Transparent shadows are surely supported, don’t know about SSS ecc but it’s better to report actual facts before posting.
This factual enough for you?
There are so many render engines at the moment it is getting hard to decide which one to use. I wonder if there is a site who tests all the engines and specifies which one is good for.
If you have a CUDA card there are certainly several good options, for CPU-bound cases the options available depend on if you’re willing to live with a modest speed hit, as the performance is built upon how efficiently multi-threaded the different renderers are. I think only V-Ray 3.3 / 3.4 is heavily optimized for CPU but I’m not positive on that. I think Octane has a big performance hit, probably Arnold too. Hopefully Cycles will be optimized to take advantage of as many cores as a user can throw at it.
Not sure about review sites. I think the closest I’ve seen is Vozzz’ review that he did a few months back (at least I think he did one on renderers… I might be mixing it up with his GPU review). You might also be able to find a comparitive review(s) at or linked at Lester Banks’s site.
GreyScale Gorilla had a review of Arnold, Octane and the Physical Renderer. I thought it was reasonably objective. But it was limited to those choices.
Anyone received a newsletter update from Insydium in roughly the last 14 days? My understanding is it comes out on a regular schedule but I may have misunderstood. I signed up a while back but haven’t received one. Possibly I typo’d my sign-up form like a putz. Or maybe they’re just working on an R17 fix and Release 4 / Cycles. Can’t be much to do there…
I didnt think they went too deep with the review, in fact, it was quite shallow. They didn’t showed the difference between the arnold shading network and the octane nodes (Octane lacks a compositing node with screen/multiply parameters, doesn’t have a Utility node, doesn’t have math nodes), they also didn’t explore Arnold instance render capabilities, ASS / Arnold Procedural to calculate millions of polygons, they also didnt explore Arnold atmospheric scattering. They only did one classic example, and Cinema 4D is a lot bigger than just a beauty render of a car.
Now, I don’t want to say Octane isn’t a cool render, because it is, and neither Im trying to say physical isn’t powerful, what im saying is: Arnold is not known because it can do IPR or can do glowing shards or cool purple grapes, it is know because it can handle millions of polygons, and it has a pretty powerful shading network, and they didn’t showed that.
I agree with Luis, the greyscale gorilla review is good, but not deep enough, there are to many render engines at the moment, one person cannot go deep into every single one of them. So it would be nice to have a site or a group of people doing this exclusively…
I am currently toying with Corona Renderer which is fairly fast considering its proudly cpu-driven rendering. Unfortunately it does not allow for compositing but it is very easy to use and produces decent results.
After that I also got nVidia iRay which is very fast as soon as it starts rendering but the baking process for CUDA GPUs can take several minutes. Therefore speed comparisons must take the entire rendering process into account. And sometimes CPU renderers are faster than GPU ones
This is a rather biased and also shallow comparison i did. http://ace5studios.com/render-engine-comparison/
However it will need updating.
However amazing arnold is, its just too slow for most individual artists. You can throw it at farms, but that can seriously blow out your budget.
However wonderful octane is, you can’t throw it at farms… I mean they have 1 farm, but last i checked it was still beta and not very production ready. And betting your production on 1 farm being functional is a bit too risky for me. So you are left with building out your own farm and buying a whole license for each node and then eating the electric bills
As much as I usually chime in to defend Arnold I have been finding this to be very true lately. It’s a fantastic render engine but for an individual artist it’s quite slow for animation or what ever you need to render out quickly. That is, without spending a lot of money on licenses and machines. I’ve looked into denoising with Altus and the results are great but the workflow sucks. I’ve been investing more into GPU rendering with my system. I enjoy Octane but I’m anxious for Redshift to hit C4d after testing the Houdini version. I think what Insydium is doing with Cycles is exciting though. It’s a pretty solid engine right now for Blender so it will be intersting to see it in action in Cinema4d. I’m curious to find out what they will charge for the bridge considering Cycles is a free opensource engine (as far as I know).
Just looked at the octane news - this awesome cell example from “octane imager” seems pretty neat:
OctaneImager, a powerful post-processing and compositing application: OTOY is responding to the communitys requests to do even more with Octane with the creation of OctaneImager, a new post-processing and compositing application designed for exceptional quality and speed for use on its own or paired with OctaneEngine.
They also have this near the bottom of the page:
Broad cross-platform support: Using OTOYs CUDA cross-compiler, OctaneEngine and OctaneImager is expected to support all possible CPU and GPU devices and platforms, including support for Mac platforms, and AMD GPUs.
Is a Mac/AMD option back in the game now?
One update to your latest, Aleksey - Maxwell announced GPU rendering via CUDA: http://www.maxwellrender.com/products/maxwell_4
Of course that’s “coming soon”.
I’ve been saying that CPU renderers are dying…just trying to help…and wow have people reacted violently against that reality.
But Arnold and Maxwell and VRAY are racing to get off CPU…
For those who say GPU quality isn’t as good… here is yet further proof that such a notion is nonsense:
Maxwell 4s major new feature - a GPU render engine! The new engine runs on nVidia graphic cards and uses all the power that GPUs provide to accelerate the render process. All the technology under the hood is identical to the classic CPU engine - which means your images are exactly the same, unbeatable Maxwell quality
But for those that are tired of hearing me say it…I’m done with that debate. You won’t hear it from me anymore.
I really wouldn’t say they are racing to get off CPU, but rather racing to add GPU options. Overall I am leaning towards your side of the fence though when it comes to GPU vs CPU. CPU is not going to disappear, and it shouldn’t, but you can’t argue with the current quality of GPU engines coming out now paired with the current generations of GPU’s…It’s hard to complain about super fast results that look good.
Marcos Fajardo pretty much said the same about Arnold, they are working on a GPU version and you wont notice the quality difference between CPU / GPU. Sadly he didnt say when / if its gonna be released.
So then that’s a “no” ? Nobody has received a Newsletter recently, right? Hopefully I didn’t miss anything. I’m sure people would be posting stuff but just in case one went out without a Cycles update, making sure.
I have been feeling the same way. There is no point in developing a cpu renderer and abandoning it for a gpu replacement, but instead giving people the choice between those two. And some engines manage to make use of the cpu and gpu at the same time for further speed improvements so that would be quite nice for any renderer.
there is no news on cycles for the public as far as i know, don’t worry
Well, Maxwell isnt there yet… so waiting to see it, before believing it: