Igor

MAXON new Radeon ProRenderer 'leaked'

33 posts in this topic

2 hours ago, zeden said:

Lol.  Everything else but a main feature in R19 would be a huge suprise. Integrating and developing a new render engine with complete new tech is a huge task. Read the blog post about it. There are enough indicators about the complexity of this.

This is why MAXON needs to re think their upgrade policies as to their penalties for skipping a release, as indeed this is a big addition to C4D, one I would have liked before I invested into Vray, but if this becomes a fore front part of r19/r20 in which its resources cause a over shadows to other major updates of exciting technologies, my upgrade is paying for a renderer I dont need, although welcome.  I think this is a long awaiting update, one in which new users, and ones who haven't invested in 3rd party renderers are sure to benefit from.

 

Dan

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Rectro said:

This is why MAXON needs to re think their upgrade policies as to their penalties for skipping a release, as indeed this is a big addition to C4D, one I would have liked before I invested into Vray, but if this becomes a fore front part of r19/r20 in which its resources cause a over shadows other major updates to exciting technologies, my upgrade is paying for a renderer I dont need, although welcome.  I think this is a long awaiting update, one in which new users, and ones who haven't invested in 3rd party renderers are sure to benefit from.

 

Dan

Good point Dan! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Whats wrong with Mac's C4D? :)

 

Not much, most 'issues' comes from that  industry goes more towards GPU engines and Apple products are 

1. not giving you much choice, only AMD

2.not giving you possibility to upgrade

3.too expensive, when you put 1 and 2 in formula.

Interesting comparison, when some has money to waste 

 

However C4D works great on OSX.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ill just leave this here...video speaks for himself! 

a4Zjdb1_460sv.mp4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that video didn't use the same kind of chips in the mac and the PC 

xenon and i7 aren't the same , it would be a better comparison if it was core i7 vs i7 , and xenon vs xenon , because each kind has its uses .

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, maliohammad said:

that video didn't use the same kind of chips in the mac and the PC 

xenon and i7 aren't the same , it would be a better comparison if it was core i7 vs i7 , and xenon vs xenon , because each kind has its uses .

 

I think the main purpose of the comparison was value for money, what can you get at the same price point on either side of the fence Apple vs PC.  In either case a 10k setup is some serious money.

 

Dan

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rectro said:

I think the main purpose of the comparison was value for money, what can you get at the same price point on either side of the fence Apple vs PC.  In either case a 10k setup is some serious money.

 

Dan

yes I know , but it is not just the hardware that you are paying for . for example maya have many features and VFX stuff ..etc but some people use c4d because the good UI .

the same applies to x-particles and naive effex , naive effex is feature rich and have tons of advanced stuff , but people prefer x-particels for the ease of use .

the mac was never a cheap option , but I really like how it works , and I will never go back to windows . IMO , I can buy the computer I like that can handle my needs then use a cheap render machine (used PC ) or just use a render farm . 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One question about this new ProRender deal, would we be able to use the CPU AND GPU simultaneously? And if we can, would that cause problems with the differences between processors?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Rectro said:

This is why MAXON needs to re think their upgrade policies as to their penalties for skipping a release, as indeed this is a big addition to C4D, one I would have liked before I invested into Vray, but if this becomes a fore front part of r19/r20 in which its resources cause a over shadows to other major updates of exciting technologies, my upgrade is paying for a renderer I dont need, although welcome.  I think this is a long awaiting update, one in which new users, and ones who haven't invested in 3rd party renderers are sure to benefit from.

 

Dan

I would like to know what Cycles 4D users think of this development?  Cycles 4D is also a GPU renderer but with the added benefit of a nodal material system.  But I have heard some troubling "rumbles" about the speed of Cycles 4D IRR and the need to increase samples significantly to get acceptable render results which in turn removes any speed benefits from GPU rendering.  

So will MAXON's implementation of the ProRender not be hampered by these same issues?  Not sure.  But I would imagine that Radeon resources exceed those of the Blender foundation with respect to engine development and MAXON's resources exceed those of Insydium's with respect to implementation. Also, lets assume for the sake of argument, that the ProRender implementation provides better quality at faster render speeds than Cycles 4D.  Would you still get Cycles 4D for the nodal material system (all things being equal in terms of feature sets of both renderers....which do seem pretty evenly matched)?

You know, I would not be surprised that the ever secretive MAXON is more forth coming about the development of ProRender because Insydium annoucned Cycles 4D.   Had I no knowledge that ProRender was coming, I probably would have purchased Cycles 4D by now.  But right now, I am going to wait.  

I have no idea how all of this is going to play out!!!!  What is everyone else going to do and why?

Dave

P.S. To be fair, knowledge alone that ProRender is coming is NOT the only reason why I am not running to purchase Cycles 4D.  Their annual license maintenance fees are very high and I have no idea about the pace of development from Blender to insure that high cost is justifiable.   The render times at high sample rates to get acceptable results is troubling.  Plus, after following a few tutorials, I have to say that nodal material systems have a steep learning curve...a very steep curve.  Should ProRender be the much better and faster renderer such that I stop using Cycles 4D , that would a lot of wasted effort (along with cash too).  As a hobbyist, time is on my side....so I wait.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

5 hours ago, 3D-Pangel said:

 

I have no idea how all of this is going to play out!!!!  What is everyone else going to do and why?

 

Its simple for me, more so now that Vray 3.4 is officially out, which is faster, and more solid that ever, im going to stick with Vray as it takes time to get used a render engine, I mean proper get used to it so that you got mastery over it.  Everyone's needs are different, and artistic styles can sway someone from one renderer to another.  Another thing is we dont all work with the same logic, so some renderers will seem easier to learn than others.  I like the idea of nodal systems, but I find it confusing once iv started to build up what looks like my family tree from the past 500 years. :confused:

In the long run what MAXON is doing cant fail, IMHO they are moving forward, and investing into a area that is needed to keep up with the competition, just a tweak in their upgrade policy, and that will play well with many I think.

Dan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, 3D-Pangel said:

I would like to know what Cycles 4D users think of this development?  Cycles 4D is also a GPU renderer but with the added benefit of a nodal material system.  But I have heard some troubling "rumbles" about the speed of Cycles 4D IRR and the need to increase samples significantly to get acceptable render results which in turn removes any speed benefits from GPU rendering.  

Hi.

As a recent user of Cycles 4D, I must say that for me, its the perfect render engine. Its a modern pathtracer, designed from the start to be a production capable renderer. I´ve been exploring its set of features during 3 weeks. At the begining, my thinking was "as a render engine, Cycles is a little naive". But I dont think so right now. It´s fairly easy to setup render settings to achieve the desired quality/speed. IPR works quite well, only dont think you can go with a full speed IPR window at 1280x720. ¿Dou you know of another rendering engine that can show volume rendering of fire and smoke in an IPR window? Cycles can do it. All in all, Cycles4D its the perfect companion for X-Particles, no doubt, and a serious and well suited rendering engine for VFX.

ProRender for Cinema4D looks like a wellcome upgrade from Advanced/Physical render. So no doubt I will like it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Guys,

 

As many of you pointed out, it really depends at the end the day your needs. For me, I will stick to Octane and Arnold.

However, I have met Patrick Goski (Cineversity e.g) 6 weeks ago, and he talked about Redshift with so many good superlatives, that made me curious to follow. If my memory is good, through the forum you can get it, in beta version for C4D, and really play with it.

Render engines are now coming out quickly than ever for some reason. IMHO it remains a matter of preferences and most certainly budget and time to learn it.

To be continued...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.