Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 29 of 29

Thread: Opinion: What's the best rendering software besides Lightwave?

  1. #16
    Electron wrangler jwiede's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    6,504
    Quote Originally Posted by erikals View Post
    hardly, explain.
    What does the phrase "besides Lightwave" mean to you?
    John W.
    LW2015.3UB/2019.1.4 on MacPro(12C/24T/10.13.6),32GB RAM, NV 980ti

  2. #17
    Registered User Skywatcher_NT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    172
    From the fxguide article :


    "The company has roots in scanline rendering but since 2006 it has had a fully ray traced solution."

  3. #18
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    237
    Quote Originally Posted by tyrot View Post
    Buy Octane .. and awesome Octane plugin. It is SO fast that you cannot wait for any other renderer. When you earn money buy TITAN NVIDIA card(s)- you ll have an insane raw power for render.
    Also Juan - Octane plugin author simply is a genius - he keeps updating his plugin like noone else. With this plugin we have survived within heavily MAX VRAY infested archviz competitions.

    About materials - it is SO easy to understand.... because of insane speed and MATERIAL UPDATE in IPR - you ll be changing everything in no time.

    I cannot recommend enough .. .download demo and see yourself..
    My video card/GPU or whatever it is won't run Octane. The demo won't work on my PC.

  4. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by jwiede View Post
    What does the phrase "besides Lightwave" mean to you?
    a figure of speech.
    i hardly think he meant to exclude it, not unless he is an expert on LightWave rendering.
    LW vidz   DPont donate   LightWiki   RHiggit   IKBooster   My vidz

  5. #20
    LightWave documentation BeeVee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Pessac
    Posts
    5,057
    Quote Originally Posted by saranine View Post
    My video card/GPU or whatever it is won't run Octane. The demo won't work on my PC.
    Hey,

    What sort of video card do you have? Octane requires an Nvidia graphics card with CUDA cores.

    B
    Ben Vost - NewTek LightWave 3D development
    LightWave 3D Trial Edition
    AMD Threadripper 1950X, Windows 10 Pro 64-bit, 32GB RAM, nVidia GeForce GTX 1050Ti (4GB and 768 CUDA cores) and GTX 1080 (8GB and 2560 CUDA cores) driver version 430.86
    AMD FX8350 4.2 GHz, Windows 7 SP1 Home Premium 64-bit, 16GB RAM, nVidia GeForce GTX 1050Ti (416.34, 4GB and 768 CUDA cores)
    Dell Server, Windows 10 Pro, Intel Xeon E3-1220 @3.10 GHz, 8 GB RAM, Quadro K620
    Laptop with Intel i7, nVidia Quadro 2000Mw/ 2GB (377.83 and 192 CUDA cores), Windows 10 Professional 64-bit, 8GB RAM
    Mac Mini 2.26 GHz Core 2 Duo, 4 GB RAM, 10.10.3

  6. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by saranine View Post
    My video card/GPU or whatever it is won't run Octane. The demo won't work on my PC.
    Yes, Octane only works with NVidia GPUs with CUDA model equal or greater than 1.2 (I think that even GTX 2xx can work)

    -Juanjo
    Juanjo Gonzalez
    Computer Graphics Software Developer

  7. #22
    Eh, what?
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Right here, right now
    Posts
    604
    Quote Originally Posted by erikals View Post
    Octane is realistic for close ups (perfume bottles etc.) and interiors.
    Kray is faster though.
    Eh, what?

    ADP.

  8. #23
    Aspiring CGI Genius RT-4-777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    North America
    Posts
    27
    Thank you everyone, this is more than enough!
    “The education of a man is never completed until he dies.”

    ― Robert E. Lee

  9. #24
    Registered User tyrot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    in lights
    Posts
    2,167
    no no you are wrong - it is never enough... We have just started !!!!

  10. #25
    Almost newbie Cageman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Malmö, SWEDEN
    Posts
    7,650
    Besides LightWave I would argue Modo, since it has a very solid and integrated renderengine in the package, and is generally easy to use, if you can manage the Shadertree, which I think is quite daunting to use for large scenes with lots and lots of surfaces to shade. For Biased engines, (such as LW, Modo, Kray, Vray), I would say KRay is a good GI-engine capable of putting Vray to shame, and is quite low-cost (around $300 for a license and that includes unlimited rendernodes), but capable means a hell of a lot of learning (much harder to learn compared to Modo or LW). VRay is another very good biased engine, but there is no version for LW avaliable yet.

    Unbiased engines are the next level engines, such as Maxwell, Fryrender, Arnold and Octane. These engines are doing physically correct calculations of lightbounces and shaders and as such, they are certanly slower compared to biased engines, but the results are quite fantastic (they do not cheat as much as biased engines). Arnold and Octane are the faster ones of the unbiased engines and depending on the shot, can rival any biased engine in terms of setuptime and rendertime; Arnold being CPU while Octane is GPU. Octane can run circles around Arnold, again, given the right scene to render since it is using GPUs, which are faster for that sort of calculations, at least at this moment.

    I would personaly go for adding Modo as an additional renderingsolution as a companion to LW. It can read and write LWO files, it supports MDDs natively, and have some interesting rendering features such as Importance sampling, making it a quite fast bruteforce MC-engine. While that will never be able to compete against GI-interpolation in terms of speed, it certanly makes Modo one of the faster, if not the fastest, bruteforce MC engines around. A perfect solution for animated deformations without forking out an arm and a leg for Arnold, or using Octane with GFX-card memory limit (6GB for the very, very expensive graphicscards).

    Oh well.
    Senior Technical Supervisor
    Cinematics Department
    Massive - A Ubisoft Studio
    -----
    Intel Core i7-4790K @ 4GHz
    16GB Ram
    GeForce GTX 1080 8GB
    Windows 10 Pro x64

  11. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by erikals View Post
    Octane is realistic for close ups (perfume bottles etc.) and interiors.
    Kray is faster though.
    Quote Originally Posted by alexos View Post
    Eh, what?
    what?
    Last edited by erikals; 07-19-2013 at 04:41 PM.
    LW vidz   DPont donate   LightWiki   RHiggit   IKBooster   My vidz

  12. #27
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    237

    my video card specs

    My video card is a AMD Radeon HD 6700

    That's why I can't run the Octane Demo?

  13. #28

    yes, sorry, AMD won't work, you need an Nvidia video card that supports Cuda.
    the more Cuda cores it supports, the faster the render will be. (basically)
    LW vidz   DPont donate   LightWiki   RHiggit   IKBooster   My vidz

  14. #29
    Adapting Artist jasonwestmas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    11,399
    For rendering larger textures and highly detailed displacements I'd use bucket rendering like vray, modo or renderman based software.

    For speed and ease of use I'd stick to Lightwave and possibly a GPU renderer like Octane. Running out of memory for textures and displacements is often the problem I run into with these types of renderers though. . . so here it's all about optimizing your assets as much as possible like you were making a video game some times. Of course with Lightwave if you have 16-32 GB of ram per renderbox then you'll be fine for most things.

    Maxwell is kind of in the middle where you get the flexible benefits of software rendering with crazy amounts of realism and beautiful lighting . . .considering how much faster computers are now, I think it's worth the render time if that's what you want. So choosing the right renderer depends largely on how big your scenes are, the texture sizes and the desired style of your images.
    All that is powerful or long standing is first conceived in the imagination; supported by the hope of possibility and then made manifest in our commitment of our current physical reality.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •