New Arnold but no GPU support.

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

REPLY TO THREAD
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 04 April 2017   #1
New Arnold but no GPU support.

New version of Arnold released. No GPU support. Disappointing. If they were close to having it, wouldn't they have waited a bit to make a huge splash with the new version?

Slow (and aimless) Octane development has given other renderers plenty of time to play with, I suppose.
 
Old 04 April 2017   #2
Good.

We've already got enough GPU renderers out there. I'm glad they decided to focus on what they're good at, and continued developing a solid CPU renderer. That's why I use it. That's why a lot of other people use it. We don't want Arnold to be something it's not, and I certainly hope SA isn't wasting too much time trying to figure out the GPU side of things (look what happened with Maxwell Render- for all intents and purposes, their attempt at GPU render was a complete and utter disaster).

I was more impressed with the fact that there isn't any GPU support, nor any mention of it. All in all, I'm extremely impressed with v5 so far. It's quite a bit faster in certain situations, and feels a lot more refined and stable under the hood.

Not everything needs to be on the GPU hype train to be useful.

-CMPX
 
Old 04 April 2017   #3
GPU support will be added "when it's ready" according to the dev. Arnold is a serious production renderer, so Solid Angle will ensure GPU support is robust and production-ready before releasing it.

I've been working with the new texturing system and love how they've streamlined the workflow for making complex shaders, it's so powerful and easy to understand now and the new Coat, Jitter and Thin Wall features are brilliant additions. Making complex shaders with Arnold is a real pleasure now.

I'm seeing a significant speed boost on my cheesegrater Mac Pro when rendering with Quad lights thanks to the engine optimisation, and am actually considering a processor upgrade to get the most out of this speed boost.

Going to play with the new Hair and Volume shaders today which also look vastly improved over previous versions.

For me, along with X-Particles, Arnold is the best reason to be a C4D user.
 
Old 04 April 2017   #4
Originally Posted by CMPXCHG8B: Good.

We've already got enough GPU renderers out there. I'm glad they decided to focus on what they're good at, and continued developing a solid CPU renderer. That's why I use it. That's why a lot of other people use it. We don't want Arnold to be something it's not, and I certainly hope SA isn't wasting too much time trying to figure out the GPU side of things (look what happened with Maxwell Render- for all intents and purposes, their attempt at GPU render was a complete and utter disaster).

I was more impressed with the fact that there isn't any GPU support, nor any mention of it. All in all, I'm extremely impressed with v5 so far. It's quite a bit faster in certain situations, and feels a lot more refined and stable under the hood.

Not everything needs to be on the GPU hype train to be useful.

-CMPX


I believe Marcos has stated that they want the GPU version to be identical to the CPU version in quality so until that happens we won't see the GPU version. They are working on it though since they've shared some tests already on Twitter and they looked good. They didn't mention it with the 5 release since they didn't want to get users hopes up as I imagine it's a ways off. I get that people like Arnold for being CPU and I enjoy using Arnold but if I could use it with my 1080ti for a speed boost then I'm all for it. Until then I'll work with a Redshift and Arnold combo for certain jobs and be happy with that.
__________________
Patrick Noland
http://vimeo.com/user2975057/videos
 
Old 04 April 2017   #5
Never did anybody state that 5.0 will have GPU support nor is it certain that GPU will be coming at all..

I wouldnt want Solid Angle to release a GPU solution that is as immature as every other engine..

Lately I was forced to use Octane, and I was constantly limited by features that arnold offered easily..
Interestingly the same was the case for X-Particles, as it got mentioned here.. a colleague was planning to buy it and after we tried to get something useful out of it for over three weeks it became apparent he wouldnt spend one dime..

The 5.0 update is completely "solid" which I greatly respect and demand from this state of the art renderer
__________________
.::www.uglykids.org::.
 
Old 04 April 2017   #6
How on earth did a post about Arnold 5.0 turn into a slagging off of Octane and X-Particles? Boy Daniel, you never tire of boringly beating the drum for Arnold and taking swipes at things you don't like, do you? Personally, I wish you'd give it a rest.
 
Old 04 April 2017   #7
Originally Posted by Darth Mole: How on earth did a post about Arnold 5.0 turn into a slagging off of Octane and X-Particles? Boy Daniel, you never tire of boringly beating the drum for Arnold and taking swipes at things you don't like, do you? Personally, I wish you'd give it a rest.


And yet its true.

Octane has stuck in material editor (beta) for like two years ago, and he isnt the only one talking about other render engines in this thread (octane and maxwell were mentioned on the first two post.)

To continue the discussion, I would be pretty happy with Arnold GPU even of its a beta. I wouldnt mind at all. Arnold Utility node is simply unmatched, or the ease of working with participating media, unlike, you know... Other render engines.
__________________
C4D / Zbrush / XSI / Xpression
 
Old 04 April 2017   #8
Still, there's no need to bring X-Particles into it. I know he has a personal gripe with Insydium. That was just a cheap shot.
 
Old 04 April 2017   #9
Originally Posted by Darth Mole: Still, there's no need to bring X-Particles into it. I know he has a personal gripe with Insydium. That was just a cheap shot.


I didnt.. naming X-Particles and Arnold alongside just sounded so wrong..

Originally Posted by vel0city:
For me, along with X-Particles, Arnold is the best reason to be a C4D user.
__________________
.::www.uglykids.org::.
 
Old 04 April 2017   #10
Some of the statements and posts by Solid Angle did leave me believing that GPU was coming very soon. That could have been my own misunderstanding.

What I was mainly commenting upon is that it now seems likely that GPU support is a long ways down the road (I think they first started presenting GPU in 2014!). If it was coming very soon then I think they would have waited to include it in 5.

Of course, I could be mistaken.

I am trying out the various renderers and was anxious to try Arnold. Maybe they will get my money in the future. It does sound like a great renderer.

But I'm not ever gonna go back to the old way of working (move a light, render, move a little more, render, etc etc).

And really Octane is the only GPU renderer worth talking about at the moment. Cycles is much slower and offers little incitement for a switch (I did purchase it in case this changes).

Otoy took an infuriating path that wasted time, did nothing for current customers, and failed.

I will consider Redshift if it ever gets released.
 
Old 04 April 2017   #11
Originally Posted by lancemoody: Some of the statements and posts by Solid Angle did leave me believing that GPU was coming very soon. That could have been my own misunderstanding.

What I was mainly commenting upon is that it now seems likely that GPU support is a long ways down the road (I think they first started presenting GPU in 2014!). If it was coming very soon then I think they would have waited to include it in 5.

Of course, I could be mistaken.

I am trying out the various renderers and was anxious to try Arnold. Maybe they will get my money in the future. It does sound like a great renderer.

But I'm not ever gonna go back to the old way of working (move a light, render, move a little more, render, etc etc).

And really Octane is the only GPU renderer worth talking about at the moment. Cycles is much slower and offers little incitement for a switch (I did purchase it in case this changes).

Otoy took an infuriating path that wasted time, did nothing for current customers, and failed.

I will consider Redshift if it ever gets released.


With Arnold you won't have to "move a light and render" all the time as the IPR is super quick to visualize your render as you work. It is slower than Octane obviously but the ease of use and features make it worth using. There are good reasonable farms out there for rendering large jobs as well. Redshift development is speeding along so hopefully it will be out of alpha but I can't say say when since they don't share that info with testers. Redshift will be the go to GPU engine once it's officially released...until Solid Angle has a GPU product but who knows when that will be.
__________________
Patrick Noland
http://vimeo.com/user2975057/videos
 
Old 04 April 2017   #12
One more thing people seem to forget. A denoiser in After Effercts combined with lowering some setting in Arnold can do wonders (im looking at you, transparency depth <-- sometimes a high value isnt needed yet is computed), and since Octane is actually slower than Arnold in certain situations when you try to render a large scene, millions of hairs, subsurface scattering or millions of instanced polygons (Arnold "ASS"), then its a nice trade-off. And on top of it, you are actually gaining speed working with the nice Arnold Material Network.

On the other hand, if you guys want a Make Pretty Render Engine that doesnt let you control your scenes as depth as Solid Angle product.. then, by all means, go for a GPU solution.

pd. I would loved to test Cycles, but its buggy in two machines I own, and Redshift -while its a joy to work with- is still in Alpha.
__________________
C4D / Zbrush / XSI / Xpression

Last edited by luisRiera : 04 April 2017 at 03:19 PM.
 
Old 04 April 2017   #13
Innobright Altus works pretty well but it's 230 bucks a year. Navie was supposed to have a denoiser in the works for c4d but I haven't heard anything lately. Neatvideo works pretty well too for some quick denoising in a pinch.
__________________
Patrick Noland
http://vimeo.com/user2975057/videos
 
Old 04 April 2017   #14
Originally Posted by luisRiera: pd. I would loved to test Cycles, but its buggy in two machines I own, and Redshift -while its a joy to work with- is still in Alpha.


Get the Blender fork Bforartists, select "Maya" interaction at startup, import a 3D model into the scene and set the viewport shading mode (the white sphere icon near bottom left) to "Rendered".

Boom, you have Cycles running realtime on the viewport/model in interactive preview mode.

I am learning Bforartists and I like what I see from Cycles so far.

I found it quite promising. Especially for a free, open source solution.

Whether it can match the depth of Arnold yet is another question.
 
Old 04 April 2017   #15
Originally Posted by Darth Mole: How on earth did a post about Arnold 5.0 turn into a slagging off of Octane and X-Particles? Boy Daniel, you never tire of boringly beating the drum for Arnold and taking swipes at things you don't like, do you? Personally, I wish you'd give it a rest.


Agreed.... the need for him to strike out...seems almost desperate.
 
reply share thread



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 11:23 AM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.