Fork Blender

Forums: Fork Blender
Blender (Export script developed by yoyoz; Integrated Plugin developed by JimStar)

Re: Fork Blender

Postby pegot » Wed Jul 03, 2019 5:11 pm

pegot Wed Jul 03, 2019 5:11 pm
No we have an entire thread on the motion blur issue. Internal MB dose not work. Only Subframe MB seems to work. But that gives poor results and appears not to use Motion Vectors.

viewtopic.php?f=32&t=69241

Additionally, other problems arise when using Movable or Reshapable proxy. As the animation progresses, each frame shows the previous as well as current mesh, so all frames are rendered together. This might be an issue with Flip Fluids and the properties tab (there is also an entire thread on that).
Windows 10
4.2Ghz i7 7700k / 64 GB
AsRock SuperCarrier
GTX 1080 ti SC Black (wc)
GTX 1080 ti SC2 Hybrid
GTX 780 6 GB
------
Hackintosh OS X 10.14.3 - NOT able to use with Octane :(
3.5 Ghz Intel i7-3770K / 32 GB
Gigabyte GA-Z77X-UP5
GTX 770 4 GB
pegot
Licensed Customer
Licensed Customer
 
Posts: 606
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 3:44 am

Re: Fork Blender

Postby brent_3d » Wed Jul 03, 2019 5:30 pm

brent_3d Wed Jul 03, 2019 5:30 pm
Let me just add my 2 cents here regarding Octane/Blender vs E-Cycles speeds and addon compatibility issues:

• Due to the fact that Octane/Blender uses Octane materials while E-Cycles uses Cycles/Blender materials you can never have an “exact” or “identical” scene comparison, but you sure can have a comparable scene comparison that will yield very accurate real world results in comparison tests between to the two rendering solutions.

• As an avid Octane/Blender user and now E-Cycles 2.79/2.8 user I can tell you hands down that E-Cycles is faster and easier to tailor render results in regards to speed vs quality. You can see lots of comparisons here on my Youtube channel between E-Cycles, Octane/Blender v4, and Cycles in my E-Cycles for Blender playlist. https://youtu.be/w43iJn2OFfE?list=PLQTNAvZfxupboMqAeLsA-GKRS677Wg5q5

• Not only is E-Cycles faster than Octane/Blender, when you consider the amount of production time lost converting Cycles/Blender materials to Octane’s when using addons such as Graswald, Kit-Ops Pro, or Flip Fluids just to name a few E-Cycles becomes a no-brainer since Blender Addons simplify many complex production processes.

• Transparency of development and build announcements are also a plus for E-Cycles over Octane/Blender. The E-Cycles author communicates with E-Cycles users daily in regards to development and progress of the application and even offers a course on how you can mod Blender to Develop your own E-Cycles like solution amongst other things for Blender. Check out the detailed E-Cycles thread here on Blender Artist. https://blenderartists.org/t/e-cycles-faster-cuda-rendering-and-better-ai-denoising/1139717/1702

• Another additional plus in favor of E-Cycles is it’s already out for the latest Blender 2.8 Beta build, and is updated weekly to match the most recent Beta.

Hope this helps.
-Brent
brent_3d
Licensed Customer
Licensed Customer
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 4:57 pm

Re: Fork Blender

Postby linograndiotoy » Wed Jul 03, 2019 7:18 pm

linograndiotoy Wed Jul 03, 2019 7:18 pm
pegot wrote:No we have an entire thread on the motion blur issue. Internal MB dose not work. Only Subframe MB seems to work. But that gives poor results and appears not to use Motion Vectors.

viewtopic.php?f=32&t=69241

Additionally, other problems arise when using Movable or Reshapable proxy. As the animation progresses, each frame shows the previous as well as current mesh, so all frames are rendered together. This might be an issue with Flip Fluids and the properties tab (there is also an entire thread on that).


I'm in that thread as well. I just checked and MB is not working anymore, which is a shame. I'll get in touch with the FLIP Fluid developers (as I did in the past already to get the MB issue solved) and see on which side the issue is. For sure we'll make it work in Octane for Blender 2.8, but i hope it will be also possible in 2.79.
linograndiotoy
OctaneRender Team
OctaneRender Team
 
Posts: 192
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 7:10 pm

Re: Fork Blender

Postby pegot » Thu Jul 04, 2019 1:07 am

pegot Thu Jul 04, 2019 1:07 am
linograndiotoy wrote:...I'll get in touch with the FLIP Fluid developers (as I did in the past already to get the MB issue solved) and see on which side the issue is. For sure we'll make it work in Octane for Blender 2.8...

Thanks linograndiotoy! The follow up is very much appreciated.
Windows 10
4.2Ghz i7 7700k / 64 GB
AsRock SuperCarrier
GTX 1080 ti SC Black (wc)
GTX 1080 ti SC2 Hybrid
GTX 780 6 GB
------
Hackintosh OS X 10.14.3 - NOT able to use with Octane :(
3.5 Ghz Intel i7-3770K / 32 GB
Gigabyte GA-Z77X-UP5
GTX 770 4 GB
pegot
Licensed Customer
Licensed Customer
 
Posts: 606
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 3:44 am

Re: Fork Blender

Postby ChrisH » Thu Jul 04, 2019 7:02 pm

ChrisH Thu Jul 04, 2019 7:02 pm
Ok, here's my thoughts on the "materials situation":

  • I can probably name 10 different rendering engines (both commercial and free/open source, there's definitely more but I don't know them all/have bad memory), the only ones that (really) are compatible with Cycles' nodes and materials are Cycles and Eevee.
  • Compatibility between rendering engines hasn't really been a thing. The Principled(/Ultimate) Shader is a way towards that, since several engines have implemented it, but even so there's no real unison in how properties are named, what properties are included (or even their "types").
  • glTF looks interesting, but after (quickly) looking through the specification it seems to lack some ("vital") functionality (like not supporting neither subsurface, sheen or coating [all defined in PrSh])
  • Converting materials from imported objects etc are a pain...
  • Add-ons for Blender will (generally) be written to work with Cycles/Eevee, that's just how it is (it's hard to support every possible render engine). That's a feature (or "problem") of those Add-ons, not a problem of other render engines. (even if it can be annoying).

The "solutions"?

  • Only use one render engine (not really that feasible)
  • Convert each material by hand (a lot of work and no fun..)
  • Get/Write/Pay someone to write an add-on that converts materials from one engine/format to another

Now, I could, probably, write an add-on that converts between between Cycles, glTF and Octane (for glTF there's an existing exporter/importer to build on). But since there's no point to write it for 2.79, it would take some time and there needs to be a 2.8x release of Blender Octane to use for it first.
(I'm currently working on an "material related" add-on for 2.8 right now..)
Windows 10 Pro - AMD Ryzen 7 2100X 8 core 3.70GHz - 32GB RAM - GeForce GTX 1080 8GB
Stand Alone + Blender Plugin user
User avatar
ChrisH
Licensed Customer
Licensed Customer
 
Posts: 87
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 12:13 am
Location: Lidköping, Sweden

Re: Fork Blender

Postby FrankPooleFloating » Fri Jul 05, 2019 12:54 am

FrankPooleFloating Fri Jul 05, 2019 12:54 am
Chris, please, at your earliest convenience, export a glTF from Painter (or download a sample glTF from here: https://github.com/KhronosGroup/glTF-Sa ... master/2.0, if you do not have Painter) > import it into Blender 2.8 > select it > click Shading tab > Presto! Alakazam!!.. All PrBSDF nodes set up, ready to go! Ready to render in Cycles/E-Cycles!.. and the PrBSDF node will be waiting for you to add Sheen, Clearcoat, etc, etc. If you make any additional maps (non-glTF) and export separately in Painter, you could still do glTF and just add those in Blender after import. Can't get much simpler or faster than that... And I believe we can thank Don McCurdy (of Google) who is on the Khronos glTF team for the wonderful glTF stuff in Blender (and threejs). He (and I'm sure others) make some real magic shit happen upon import. My experience thus far with this workflow has been pretty much flawless, going from Painter to Blender. And I love the occlusionRoughnessMetallic texture, that puts each into separate rgb channels! That is so kickass!
Win10Pro || GA-X99-SOC-Champion || i7 5820k w/ H60 || 32GB DDR4 || 3x EVGA RTX 2070 Super Hybrid || EVGA Supernova G2 1300W || Tt Core X9 || Blender Plug || LightWave Plug|| Blender E-Cycles
User avatar
FrankPooleFloating
Licensed Customer
Licensed Customer
 
Posts: 1658
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 3:48 pm

Re: Fork Blender

Postby pegot » Fri Jul 05, 2019 7:05 pm

pegot Fri Jul 05, 2019 7:05 pm
It is true. The gLTF work flow in Blender is really easy. And once the initial nodes are set up automatically on import it is no big deal to add in the extras. It could be the same in Octane. Import a gLTF and transfer only what is supported from gLTF into the Universal material. Then fine tune as necessary.
Windows 10
4.2Ghz i7 7700k / 64 GB
AsRock SuperCarrier
GTX 1080 ti SC Black (wc)
GTX 1080 ti SC2 Hybrid
GTX 780 6 GB
------
Hackintosh OS X 10.14.3 - NOT able to use with Octane :(
3.5 Ghz Intel i7-3770K / 32 GB
Gigabyte GA-Z77X-UP5
GTX 770 4 GB
pegot
Licensed Customer
Licensed Customer
 
Posts: 606
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 3:44 am

Re: Fork Blender

Postby ChrisH » Fri Jul 05, 2019 9:13 pm

ChrisH Fri Jul 05, 2019 9:13 pm
Please understand me correctly: I'm in no way shitting on glTF* and I have nothing but respect for the people who have developed it (and the tools around it).
Neither have I no doubt about it's usefulness (or "ease-of-use"). It seems like a great (and generally capable) inter-application format!

I even offered my free time to help bring an importer/export that supports Octane materials for glTF (as well as Cycles <-> Octane).
(That still stands, unless someone else, or even OTOY [which I doubt], have plans for it)

(NB: I'm in no way saying that this format shouldn't be used)
But I do question the limitations of the materials supported by the format, especially for a format that aims to be an efficient "bridge" between different applications and "that streamlines authoring workflows and enables interoperable use of content across the industry".
Sure, it's no big deal to do some extra work for the properties that's missing, but it does take away from the efficiency as well as the streamlining of workflows (don't you think? ;D ).

glTF (version 2.0..) currently doesn't support Subsurface scattering, Coating, Anisotropy or even Refractive materials (glass), among other things, and it only supports sRGB (which I also find a bit strange..)
All of those have been suggested for upcoming version(s) (for 2 years), and I have seen some of it in dealt with in the commit logs, but I can't seem to find a (pre) specification for 3.0 (and 2.0 is 2 years old..).

(*Criticism and questioning can be done without ill-intent!)

(Last notes:
No ill-intent [in any way] is meant (it's just a discussion about formats and shaders)!
I'm not trying to convince anyone about one thing or another (see previous parenthesis)
glTF was just a side note to another point about different render engines, different materials/shaders and support by tools/softwares
We are very close to "Off-topic" here ;D )
Windows 10 Pro - AMD Ryzen 7 2100X 8 core 3.70GHz - 32GB RAM - GeForce GTX 1080 8GB
Stand Alone + Blender Plugin user
User avatar
ChrisH
Licensed Customer
Licensed Customer
 
Posts: 87
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 12:13 am
Location: Lidköping, Sweden

Re: Fork Blender

Postby pegot » Sat Jul 06, 2019 1:17 am

pegot Sat Jul 06, 2019 1:17 am
ChrisH wrote:Criticism and questioning can be done without ill-intent!

I’m not taking your comments as criticism at all. Nor am I completely disagreeing with you. But for Octane Blender to remain competitive I think a big effort should be made (or continue to be made) ensuring as many features as possible work with major Blender Addons. As for gLTF 2.0 support, that has been promised (in Standalone at least) for some time now. For my particular workflow and use case, I do not need gLTF support for advanced rendering features such as SSS, Coating, and Anisotropy (though better transparency & refraction for things like glass would be highly desirable).

ChrisH wrote:Sure, it's no big deal to do some extra work for the properties that's missing, but it does take away from the efficiency as well as the streamlining of workflows (don't you think? ;D ).

No, not for my use case. I am always going to need high quality renders with the more specialized material features that Cycles or Octane supports. But I also need to bring these models into PowerPoint as live 3d objects in a more economical and flexible way than a rendered animation provides. This is where the problem occurs. The conversion back and forth between Octane and Cycles PBR Principled shaders is a real drag. The ability to use the same node setups in Cycles and then instantly output that to my gLTF file destined for PowerPoint is priceless. And this is not just a conversion done once. The gLTF file for PowerPoint often has to be manipulated and tested numerous times back and forth to get it looking good with PowerPoint’s many 3d limitations (particularly lighting). So by the time I finish with whatever changes I made to the file for gLTF export, I now have to revert back to Octane nodes if I want to do another high quality rendering or animation. Additionally, since a rendered still or animation may appear in the same presentation as the actual 3d object, the two need to look as similar as possible.

Of course it is possible to maintain different sets of materials (one for Cycles and gLTF export) and one for Octane. But it is a hassle and quickly leads to the two sets growing further and further out of sync when changes are continually made to one or the other. So for my particular workflow, Octane having the ability to export to gLTF 2.0 would go a long way in solving this.
Windows 10
4.2Ghz i7 7700k / 64 GB
AsRock SuperCarrier
GTX 1080 ti SC Black (wc)
GTX 1080 ti SC2 Hybrid
GTX 780 6 GB
------
Hackintosh OS X 10.14.3 - NOT able to use with Octane :(
3.5 Ghz Intel i7-3770K / 32 GB
Gigabyte GA-Z77X-UP5
GTX 770 4 GB
pegot
Licensed Customer
Licensed Customer
 
Posts: 606
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 3:44 am

Re: Fork Blender

Postby ChrisH » Sat Jul 06, 2019 9:16 pm

ChrisH Sat Jul 06, 2019 9:16 pm
pegot wrote:I’m not taking your comments as criticism at all.

Those parts were not directed at you. :)

pegot wrote:As for gLTF 2.0 support, that has been promised (in Standalone at least) for some time now.

That sounds great. But it's probable that even if it is added to SA it wont be included in OctBlend (at least not immediately), since they're (slightly) different implementations.

pegot wrote:But for Octane Blender to remain competitive I think a big effort should be made (or continue to be made) ensuring as many features as possible work with major Blender Addons.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I don't think it's easy:
Until (I doubt it will ever happen) there's a unifying standard on how material setups should work and that's adopted by all (major) software's/rendering engines, I don't see many ("good") options to accomplish this (as a programmer):
  • Each rendering engine supports the default material/node system of the host application (in this case Cycles): This would be pain in many ways. Firstly it would be confusing for the user (Well, if you stick to one host app it's fine). If you use Octane in Blender it works in one way, you go to C4D and it works in another way, and in the Stand alone it's different again. The manuals and tutorials would be specific to each host application. It would also greatly limit the ability to have unique features in each render engine
  • Each (major) add-on supports several render engines. This is an impossible task for the add-on developers (I don't even think there's add-ons that support other "heavily Blender connected" render engines [like Lux]). Now, one could argue that the render engine firms could add those features to the add-ons, or maybe sponsor the devs to do it. But that's hard (and maybe expensive [Octane works in 16 host apps, each with unique add-ons]), and which add-ons "deserves" that treatment!?
  • The host apps gets an "intermediate API" which both Add-ons and render engines hook into. Add-ons could then be "render engine agnostic", almost like glTF, but on another "level". This is perhaps the best option, but would require some reworkings of the host apps.
  • An add-on that converts one setup to another. This might happen (half-)automatic (like triggered by certain actions) or run by a user (menu/button). This is the "easiest" option, it could be written by the render engine devs, or user contributed, without redefining other, pre-existing, systems. But it does add some steps to the workflow, but hopefully it could be done so it's as smooth as possible.

pegot wrote:No, not for my use case. I am always going to need high quality renders with the more specialized material features that Cycles or Octane supports. But I also need to bring these models into PowerPoint as live 3d objects in a more economical and flexible way than a rendered animation provides.

Your use case is absolutely valid, but it's also one of many. My point about commonly used properties etc was that it's described as an format that supposed to reduce (or even remove [almost "Plug-n-play"]) any extra work to bring material from one software package to another. But (IMHO) it doesn't really live up to that.

pegot wrote:The conversion back and forth between Octane and Cycles PBR Principled shaders is a real drag. The ability to use the same node setups in Cycles and then instantly output that to my gLTF file destined for PowerPoint is priceless. And this is not just a conversion done once. [...] But it is a hassle and quickly leads to the two sets growing further and further out of sync when changes are continually made to one or the other. So for my particular workflow, Octane having the ability to export to gLTF 2.0 would go a long way in solving this.

I completely understand your pain, and I think an exporter Octane -> glTF exporter (in Blender) would be great! As for the ability to use the same node setups, see my previous point.
Windows 10 Pro - AMD Ryzen 7 2100X 8 core 3.70GHz - 32GB RAM - GeForce GTX 1080 8GB
Stand Alone + Blender Plugin user
User avatar
ChrisH
Licensed Customer
Licensed Customer
 
Posts: 87
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 12:13 am
Location: Lidköping, Sweden
PreviousNext

Return to Blender


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests

Fri Nov 15, 2019 1:21 pm [ UTC ]