OctaneRender™ for LightWave™ 2.0 - build 2.0.10

Newtek Lightwave 3D (exporter developed by holocube, Integrated Plugin developed by juanjgon)

Moderator: juanjgon

User avatar
MrFurious
Licensed Customer
Posts: 529
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 5:46 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

2.01 marginally faster than 2.00, but 1.54 faster still and resolves better.

octane render 2.01 40.62ms noticeably more fireflies
2.0.1.jpg
octane render 2.00 38.58ms still unresolved fireflies
2.0.0.jpg
octane render 1.54 45.27ms and much cleaner
1.5.4.jpg
Dino Inglese
CG Artist
Melbourne Australia


Intel Core i7-4820K, 3x GTX 980ti
Windows 7 64bit, Modo 12.2v2 for PC
Octane build 4.04.0.145
User avatar
abstrax
OctaneRender Team
Posts: 5506
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 11:01 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

MrFurious wrote:2.01 marginally faster than 2.00, but 1.54 faster still and resolves better.

octane render 2.01 40.62ms noticeably more fireflies
2.0.1.jpg
octane render 2.00 38.58ms still unresolved fireflies
2.0.0.jpg
octane render 1.54 45.27ms and much cleaner
1.5.4.jpg
I thought you were talking of a speed drop from 2.00 to 2.01.

Yes, Octane got slower from 1.5 to 2.0. We added a whole lot of new render features which all affected render speed, even if the features are not used. It has been discussed a lot on the forums the last weeks. We are still working through a list of ideas, but there is only so much we can do here, so I can't make any promises that we can improve performance further in the near term.

The trench scene is affected more than most scenes, which is because it's dominated by ray-tracing (it has only one trivial material). Here on my 690 I see even a drop of 18% in path tracing, but in most scenes "only" 5-10%, in some cases 2.01 has the same speed as 1.5.

I'm worried about the noise though: Doesn't look right and we will have a look at it.

EDIT: Some parts are also rendered differently. Only direct lighting seems to be affected.
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. - Yogi Berra
User avatar
abstrax
OctaneRender Team
Posts: 5506
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 11:01 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

MrFurious wrote:2.01 marginally faster than 2.00, but 1.54 faster still and resolves better.

octane render 2.01 40.62ms noticeably more fireflies
2.0.1.jpg
octane render 2.00 38.58ms still unresolved fireflies
2.0.0.jpg
octane render 1.54 45.27ms and much cleaner
1.5.4.jpg
Thanks for pointing out the noise. There is a bug in direct lighting that creates that huge amount of noise. It will be fixed with the next release.
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. - Yogi Berra
User avatar
MrFurious
Licensed Customer
Posts: 529
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 5:46 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Thanks Abstrax. Considering all the new goodies 2.0 brings us a 'minor' performance hit is excusable. Will be glad to see less noise though especially since I almost always use the Direct Lighting Kernel.

Cheers,
Dino.
Dino Inglese
CG Artist
Melbourne Australia


Intel Core i7-4820K, 3x GTX 980ti
Windows 7 64bit, Modo 12.2v2 for PC
Octane build 4.04.0.145
User avatar
MrFurious
Licensed Customer
Posts: 529
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 5:46 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Only noticing this now playing around with the LW plugin.. indeed tons of noise with 'Diffuse': very simple scene, a single arch model and a single light using DL diffuse. Background noise taking ages to resolve. May need to switch back to 1.54 until this is addressed.
IPR_image.jpg
Dino Inglese
CG Artist
Melbourne Australia


Intel Core i7-4820K, 3x GTX 980ti
Windows 7 64bit, Modo 12.2v2 for PC
Octane build 4.04.0.145
vipvip
Licensed Customer
Posts: 726
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2011 9:28 am

Good to know - thanks
about fireflies, it remains the problem, specialy visbible on glossy/specular surfaces with roughness values close to 0 ( but not =0, where it disappear ). It is not specific to octane but for all GPU renderes ( cycles, thea, which seems to be better for this but not perfect, as far as i've tested ).
It is a very ennoying problem - specialy with animation of glossy surfaces, because render time have to be huge to 'smooth' them ( and the integrated highlight-filters are not the ideal solotion, as it changes a lot the final look of the rendered picture ) and this make loose one of the biggest advantage of GPU renderer: speed.
I'm surprised that no real solution has been found for now around this, it would be a major step...
User avatar
abstrax
OctaneRender Team
Posts: 5506
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 11:01 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

vipvip wrote:Good to know - thanks
about fireflies, it remains the problem, specialy visbible on glossy/specular surfaces with roughness values close to 0 ( but not =0, where it disappear ). It is not specific to octane but for all GPU renderes ( cycles, thea, which seems to be better for this but not perfect, as far as i've tested ).
It is a very ennoying problem - specialy with animation of glossy surfaces, because render time have to be huge to 'smooth' them ( and the integrated highlight-filters are not the ideal solotion, as it changes a lot the final look of the rendered picture ) and this make loose one of the biggest advantage of GPU renderer: speed.
I'm surprised that no real solution has been found for now around this, it would be a major step...
Try increasing caustic blur.
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. - Yogi Berra
vipvip
Licensed Customer
Posts: 726
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2011 9:28 am

thanks for the tip, Abstrax, i'll try ASAP
User avatar
BorisGoreta
Licensed Customer
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 6:45 pm
Contact:

Thanks for the daily build Juanjo.

I look forward to instance surface picking ;)
gristle
Licensed Customer
Posts: 304
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 10:42 am
Location: Wellington
Contact:

The latest daily build does not run on Win XP64.

.......entry point GetTickCount64 could not ......

2.01 standalone runs fine however.
Post Reply

Return to “Lightwave 3D”