Unreal Materials vs Octane Materials Tweet

[Ferdinand13]

Hello,

I’ve got a very general question, but wasn’t sure where to ask

From the preliminary tests I’ve been doing, it seems like Octane interprets Unreal Materials more or less 1:1. Is that the case, or are there downsides to using UE Materials? What would be the reason to use an Octane Material instead (assuming this project will never leave UE)?

The reason I’m asking is because I’m still figuring out the most efficient workflow when inside UE and since the main benefit would be to be able to switch between pathtracing and real-time on the fly, there would be a strong argument to stick with UE Materials whenever possible.

I just would like to hear, if there’s something I’m missing

[ChrisHekman]

Unreal material conversion to Octane is quite good yes, but has various limitations.
1. Some Unreal material expressions cannot be converted. Most notably: ObjectRadius, SceneTexelSize, DepthFade, SceneFade, SceneColor, ObjectBounds
2. Transparency, Refraction, Skin and displacement convert less well, and it is adviced to create these materials with octane materials, as those can generally give you better results.

The reason I’m asking is because I’m still figuring out the most efficient workflow when inside UE and since the main benefit would be to be able to switch between pathtracing and real-time on the fly, there would be a strong argument to stick with UE Materials whenever possible.

For most simple situations the most efficient workflow would be to use Unreal materials. But for skin, glass, and displacement, octane materials should give a better result.

[Ferdinand13]

Thanks Chris, that makes a lot of sense. I went over a couple more tutorials in the meantime and I think I've got a better grasp on Octane inside UE now. I like what I see Octane is really going to come in handy for my UE workflow. I hope development will continue and make Octane even more integrated than it already is.