PixelPlow Render Farm for Cinema 4D
PixelPlow Render Farm for Cinema 4D


Cafe Oldtimer
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Noble Beginner

About docphibs

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • First Name
  • Last Name
  • C4D Ver
    17 Studio
  • Location
    New York
  1. I second what Tibbs said. I think it's pretty damn incredible just slightly buggy currently and no render farms support it yet. It's buggier in r18 but seems fine in r17. You HAVE to have a gpu to run it though. I honestly find it to be extremely undervalued right now. And why balk at half off for something that is already DIRTY cheap. I'd buy it just to try it out and learn something new. Why not? Just my two cents on it.
  2. 9mins 32 seconds with 3x980 ti's 1920x1080 it's using volume scatter on the platonics, sss on the blue dude... i was testing how to mix completey different materials on the ... purple... orange... whatever you wanna call that. and i just chucked a guy way in the bg to see how the DOF was working. There's also displacement happening on the ground plane. I hit a snag early on messing with displacement... you have to be mindful of the subdivision rate (pixel) in global settings. It probably maxed out the vram on my cards and it would never render. It was set way too high by default. So I set that to 4. In the live viewer you see it's set by default to 8. (obviously the higher the less detail/faster render time) I've been messing with this file for a bit so I would still say it's not optimized. It could be faster. I just have my settings a little cranked just to make sure I had enough transparency depth levels and ray bounces to play with whatever I needed to play with.
  3. I'm really not that experienced either! haha there's been links posted in this forum that I watched like this link here - there are a couple other links posted that helped a lot. The global settings really pretty simple to me. You just have to test / optimize per scene. My results have been grainy too. But not toooo bad like the two images you posted. I honestly don't know how good those cards in the trashcans really are for this... 3x980tis are doing pretty well with it. I'll share some of my renders tomorrow and screen cap my render settings.
  4. Oh yea I totally get that ;) You simply made me aware that I actually contradicted myself where it's actually a good thing that cycles is for more "pro" users. ... see what i did there? (pun intended)
  5. Even though I say it's not for the casual user... that's not necessarily a bad thing either. I merely wrote that in as a "con" simply for those who aren't the advanced users. I absolutely love how malleable it is and that it is complex. It's a "pro" for me but probably a "con" for some.
  6. So, I saw that on my imac at home it was user error on my part. It started to work - I simply just had to make the "size" in the live viewer somewhere below 50% otherwise it was extremely slow. It's still pretty slow on the cpu even then. It's strange though - I really do not have any issues with speed when I use cycles in Blender. If I set Blender's viewport to render - it's pretty darn fast. I still haven't delved to deep into that issue though so again - could be user error... Regardless, I started using the demo at the office on a GPU box. And it's WAY faster obviously on the GPU's. 3x980ti's and it's pretty nice. I feel whoever wrote above though that it doesn't seem AS fast as Octane is right. But there are some major plus's on Cycles side. My quick take between pro/cons between octane / cycles Cycles Pros: -Way better node editor - (easily my favorite thing about this.) -More malleable shaders - (again attributes to node graph.) -Attribute node - (can access a LOT from selection tags / vertex tags you name it really.) -Easier to art direct for non-photo real looks. Cycles Cons: -Seemingly not as fast. (I can't be sure about that but I'm pretty sure that's true and it feels true.) -No camera imager like in octane. (I kinda find the camera imager in octane slightly gimmicky, but it does help to have it sometimes.) -Render quality / photo realism isn't as strong as octane. (kinda the bread and butter of octane imo... you can't really cheat it) -Not as artist friendly - (not really for the person who's not an advanced user) - Can't really see what my graphic cards are doing (I love the priority settings in octane and information displayed to see what my cards are really doing - that's a big one for me) There's a lot more to cycles i have yet to learn... still in a bit of a mystery about light path node but that seems like a powerful one. I'm actually really split down the middle with this though. I really enjoy using the nodes in cycles way more. The results are predictable too. But there are some things with Octane I really miss too. I really dunno which I'm going to buy for home / future freelance work.... PROBABLY BOTH. lord help me.
  7. Yea I'm using yosemite but on el capitan. 10.11.6 - imac core i7 3.4 ghz. this works totally fine in blender cycles just not in cycles4d. so i don't think it's hardware issue.
  8. I have the same problems too after downloading the demo. I'm lighting just a sphere and it takes foreeeever for the ipr to update. This doesn't happen I'm using cycles in Blender though. So seems like it could be fixed for c4d.
  9. I don't feel there's a misconception on my end. I was aware of the SDK issue and that being on chaosgroup. I don't mean to slam Stefan and his team. They should be applauded for how far along they are. I've used the beta - it's MUCH better. Still very buggy in some areas but I still wouldn't rely on it during production. I agree that if chaosgroup took over now it obviously would be a step backwards. But my point by saying that is because of c4d being behind for so long. Maybe this is never going to be a problem ever again. But regardless of who's fault it is - the fact is it's been a frustrating couple of years and a whole bunch of people feel that. Despite knowing all of that, I'm still even considering buying this for personal work at home since I don't have a gpu machine (yet). Despite that terrible forum... it's still the fastest cpu render engine. ... should quickly apologize... really cause i dont' wanna derail this convo away from cycles... which i already have haha... I am 100% going to buy cycles for sure with that price tag. No reason not to really. Looks amazing
  10. Haha yea duh I should have at least added more subdivs for that example... which... actually makes that look correct. But that's just masking the issue which is that it's actually warping the uv's. I was simply using the cubes as an example to show a problem for a much larger scene I was creating. I'll just describe my scene very quickly: Same set up but with two laptops underneath a cloner set to blend. I made a bend deformer to simply rotate the keyboard (don't ask why a bend deformer - in short it's not a normal keyboard.) The moment I change the deformer to "blend" - my texture for the keys on the keyboard go way out of wack. Simply changing the projection to cubic / flat / whatever also didn't work. I even made the whole cloner editable to check the uv tags on one of keyboards to see if it was truly warping the uv's and it was. It completely changed the uv's. I'm assuming it's simply a limitation of using blend mode - buuuut I have never run into this problem before which seems crazy to me. Which makes me almost think it's a bug. Or maybe I've just simply never run into this problem before. If anyone knows what I'm talking about please shed some light on this. Much appreciated. Hopefully that clarifies the issue.
  11. actually... i take that back im still confused by this... why does setting a cloner to "blend" warp the uv's?
  12. ... nvm... a good look at the help manual helps sometimes
  13. I know there are other ways to achieve this... but what am I doing wrong here? I have a cube with a simple checker on it with a bend underneath. The checker is fine if you keep the cubes parametric but the second I make them editable - the texture gets wack. what am i doing wrong? is this a bug? I wouldn't assume that it would also bend the uv's??... so bizarre to me.
  14. ... 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.
  15. I honestly think this is a great solution for some studios that are already built with CPU farms. (which is pretty much everyone) I'm curious if cycles GPU renders match 1 to 1 if you switched it to CPU. You could do all your look dev on a powerhouse GPU box and then send your frames to a CPU farm. NOT bad. This link here is also pretty amazing imo. http://www.chocofur.com/6-shadersamptextures.html It's not only good for a quick run down on methodology on building cycles shaders but also in how you can translate that same core methodology to other render engines. Side note: I hope (assume?) that some of the income from cycles4d goes back to the dev team. It's in their best interest really to keep it moving forward.