Page 1 of 3

Octane 3.0 RC1 for SI released :)

Posted: 12 Jul 2017, 17:08
by wireframex

Re: Octane 3.0 RC1 for SI released :)

Posted: 12 Jul 2017, 18:29
by xsi_fanatic
Nice ! Curious to know if this support render regions within the SI viewport.

Re: Octane 3.0 RC1 for SI released :)

Posted: 12 Jul 2017, 18:35
by rray
great news, it's a very nice renderer

looks like it does support render regions (found here: https://render.otoy.com/forum/viewtopic ... &start=110)

Image

Re: Octane 3.0 RC1 for SI released :)

Posted: 12 Jul 2017, 18:36
by wireframex
xsi_fanatic wrote:Nice ! Curious to know if this support render regions within the SI viewport.
Image

Yes it works :)

Note : From Demo_Project created by Face (example delivered with Octane 3.0 RC1 for SI)

Re: Octane 3.0 RC1 for SI released :)

Posted: 12 Jul 2017, 19:06
by Draise
:-o :-o

Re: Octane 3.0 RC1 for SI released :)

Posted: 12 Jul 2017, 20:03
by xsi_fanatic
That's awesome ! Is it fully GPU ?? Like Redshift ?

Also how much is it ?

Re: Octane 3.0 RC1 for SI released :)

Posted: 13 Jul 2017, 23:20
by wireframex
xsi_fanatic wrote:That's awesome ! Is it fully GPU ?? Like Redshift ?
Yes fully gpu
xsi_fanatic wrote:Also how much is it ?
https://render.otoy.com/forum/viewtopic ... 21#p273838

Re: Octane 3.0 RC1 for SI released :)

Posted: 13 Jul 2017, 23:51
by rray
The purchase page lists the plugin beta version at $139 (€126,34).

Just got a reply from otoy that you can upgrade the beta version to the final release version for no additional cost.

Requires Octane Standalone though - if you don't have Octane Standalone yet, you'll have to pay $509 for the plugin+Standalone.

Re: Octane 3.0 RC1 for SI released :)

Posted: 14 Jul 2017, 22:22
by xsi_fanatic
Can someone give a clear and simple explanation of what the difference is between Redshift and Octane render ?

I understand one is biased and one is unbiased, but I need a clear explanation and example.

Re: Octane 3.0 RC1 for SI released :)

Posted: 14 Jul 2017, 23:40
by Draise
Unbiased - Unbiased renderers like Maxwell, Indigo, and Luxrender are typically hailed as "physically accurate" render engines. Although "physically accurate" is something of a misnomer (nothing in CG is truly physically accurate), the term is meant to imply that an unbiased renderer calculates the path of light as accurately as is statistically possible within the confines of current-gen rendering algorithms.

In other words, no systematic error or "bias" is willfully introduced. Any variance will manifest as noise, but given enough time an unbiased renderer will eventually converge on a mathematically "correct" result.​

Biased - Biased renderers, on the other hand, make certain concessions in the interest of efficiency. Instead of chugging away until a sound result has been reached, biased renderers will introduce sample bias, and use subtle interpolation or blurring to reduce render time. Biased renderers can typically be fine-tuned more than their unbiased counterparts, and in the right hands, a biased renderer can potentially produce a thoroughly accurate result with significantly less CPU time.
Quoted from Here:

Had to clear that up in my own head, haha!

I guess you could say, Redshift is like Arnold, or Mental Ray on steroids, which also is unbiased, and Octane is more like Cycles which is Biased. Though.... Wikipedia says Cycles is unbiased...

Re: Octane 3.0 RC1 for SI released :)

Posted: 15 Jul 2017, 01:06
by mc_axe
Very interesting quote Draise i always believed that 'unbiased' was a little bit unfit term for these progressive renderers (that improove a frame till infinity), but now the term makes more sense.

I can see now for example that Redshift claims is 'fully biased' because of that non progressive mode where you can bias the result with samples for all individual parts (like for example the samples for the glossyness of x material). On progressive mode it overides all the individual samples and is just another unbiased renderer.

On topic, im happy that companies still consider Softimage users, i will check out the new Octane.

Re: Octane 3.0 RC1 for SI released :)

Posted: 16 Jul 2017, 04:42
by xsi_fanatic
Thanks for the feedback Draise !

Re: Octane 3.0 RC1 for SI released :)

Posted: 17 Jul 2017, 10:07
by NNois
mc_axe wrote:Very interesting quote Draise i always believed that 'unbiased' was a little bit unfit term for these progressive renderers (that improove a frame till infinity), but now the term makes more sense.

I can see now for example that Redshift claims is 'fully biased' because of that non progressive mode where you can bias the result with samples for all individual parts (like for example the samples for the glossyness of x material). On progressive mode it overides all the individual samples and is just another unbiased renderer.

On topic, im happy that companies still consider Softimage users, i will check out the new Octane.
No you're wrong of course in progressive mode RS takes the sample weight into account !

Re: Octane 3.0 RC1 for SI released :)

Posted: 17 Jul 2017, 10:12
by NNois
Biased means you're getting a biased render, a renderer who takes shortcuts to makes the final image where some parts are interpolated and tend to be close to his homologue unbiased one but not really the same.

A good analogy would be a blurred reflection to get rid of the noise, you're close to the "right result" but not the same.

This is the Iradiance Cache modes, and RS fall in an unbiased where you set the renderer to Brute force raytracing

Re: Octane 3.0 RC1 for SI released :)

Posted: 17 Jul 2017, 21:05
by mc_axe
NNois wrote:
mc_axe wrote:Very interesting quote Draise i always believed that 'unbiased' was a little bit unfit term for these progressive renderers (that improove a frame till infinity), but now the term makes more sense.

I can see now for example that Redshift claims is 'fully biased' because of that non progressive mode where you can bias the result with samples for all individual parts (like for example the samples for the glossyness of x material). On progressive mode it overides all the individual samples and is just another unbiased renderer.

On topic, im happy that companies still consider Softimage users, i will check out the new Octane.
No you're wrong of course in progressive mode RS takes the sample weight into account !
I believed the same, but someone corrected me in the forums, in the docs is more clear:
When progressive rendering is enabled, certain renderer features and options have no effect. These are:

All unified sampling settings (including filtering)
Subsurface scattering. Redshift's SSS implementation is computed as a separate pass so it's only available to production (non-progressive) renders
Photon mapping (including caustics). Redshift's photon mapping implementation is computed as a separate pass so it's only available to production (non-progressive) renders
Irradiance cache, irradiance point cloud. These are not needed because progressive rendering computes GI in a brute-force way.
All parameters that have to do with "number of samples". Examples include the number of samples for Depth-Of-Field, number of samples for glossy reflections or refractions, number of area light samples, etc.

Re: Octane 3.0 RC1 for SI released :)

Posted: 11 Aug 2017, 16:15
by rray
Instancing test 2,000,000,000,000 hairs in Octane for Softimage

Image
Render time <1 minute per image