Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest

Cycles for C4D

Recommended Posts

Vray seems to be comming on quite well now,  and includes ALSurface shader for SSS which is being integrated,  as many know this is Arnold's best skin shader out there only faster in Vray. . The Vray documents are not good,  and that's not because they are not complete yet,  but because they don't help the new user learn. . It's more of a "what is this function "  rather than. "this is how to use it" 

 

I can see cycles being a big hit as it has all the right ingredients being the developer,  sharable materials,  been through the trials in blender,  price,  3 render nodes,  fast cpu,  gpu,  nodal system. 

Dan

Share this post


Link to post

... I've had a huge falling out with vrayc4d... is 3.25 ever going to get released? i just can't handle the horrendously slooooow updates simply cause it's not supported directly by chaos group. and yes... documentation is terrible too. it's a shame cause it's an incredibly fast render engine.

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, docphibs said:

... I've had a huge falling out with vrayc4d... is 3.25 ever going to get released? i just can't handle the horrendously slooooow updates simply cause it's not supported directly by chaos group. and yes... documentation is terrible too. it's a shame cause it's an incredibly fast render engine.

I'm with you on this.  Vray is an incredible renderer on every other platform.  I wish Chaos group would just handle the integration instead of outsourcing it.  It would be a much better scenario.  

Share this post


Link to post
44 minutes ago, docphibs said:

... I've had a huge falling out with vrayc4d... is 3.25 ever going to get released? i just can't handle the horrendously slooooow updates simply cause it's not supported directly by chaos group. and yes... documentation is terrible too. it's a shame cause it's an incredibly fast render engine.

Gone past 3.25, on 3.4 now. 

 

Dan

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
  • Topic Author
  • On 10/8/2016 at 8:17 PM, Zmotive said:

    The link below has what you need. It's a CPU render test of 6 options including V-Ray and Octane, the latter of which they picked an older GPU that has similar performance to the CPU used in the tests. It's an imperfect analogy but still somewhat useful. The other comparisons vs. Cycles are all apples to apples. 

    No it isn't I'm afraid. I mentioned that very test in my previous post. I'm interested in a side by side Cycles4D vs Physical. I'd hope Insydium would be working on a comparison.

    If I could get similar or even better render times out of CPU Cycles4D over Physical while being able to do GPU OpenCL previews on my iMac before switching to CPU for rendering on the Mac Pros that would be super convenient and I'd be up for a license.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    3 hours ago, Cutman said:

    No it isn't I'm afraid. I mentioned that very test in my previous post. I'm interested in a side by side Cycles4D vs Physical. I'd hope Insydium would be working on a comparison.

    If I could get similar or even better render times out of CPU Cycles4D over Physical while being able to do GPU OpenCL previews on my iMac before switching to CPU for rendering on the Mac Pros that would be super convenient and I'd be up for a license.

     

    You cant compare CPU vs GPU, is not the same hardware, and theres no video card / processor chart comparison. This is something you need to test yourself with your own specs. Hopefully we get a demo so we can run our own tests based on our needs. What would be the CPU equivalent of 2 x 970 or 4x titans  for example?

    In my own rig, doing tests, Octane is faster than Physical and Arnold, except if I need to render a million or more hair, then Arnold does the job faster. And if my scene is huge, Octane cant render it at all, while Arnold is in heaven when dealing with billions of polygons. Also, setting volumetrics and participating media in Octane is a pain in the butt, so Arnold wins because it is reliable, plus I love Arnold Utility nodes, and Octane lacks those. I have never found Physical Render accurate or physical at all, because their materials doesnt react the way they should, neither C4D lights do, and on top of it GI with Physical takes forever in my rig, so I dont really use it.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    14 hours ago, Cutman said:

    No it isn't I'm afraid. I mentioned that very test in my previous post. I'm interested in a side by side Cycles4D vs Physical. I'd hope Insydium would be working on a comparison.

    If I could get similar or even better render times out of CPU Cycles4D over Physical while being able to do GPU OpenCL previews on my iMac before switching to CPU for rendering on the Mac Pros that would be super convenient and I'd be up for a license.

    Hmm. I must've misunderstood. The post I saw said "There's a comparison of Cycles vs 5 other renders and Cycles is slightly slower than Octane and VRay etc, obviously that's GPU not CPU which I'm interested in." And while the bold part is true that's only for Octane. All the other comparisons are CPU to CPU. I thought that's what you were asking for. And then I saw this from the article:

    "All the rendering was done using CPU rendering, on an Intel i7 3770 in a desktop with 12 GB of RAM and Windows 7. For Octane, a purely GPU renderer, an nvidia GTX 650 was used (*it performs very similarly to the Intel i7 3770)."

    Which is why I said it was what you were looking for, but you're right there's no comparison with the Physical renderer in C4D obviously. From my understanding Cycles is faster over CPU than the Physical renderer but we'll have to see.

    Share this post


    Link to post

    I look forward to the renderer, hope will check it before Christmas on new PC (i7 6core/GFX1070). Are there somewhere some "real" benchmarks? Maybe Steve, Mike, David or other guy´s from beta can reveal something closer? ;-)

     

    Share this post


    Link to post

    For cycles benchmarks look here:

    http://blenchmark.com/

    (seems not to be maintained, still useful)

    or here:

    https://blenderartists.org/forum/showthread.php?239480-2-7x-Cycles-benchmark-(Updated-BMW)

    Those should give you an idea about performance per hardware.

    Also have a look at OSes Linux seems to be faster than Win in general.

    Share this post


    Link to post

    • Recently Browsing   0 members

      No registered users viewing this page.

    ×
    ×
    • Create New...