature request for this with these reasons a while back. I guess the more people ask for it, the more it could be taken into consideration. So maybe you could file a freq too.

- - - Updated - - -


I am actually shocked (but pleased), there is 'rumor' of AMD support.
Being a Mac user, this is good news if it happens.....:)

I filed a feature request for this with these reasons a while back. I guess the more people ask for it, the more it could be taken into consideration. So maybe you could file a freq too.

Lewis
02-23-2019, 01:37 AM
I've started using octane at 2014 and at first it was big PAIN to convert my arch-viz stuff to Octane materials (but then again i need to convert them for LW 2018/2019 also if i made them in 2015 and before) 'coz it requires all new surfacing, BUT with time it got easier/faster (there is also automatic convert automatic materials which is good but not perfect) and currently i'm using octane render for 99% of my LW projects. Thing is that if you have lot of premade models then it's gonna be long process BUT if you are starting each project as new separate thing (no need to reuse models/materials) then it's same process, you still need to surface them for native render also so surfacing time is no different if you are surfacing for octane form start, heck it's even faster with decent GPU you get really fast IPR results.

BUT i'd argue that for nice octane usage you should start with 2 GPUs at least 'coz with single GPU you will need to use priority low since your GPU will choke screen/mouse movements when rendering and navigating views same time.

Also going octane full speed might require upgrading your PSU and it is expensive so it just depends what are you doing. I often render interior animations and changing light conditions so native LW render only can do that in Montecarlo Bruteforce GI (no baking for changing light conditions and Interpolated is splotchy) so render-times without octane would be impossible for me to give my clients 30-40-50 seconds Interior animations in 2-3-4 days ready. BUT i do have 10 GPUs in 3 machines so it's "expensive" also.

BUT best thing is that you have options, it's not like if you go to Octane route you must drop all other options, you still can render native LW if you wish/have better suited project for that. so you actually are adding more options for yourself.

cheers

rdolishny
02-23-2019, 05:26 AM
Are you rendering Lightwave in Redshift springboarding via another software, or do you just use different softwares and renderers ?

Sorry, I don't use Redshift at all. I just love the look and speed I've seen from Maya renderings. I would switch if it was available.

TheLexx
02-23-2019, 07:27 AM
Sorry, I don't use Redshift at all. I just love the look and speed I've seen from Maya renderings. I would switch if it was available.

I am impressed too. :)
https://www.artstation.com/artwork/rRll1e?fbclid=IwAR2ExluLjQUFIhD0Jo9zLSJI8igWzVYtBn qqwMAP1-qGfkfh7KrmGShAKNs

Having said that it is a thin line between LW putting resources into compatibility with another renderer, only to find LW then becomes subservient to another company when the licenses change at a whim. I have zero experience of game engines but I understand they are free and render via GPU, and LW is now better equiped for those so there may be a trick or two in that.

Maxon chose Prorender for the licensing model and it seems very sensible NT is also looking at that, though we must remember no one has promised it. I did get the impression from the Roundtable that NT is more aware than appears on the surface. :).

hrgiger
02-23-2019, 08:30 AM
I am impressed too. :)
I did get the impression from the Roundtable that NT is more aware than appears on the surface. :).

They also said that they won't integrate LW because too many studios don't want it. Come again?

Anyway on GPU rendering, the best thing to hope for is that developers are making LW as friendly to third party render solutions as possible. I don't suppose looking to ProRender as an option is unrealistic, but given they let go of Mark Granger and he was interested in GPU rendering( and now subsequently works for Otoy/Octane now doing just that) they're aren't exactly putting off the vibe of going in that direction either.

TheLexx
02-23-2019, 09:05 AM
They also said that they won't integrate LW because too many studios don't want it. Come again?

That may seem odd to some but it is not inconceivable as he said it was based on user feedback . Maybe a lot of users just have their workarounds or plain don't care. Getting away from films and games it is difficult to imagine, say a police department saying a unified app is a primary concern.

The Brent thread went a bit pear shaped, there was a user saying he was already invested in several hundred cpu nodes, so more get-it-out-quick guys may already be doing that, so GPU would be for existing small or newer guys who are not already invested but want the firepower of GPU. Do you have any thoughts on LW using game engines for GPU rendering (am I right in thinking this is already possible now) ? Btw, if you have any dealings with Lino or Mr Granger at Otoy and could give them a polite nudge that an Octane dongle should mean permanent offline, just like a LW dongle, I would buy one tomorrow.

:)

RPSchmidt
02-23-2019, 09:24 AM
They also said that they won't integrate LW because too many studios don't want it. Come again?

That is really odd to me, because even though I know that LW isn't nearly as prevalent as it was, I know that a lot of studios (small and large) still have it in their development pipeline.

I don't know if LW uses flex development, but this is definitely one of those situations where bringing on a small target team to get plugins developed for all of the external GPU render solutions would be massively beneficial to them.

Making LW easier to integrate into existing pipelines would be a huge push for the product. On most large teams, they often don't care what software is used until it becomes a workflow stoppage issue. If it's flexible and easily integrated and maintained (and in this case, very affordable) then it becomes even more appealing.

For my part, I'm just trying to avoid the necessity of making a recommendation to spend $25000+ on software and hardware before the end of the fiscal year, or at least, purchase only a third of that to get us through until a native solution is on the horizon.

It would also be great to have more third party GPU render options to present; not to knock Octane, but preferably options that are perpetual and don't include a dongle.

hrgiger
02-23-2019, 11:17 AM
That may seem odd to some but it is not inconceivable as he said it was based on user feedback .
:)
User feedback and suggesting a significant number of studios are saying that LW somehow being integrated would be showstopper are two different things. The fact is, if you're still using LW today, of course most of those people have either resigned to the split app approach or prefer it. The people who didn't like it have moved on so of course all these years later you're going to see a larger percentage of LW users who say they don't mind the split app approach. But then I would suggest that LW is keeping up with the strategy of appealing to current uses without the regard for what might attract new users to the software.


I don't really think Mark or Lino are in a position to suggest Otoy licensing policy. But then I don't really see a lot of issues with the way things work now either...

- - - Updated - - -

Exception
02-24-2019, 01:41 AM
I have to add that the GPU based denoiser already helps to cut rendertimes by over 2/3rds in many cases. While this is a far cry from GPU based rendering, it's a significant gain. I have found using LW's native renderer to be preferable over Octane in most cases, except where long complex animations are involved. The time spent on setting up Octane at this point in time, and the effort needed to fix unexpected incompatibilities, bugs, or missing features just isn't worth it most of the time in my case.

I hope NT keeps extending GPU support based on the way they handled the denoiser. Perhaps CUDA functionality and such can be slotted in to assist the native renderer for select functions as well?

mummyman
02-24-2019, 04:29 PM
I have to add that the GPU based denoiser already helps to cut rendertimes by over 2/3rds in many cases. While this is a far cry from GPU based rendering, it's a significant gain. I have found using LW's native renderer to be preferable over Octane in most cases, except where long complex animations are involved. The time spent on setting up Octane at this point in time, and the effort needed to fix unexpected incompatibilities, bugs, or missing features just isn't worth it most of the time in my case.

I hope NT keeps extending GPU support based on the way they handled the denoiser. Perhaps CUDA functionality and such can be slotted in to assist the native renderer for select functions as well?

I haven't looked at the denoiser yet in LW. Does this work only on still frames? Or submitting an animation to a render farm...it will work?

- - - Updated - - -


I have to add that the GPU based denoiser already helps to cut rendertimes by over 2/3rds in many cases. While this is a far cry from GPU based rendering, it's a significant gain. I have found using LW's native renderer to be preferable over Octane in most cases, except where long complex animations are involved. The time spent on setting up Octane at this point in time, and the effort needed to fix unexpected incompatibilities, bugs, or missing features just isn't worth it most of the time in my case.

I hope NT keeps extending GPU support based on the way they handled the denoiser. Perhaps CUDA functionality and such can be slotted in to assist the native renderer for select functions as well?

I haven't looked at the denoiser yet in LW. Does this work only on still frames? Or submitting an animation to a render farm...it will work?

Imageshoppe
02-24-2019, 06:15 PM
I haven't looked at the denoiser yet in LW. Does this work only on still frames? Or submitting an animation to a render farm...it will work?

I almost never render just stills, only long animations. If I give one of my clients a 300 frame shot, he wants it slowed down to 900 frames. So animated sequences are critical for me.

I've tried it on a few sequence of frames and it failed. The denoise effect across frames resembles dancing mpeg compression. The manual also specifically mentions that it can't be used on a render farm. Whether it's actually "can't" or "shouldn't be" I'm not sure, but results aren't promising for animations.

As a potential Octane user, I'm skeptical of their denoise over a sequence of frames until I've actually tried it. For those who use it, does it work?

Regards

Cageman
02-24-2019, 06:39 PM
User feedback and suggesting a significant number of studios are saying that LW somehow being integrated would be showstopper[/SIZE][/COLOR]

What? Really? I need to see a source for this information. LW, as far as I know it in our mixed pipeline, is not a showstopper.

hrgiger
02-24-2019, 07:37 PM
What? Really? I need to see a source for this information. LW, as far as I know it in our mixed pipeline, is not a showstopper.

Maybe you misunderstood. Someone from NT said they won't unify LW because too many studios don't want it. I mean first, are there a significant number of studios even using LW, even in a mixed pipeline and secondly what about unification would make it unusable? But it's a moot point since LW will never be unified. They went on to say that unification was about procedural modeling. Which again is a strange statement since procedural modeling is only a small part of overall unification benefits.

hrgiger
02-24-2019, 08:01 PM
What? Really? I need to see a source for this information. LW, as far as I know it in our mixed pipeline, is not a showstopper.

Maybe you misunderstood. Someone from NT said they won't unify LW because too many studios don't want it. I mean first, are there a significant number of studios even using LW, even in a mixed pipeline and secondly what about unification would make it unusable? But it's a moot point since LW will never be unified. They went on to say that unification was about procedural modeling. Which again is a strange statement since procedural modeling is only a small part of overall unification benefits.

robertoortiz
02-25-2019, 05:17 AM
Maybe you misunderstood. Someone from NT said they won't unify LW because too many studios don't want it. I mean first, are there a significant number of studios even using LW, even in a mixed pipeline and secondly what about unification would make it unusable? But it's a moot point since LW will never be unified. They went on to say that unification was about procedural modeling. Which again is a strange statement since procedural modeling is only a small part of overall unification benefits.

OK Ill bite...

Why not support both?
Have old school poly style modeling in Modeler and procedural modeling in Layout?

The way both styles of modeling achieve results is distinctive enough that this could prove to be feasible.

-R

mummyman
02-25-2019, 06:50 AM
I almost never render just stills, only long animations. If I give one of my clients a 300 frame shot, he wants it slowed down to 900 frames. So animated sequences are critical for me.

I've tried it on a few sequence of frames and it failed. The denoise effect across frames resembles dancing mpeg compression. The manual also specifically mentions that it can't be used on a render farm. Whether it's actually "can't" or "shouldn't be" I'm not sure, but results aren't promising for animations.

As a potential Octane user, I'm skeptical of their denoise over a sequence of frames until I've actually tried it. For those who use it, does it work?

Regards

Thanks for the information!

RPSchmidt
02-25-2019, 07:18 AM
Maybe you misunderstood. Someone from NT said they won't unify LW because too many studios don't want it. I mean first, are there a significant number of studios even using LW, even in a mixed pipeline and secondly what about unification would make it unusable? But it's a moot point since LW will never be unified. They went on to say that unification was about procedural modeling. Which again is a strange statement since procedural modeling is only a small part of overall unification benefits.

I definitely misunderstood what you were talking about; I also thought by integration you were referring to integrating LW into their production pipeline (per a general discussion on expanding GPU render support or native GPU render support to increase the appeal of Lighwave) - not unifying Modeler and Layout.

To get a definitive answer on a significant number of studios, I think we would first have to define what is considered a studio; then gather data on the use of Lightwave.

For my part, I'm just always surprised where Lightwave pops up in the development of major film and television productions (the recent Academy Award winner Green Book, for example).

hrgiger
02-25-2019, 07:19 AM
OK Ill bite...

Why not support both?
Have old school poly style modeling in Modeler and procedural modeling in Layout?

The way both styles of modeling achieve results is distinctive enough that this could prove to be feasible.

-R

Wasn't meant to be bait, but that's not really the point. Of course you could have both but someone from NT suggesting that procedural modeling is the only thing that's 'missing' from a separated Lightwave doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

robertoortiz
02-25-2019, 03:20 PM
For my part, I'm just always surprised where Lightwave pops up in the development of major film and television productions (the recent Academy Award winner Green Book, for example).

Links please!

Qexit
02-25-2019, 04:01 PM
Links please!Two links available. For the full story, you have to visit this Facebook Link:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/lightwiki/permalink/1751794778259847/

For the brief notification, just visit this other thread:

https://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?159301-Congratulations-to-Green-Book-and-David-Ridlen-(Best-Picture-Academy-Awards-2019)

P.S. Just noticed, this was my 1000th post :D

Cageman
02-26-2019, 05:01 PM
Maybe you misunderstood.

Yep... sorry about that. Thanks for clarifying! :)

mummyman
02-27-2019, 09:14 AM
They also said that they won't integrate LW because too many studios don't want it. Come again?

Anyway on GPU rendering, the best thing to hope for is that developers are making LW as friendly to third party render solutions as possible. I don't suppose looking to ProRender as an option is unrealistic, but given they let go of Mark Granger and he was interested in GPU rendering( and now subsequently works for Otoy/Octane now doing just that) they're aren't exactly putting off the vibe of going in that direction either.

Who said they won't? Redshift? They are a small group (I think) and have ported to just about all the softwares. I thought LW was huge in Japan. Isn't that enough right there? Maybe they just need more people asking for it. It's pretty amazing and fast, like I've mentioned before. I'm slowly.. SLOWLY bringing fbx's and objs into Maya to render in. Amazing looking subsurface in seconds as opposed to minutes with lots of grain. Such a nice time saver.


Actually... nevermind.. emailed Redshift and found out the same thing. There isn't enough request for it. Bummer...

TheLexx
02-27-2019, 10:28 AM
I thought LW was huge in Japan.

Due to the language barrier, it is not inconceivable they already have solutions in place to some things the English speaking world have been clamouring for years...:D

Lewis
02-27-2019, 11:37 AM
Who said they won't? Redshift? They are a small group (I think) and have ported to just about all the softwares..

All the softwares ? From what i see on their page it lists 5 DCC apps where Redshift is supported/available. That's nowhere near "ALL", For instance Octane render engine is available for more than 20 apps currently and rising it's support.

mummyman
02-27-2019, 11:53 AM
All the softwares ? From what i see on their page it lists 5 DCC apps where Redshift is supported/available. That's nowhere near "ALL", For instance Octane render engine is available for more than 20 apps currently and rising it's support.

Ok. Shoot me then. My bad

hrgiger
02-27-2019, 12:02 PM
Redshift has a Blender integration in the works. They still haven't determined if they're doing a Modo port or not yet.

Lewis
02-27-2019, 12:05 PM
Redshift has a Blender integration in the works. They still haven't determined if they're doing a Modo port or not yet.

Sure, and Octane has few more in the works beta too so it's still BIG difference in "ALL Apps" ;).

hrgiger
02-27-2019, 12:07 PM
Oh for sure.

Markc
02-27-2019, 12:12 PM
But.....when is Octane going to support AMD gpu’s?
This was on the roadmap a loooooong time ago.

Lewis
02-27-2019, 12:19 PM
Who knows, they had some beta build son verison 3.x but form what i've read there was some bug in AMD drivers which needed to be sorted but not sure was that ever been forced (by OTOY) further on. Granted that really don't bother me 'coz my Last GPU from AMD for LW was ATI Radeon 9500Pro and i had tons of issues with it in LWmodeler that i even got beta drivers from AMD that still didn't solve all problems (i battled with it few months) so i sold it and forgot about AMD GPUs for next 10-15 years :D.

Especially now when OTOY showed new OctaneBench2019 results with RTX cores used in octane where boost was from 2-5x for RTX enabled GPUs so Octane 2019.x will boost speed of my RTX 2080Ti by factor of 3x :).

stef3d
02-27-2019, 12:21 PM
As a potential Octane user, I'm skeptical of their denoise over a sequence of frames until I've actually tried it. For those who use it, does it work?

All 3D denoiser work well on single image, no average between before/after frame, best way for animation is to use After Effect denoiser, it's work well, but not magical !
And in any case, it is better to apply denoise in post, to not splotch a rendering !
:)

EBD3D
02-27-2019, 02:52 PM
Imageshoppe
"As a potential Octane user, I'm skeptical of their denoise over a sequence of frames until I've actually tried it. For those who use it, does it work?"


https://youtu.be/TAp17DOpfu8


It works really well ;)

OlaHaldor
02-28-2019, 12:38 AM
I've also used the denoiser with Octane, it's fantastic. I could cut the render time by two thirds on my last freelance job. Going from over a day to a few hours of rendering. Client was very happy about the super fast turnaround.

Chuck
02-28-2019, 10:14 AM
Maybe you misunderstood. Someone from NT said they won't unify LW because too many studios don't want it. I mean first, are there a significant number of studios even using LW, even in a mixed pipeline and secondly what about unification would make it unusable? But it's a moot point since LW will never be unified. They went on to say that unification was about procedural modeling. Which again is a strange statement since procedural modeling is only a small part of overall unification benefits.

Apologies if this isn't the case, but adding up your comments it sounds like you are talking about the discussion from Twitch recently. Deuce Bennett did note that there are both users and studios that prefer the separated apps, but also specifically stated that nothing was off the table in regard to the future on the point of separate applications versus a unified application. He also acknowledged this is a hot topic with lots of vehement advocates on both sides of the proposition, and that the team must do its best to take every user into account. He talked about the value of getting modeling into Layout, particularly with regard to animateable modeling capabilities; and he's puzzled by your take on his comments on the topic of procedural modeling as he certainly does not see that as primarily what unification is about, with respect to what the team hears from users. Really, that's its own thing.

hrgiger
02-28-2019, 11:46 AM
Apologies if this isn't the case, but adding up your comments it sounds like you are talking about the discussion from Twitch recently. Deuce Bennett did note that there are both users and studios that prefer the separated apps, but also specifically stated that nothing was off the table in regard to the future on the point of separate applications versus a unified application. He also acknowledged this is a hot topic with lots of vehement advocates on both sides of the proposition, and that the team must do its best to take every user into account. He talked about the value of getting modeling into Layout, particularly with regard to animateable modeling capabilities; and he's puzzled by your take on his comments on the topic of procedural modeling as he certainly does not see that as primarily what unification is about, with respect to what the team hears from users. Really, that's its own thing.

Well apologies to Deuce if I misheard what he was saying, but he did seem to indicate that the clear and obvious reason to have a unified application was to have modeling functionality/procedural modeling in the animation environment. He also went on to imply that the approach they would more likely take is adding that modeling functionality to Layout (which again is only a small part of the reasons for unification) since there were studios who did not want LW to become unified But again, I don't take anything that is said on future developments as a promise or guarantee, I was merely stating what I heard on Twitch. For those of us who favored the idea of unification, that ship has come into port, blown its airhorn and sailed off again on several occasions, when the original team left to form Luxology, the 'modeling tools in layout' bullet point in LW 9, the rise and fall of the CORE application, and Rob's assertion that the new direction that LW under him was headed in was a different route but ultimately the same destination of that of CORE, a unified application.

The fact that unification may still be 'on the table' is nice and all but even if that's the case, that's a huge undertaking (unless its done extremely haphazardly) to put a UI and UX together that works in Layout that doesn't end up being exactly what people fear about other unified apps and a system that well integrated into the application. It would also be a huge undertaking to try and replicate all of modeler's functions in Layout (as outdated as some of them are, there is still vital functionality for LW modelers) and so Modeler and Layout would still be required for many years to come. And for those of us who already waited years for movement in this area, that's a hard pill to swallow.

RPSchmidt
02-28-2019, 12:22 PM
Apologies if this isn't the case, but adding up your comments it sounds like you are talking about the discussion from Twitch recently. Deuce Bennett did note that there are both users and studios that prefer the separated apps, but also specifically stated that nothing was off the table in regard to the future on the point of separate applications versus a unified application. He also acknowledged this is a hot topic with lots of vehement advocates on both sides of the proposition, and that the team must do its best to take every user into account. He talked about the value of getting modeling into Layout, particularly with regard to animateable modeling capabilities; and he's puzzled by your take on his comments on the topic of procedural modeling as he certainly does not see that as primarily what unification is about, with respect to what the team hears from users. Really, that's its own thing.

But is anyone actively working on a GPU rendering solution for Lightwave? Or further cooperative development with other external GPU render engines to create direct pipeline plugins for Lightwave?

*hint hint*cough*original thread topic*:question: :goodluck:

Chuck
02-28-2019, 12:45 PM
But is anyone actively working on a GPU rendering solution for Lightwave? Or further cooperative development with other external GPU render engines to create direct pipeline plugins for Lightwave?

*hint hint*cough*original thread topic*:question: :goodluck:

Nothing more specific than that none of the above is off the table, and as with other topics, we are listening to users, observing the industry, and evaluating, doing our best to take everyone's needs into account.

3D Kiwi
02-28-2019, 01:27 PM
Apologies if this isn't the case, but adding up your comments it sounds like you are talking about the discussion from Twitch recently. Deuce Bennett did note that there are both users and studios that prefer the separated apps, but also specifically stated that nothing was off the table in regard to the future on the point of separate applications versus a unified application. He also acknowledged this is a hot topic with lots of vehement advocates on both sides of the proposition, and that the team must do its best to take every user into account. He talked about the value of getting modeling into Layout, particularly with regard to animateable modeling capabilities; and he's puzzled by your take on his comments on the topic of procedural modeling as he certainly does not see that as primarily what unification is about, with respect to what the team hears from users. Really, that's its own thing.

So after all this time Newtek still hasn't decided weather they will unify Lightwave or not???

Imageshoppe
02-28-2019, 03:49 PM
Imageshoppe
"As a potential Octane user, I'm skeptical of their denoise over a sequence of frames until I've actually tried it. For those who use it, does it work?"


https://youtu.be/TAp17DOpfu8


It works really well ;)

Thank you for your example!

Regards,

erikals
02-28-2019, 05:55 PM
So after all this time Newtek still hasn't decided weather they will unify Lightwave or not???
sure sounds like it.
it might be that that question has simply been postponed (again).
imo a future unification is inevitable for any serious 3D app.
for now the split "works" especially for Film Studios.
for Motion Graphics, it has painfully obvious lacks.

lucky for me, i'm more of a "Indie Film" guy, so the restrictions are of a bit less concern.

robertoortiz
03-01-2019, 06:26 AM
So after all this time Newtek still hasn't decided weather they will unify Lightwave or not???

but why does this have to be the KEY issue with Lightwave?


In my humble opinion, right now the key issue is an outdated interface in Layout that could use honestly a complete overhaul.
I say keep mopdeler separate as a poly program and have PROCEDURAL modeling be part of LAYOUt where it would do most good.

gar26lw
03-01-2019, 07:16 AM
you don’t need to fully unify, just put some of modellers features in layout and some of layouts features in modeller

and adding a few lwo3 plugins that retained data for other 3d applications would go a long way to making sweet pipelines too. it doesn’t have to all be lw based.
it was on the right track with lwo2 support in a lot of apps till that died. i personally reverted substance to get back lwo2 support even though i have oliver’s great tools.

tbh what if lw could read a maya or modo or max scene ? they are doing it with unity and unreal but i think that’s where the fbx interchange is headed. just leverage other people’s dev teams and tech. they work for you ;)

OFF
03-01-2019, 08:09 AM
tbh what if lw could read a maya or modo or max scene ? they are doing it with unity and unreal but i think that’s where the fbx interchange is headed. just leverage other people’s dev teams and tech. they work for you ;)

Wow, sounds very interesting!

robertoortiz
03-01-2019, 08:51 AM
y
tbh what if lw could read a maya or modo or max scene ? they are doing it with unity and unreal but i think that’s where the fbx interchange is headed. just leverage other people’s dev teams and tech. they work for you ;)

Honestly, the way things are going, they would be better off offering support for Blender scenes. Since that is too complicated, I would settle with full Alembic support.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alembic_(computer_graphics)
EDIT
Lw 2019 does offers it. My bad.

3D Kiwi
03-01-2019, 12:07 PM
There are many reasons to unify lightwave if they want the application to move forward and reach its full potential.
But for me the key issues is that they haven't made a decision yet, This has been a hot topic for years now. Surely having the app split or unified has a huge impact on how
they plan for development.

cresshead
03-01-2019, 07:09 PM
tbh what if lw could read a maya or modo or max scene ? ;)

only 3ds Max can open a 3ds Max scene

cresshead
03-01-2019, 07:14 PM
Surely having the app split or unified has a huge impact on how
they plan for development.

Having to develop for 2 different applications and THEN also make sure they line up to talk to each other with data communication must be really
inefficient development wise....would be like having to develop maya AND 3dsmax at the same time.
This is probably why the genoma preview window is broken in 2019 when you save a rig.

and why development is nearly always layout centric over the last 10+ years.

erikals
03-01-2019, 10:00 PM
only 3ds Max can open a 3ds Max scene
yep

erikals
03-01-2019, 10:03 PM
Having to develop for 2 different applications and THEN also make sure they line up to talk to each other with data communication must be really
inefficient development wise....would be like having to develop maya AND 3dsmax at the same time.
This is probably why the genoma preview window is broken in 2019 when you save a rig.

and why development is nearly always layout centric over the last 10+ years.

they really need a roadmap. (hm, i can recall someone saying the same thing... )

gar26lw
03-02-2019, 12:52 AM
only 3ds Max can open a 3ds Max scene

yeah i know :) just the idea. i guess the reason for this

https://graphics.pixar.com/usd/docs/index.html

would be great if it gets good traction

gar26lw
03-02-2019, 12:58 AM
they really need a roadmap. (hm, i can recall someone saying the same thing... )

“strong three-year roadmap”

http://www.cgchannel.com/2011/06/rob-powers-on-lightwaves-three-year-roadmap/

must have been one at some point. unification looked to be one, 8 yrs later...

anyway, wgas :)

Marander
03-02-2019, 04:39 AM
Honestly, the way things are going, they would be better off offering support for Blender scenes. Since that is too complicated, I would settle with full Alembic support.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alembic_(computer_graphics)
EDIT
Lw 2019 does offers it. My bad.

No, LightWave 2019 and before doesn't offer a proper Alembic integration.

In most scenarios you need changing geometry (for particle / liquid simulation for example) which leads to a mess in LW.

Works well in all other applications I use and I hope NewTek will fix this in a future version of LW.

gar26lw
03-02-2019, 05:15 AM
i think this was one of robs goals right? really good interchange.
it’s a real kick in the pants when you hit one of those moments.

gar26lw
03-09-2019, 06:40 PM
Works well in all other applications I use

this is one of the main reasons people end up switching. half implemented or buggy/lacking features.

sigh, don’t mind me, one of those days..

RPSchmidt
03-12-2019, 06:43 AM
So I am seriously thinking of going with Marmoset Tool Bag.

It's cheaper than Octane, has a perpetual license without restriction for systems that aren't connected to the internet, and doesn't require any additional hardware.

I don't think it's a better renderer; but my choices are few and far between and I need a solution.

OlaHaldor
03-18-2019, 04:31 AM
The downside with Marmoset Toolbag is you can't store the lookdev so it picks it up in a new scene. Yes, it can import textures for you (if the model file is exported properly), but it won't load any tweaks you've done, such as using the sliders to fine tune the spec/gloss or metal/roughness, AO, emissive, displacement opacity etc..


If you're only doing stills, with only a few different scenes, Marmoset is pure joy and awesome.

RPSchmidt
03-18-2019, 08:22 AM
The downside with Marmoset Toolbag is you can't store the lookdev so it picks it up in a new scene. Yes, it can import textures for you (if the model file is exported properly), but it won't load any tweaks you've done, such as using the sliders to fine tune the spec/gloss or metal/roughness, AO, emissive, displacement opacity etc..


If you're only doing stills, with only a few different scenes, Marmoset is pure joy and awesome.

I'm still holding out for a bit... Kray keeps teasing GPU render and I'm hoping that the LWDG will at least start working with some of the other existing GPU renderers to get plugins developed.

rustythe1
03-18-2019, 09:42 AM
think that's only a couple of features and only via open cl, kray is still cpu and geared toward multithread CPUs (that's why all the tests seem to be on dual Xeons)

RPSchmidt
03-18-2019, 11:38 AM
think that's only a couple of features and only via open cl, kray is still cpu and geared toward multithread CPUs (that's why all the tests seem to be on dual Xeons)

In the current version, yes; but they have pretty much stated that they will be introducing full GPU rendering in an upcoming release.

ianr
03-19-2019, 10:24 AM
In the current version, yes; but they have pretty much stated that they will be introducing full GPU rendering in an upcoming release.

We need GPU Solvers, cos how can you climb that speed issue without

discreet GPU solvers on board that sense a gpu , Jasha knew that in Turbulence did he Not?

So Dev Gas man M they should be starting to seed them in LW for 2020.

MichaelBeckwith
03-19-2019, 10:15 PM
Do you think there is enough space on a cpu die to add rtx type units on a cpu? I know Nvida have introduced RTX croes for the gfx card, I am just wondering if they could add an equivalent to a cpu die instead of a gpu.

Another thing that I was thinking of was the cpu wars between AMD and INTEL which have provided us with cheaper cpus with loads of cores like the 32 core threadripper 2. This year there might even be a 64 core threadripper 3. Maybe if this continues as a trend cpu rendering might start catching up performance wise to GPUs, or at the very least make the difference smaller.

RPSchmidt
03-20-2019, 08:21 AM
Do you think there is enough space on a cpu die to add rtx type units on a cpu? I know Nvida have introduced RTX croes for the gfx card, I am just wondering if they could add an equivalent to a cpu die instead of a gpu.

Another thing that I was thinking of was the cpu wars between AMD and INTEL which have provided us with cheaper cpus with loads of cores like the 32 core threadripper 2. This year there might even be a 64 core threadripper 3. Maybe if this continues as a trend cpu rendering might start catching up performance wise to GPUs, or at the very least make the difference smaller.

At first, I thought this might be a possibility; but even though CPUs are climbing the curve by adding cores, architecturally, CPUs are still hampered compared with GPUs in this area.

GPUs have thousands of cores in a parallel architecture that allows them to handle multiple tasks very quickly, but those tasks are typically focused and limited. They typically only handle a limited number of instruction sets. It makes them faster, but less flexible.

CPUs use sequential serial processing, which allows them to attack a single task very well; but that task might be part of an extremely large group of instruction sets that it has been designed to handle. They are capable of handling far more tasks than a GPU and they are typically more exacting with their calculations while doing it.

In the end, you get much faster renders with GPUs, although you get more accurate renders with CPUs. There's a small trade-off in quality, but even that can be compensated for in your GPU render, although that adds time to the render. Even then, the GPU will still be faster than the CPU.

Personally, I don't see that changing any time in the near future.

So in my opinion, it's extremely important that Lightwave increases its interoperability with as many rendering solutions as possible, and hopefully, at some point, switches over to GPU rendering so that they can become more competitive in the broader market.

ianr
03-21-2019, 12:16 PM
NVIDIA RTX DOES RAYTRACING ACCELERATION

is that loud enough for yer [email protected] ?

erikals
03-21-2019, 03:02 PM
NVIDIA RTX DOES RAYTRACING ACCELERATION

is that loud enough for yer [email protected] ?

no, usually someone has to quote it.  https://i.imgur.com/tJGL61i.png