Version 3.07-R2 (previous stable) update on 01.11.2017

Forums: Version 3.07-R2 (previous stable) update on 01.11.2017
Sub forum for plugin releases

Moderator: aoktar

Re: Version 3.07-R2 (Stable) update on 01.11.2017

Postby aoktar » Fri Nov 10, 2017 10:16 am

aoktar Fri Nov 10, 2017 10:16 am
slepy8 wrote:Honestly?
It's some sort of a joke?

Here you have a comparison of 3.06 and 3.07.
Same scene, same settings.

So whenever we achieve some sort of results in our renders, do we have to learn how to achieve them with every update of a plugin again?

Sorry what's reason of being so harsh to dev efforts? I don't remember so much compatibility issues between updates and i'm trying to keep these at minimum when a change happened on core. Even we have a converter in plugin to do job for you. I'll take a look if you share a sample scene.
Attachments
a1.jpg
Octane For Cinema 4D developer / 3d generalist

3930k / 16gb / 780ti + 1070/1080 / psu 1600w / numerous hw
User avatar
aoktar
Octane Plugin Developer
Octane Plugin Developer
 
Posts: 12614
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 8:28 pm
Location: Türkiye

Re: Version 3.07-R2 (Stable) update on 01.11.2017

Postby slepy8 » Fri Nov 10, 2017 10:20 am

slepy8 Fri Nov 10, 2017 10:20 am
Hi Aoktar.
Sorry for being rude, it wasn't my intension.

Fact is: it happened before and I thought It wan't happen again.

I reverted to 3.06 and rendering it now.
I'll prepare this scene for you to investigate.
But I'll do it on sunday.
GIGABYTE Z97X-SOC motherboard / Intel i7 - 4770K / 32GB RAM
Windows 10 / Octane SA and C4D plugin - freshest available
2X GTX-980Ti 6GB (hybrid cooler) / GTX-780 6GB
Samsung EVO840 SSD / Kingston 400mb SSD, various SSDs
User avatar
slepy8
Licensed Customer
Licensed Customer
 
Posts: 368
Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2013 10:53 am

Re: Version 3.07-R2 (Stable) update on 01.11.2017

Postby mesut » Fri Nov 10, 2017 11:53 am

mesut Fri Nov 10, 2017 11:53 am
aoktar wrote:
slepy8 wrote:Honestly?
It's some sort of a joke?

Here you have a comparison of 3.06 and 3.07.
Same scene, same settings.

So whenever we achieve some sort of results in our renders, do we have to learn how to achieve them with every update of a plugin again?

Sorry what's reason of being so harsh to dev efforts? I don't remember so much compatibility issues between updates and i'm trying to keep these at minimum when a change happened on core. Even we have a converter in plugin to do job for you. I'll take a look if you share a sample scene.


hi aoktar,

i don't think it's meant as critisicm regarding your efforts as a developer - please try not to interprete panic on customer's side as some kind of judgement upon your skills/person/efforts... you name it.
i seriously think, that this is really more an expression of some kind of panic.
at least, this comes to mind, when i look at my own situation as a customer, reagarding this topic.

since i am doing this 3d-thing not (only) for fun but for a living, i also do have clients.
paying ones, that need to have their updated products to look the same as they looked a while ago. seeing that using the same project file from a few months ago renders - not just a little bit - differently without having an idea why, besides the fact, that the one version had been rendered with 3.0.6.2 and the other one with the most recent 3.0.7.r2 - well... let me tell you... i hope, i will find the reason why and most importantly: find the cure for it, so the product looks the same as it looked in spring 2017... and this before that same client comes knocking on my door with updated versions of his product, that he wants to have rendered, not much of a surprise, looking the same as the former version of his product did.

here's a simpled-down version of a scene, rendering in two different looks depending on the versions being used:
(created and saved in r18 with 3.0.6.2 and re-opened in r19 with 3.0.7.r2 for comparison)

http://www.mesutcapkin.com/temp/diff_3_0_6_2_v_3_0_7_r2.zip


i suppose it has to do with the light-settings, since the options that i can see with the 6-version are different ones than we have in the 7-version.
or maybe it's differences in sss, or maybe both?

i can't tell really... maybe i should have followed every change and their consequences since spring 2017, but i do confess: i have not.
i am sure, that you can understand that seeing such a difference can render ground for slightly panic reactions - at least on my side - and i sure do hope, that you posses the ability to differentiate expressions of said panic from affronts against you.

please help.
thx, mesut.
win7prof. | i7 4930, 32gb | 2*980ti 6g for renderings | 1*660 for displays
mesut
Licensed Customer
Licensed Customer
 
Posts: 137
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 8:00 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Version 3.07-R2 (Stable) update on 01.11.2017

Postby aoktar » Fri Nov 10, 2017 12:27 pm

aoktar Fri Nov 10, 2017 12:27 pm
mesut wrote:hi aoktar,

i don't think it's meant as critisicm regarding your efforts as a developer - please try not to interprete panic on customer's side as some kind of judgement upon your skills/person/efforts... you name it.
i seriously think, that this is really more an expression of some kind of panic.
at least, this comes to mind, when i look at my own situation as a customer, reagarding this topic.


I'm not sure but it may be about changes on renderer core not plugin. Same orbx file on 3.06 and 3.07.
Attachments
a1.jpg
Octane For Cinema 4D developer / 3d generalist

3930k / 16gb / 780ti + 1070/1080 / psu 1600w / numerous hw
User avatar
aoktar
Octane Plugin Developer
Octane Plugin Developer
 
Posts: 12614
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 8:28 pm
Location: Türkiye

Re: Version 3.07-R2 (Stable) update on 01.11.2017

Postby mesut » Fri Nov 10, 2017 1:14 pm

mesut Fri Nov 10, 2017 1:14 pm
aoktar wrote:
mesut wrote:hi aoktar,

i don't think it's meant as critisicm regarding your efforts as a developer - please try not to interprete panic on customer's side as some kind of judgement upon your skills/person/efforts... you name it.
i seriously think, that this is really more an expression of some kind of panic.
at least, this comes to mind, when i look at my own situation as a customer, reagarding this topic.


I'm not sure but it may be about changes on renderer core not plugin. Same orbx file on 3.06 and 3.07.


even though this is a stripped-down scene, there are still way too many parameters that may or may not have changed in both the plug-in and core.
so, i too am not really able to guess-work.

i am not sure:
what would now be proper way foward, keeping in mind that my goal has to be: achive the same result with the most recent version as i did with the prior one?

is your association with the company that way that you're a part of it and therefore it is in your own interest that things keep some kind of continuaty regarding looks or are you "just" an external developer that "only" translates core to 3d-apps while - by the way - adding awesome additional features that other plug-ins obviously don't provide?
what i aim at: is it on me to inform core-people about this issue so this can be straightened out (if that's possible), or is there now some kind of procedure initialised, now that you know about differences in rendering-results, that makes people responsible for octane incl. all it's parts try and find a solution for this - for my personal situation - great problem?

i mean: is it a bug or is it just the "natural evolution" that happens, when rendering-software keeps moving on, who knows?
i have not that much of an idea how a software--developing corp. is organized, so yeah... don't know, how to move on.

if it's on me to find out: gotta admit, that's - as said - way too many parameters, that i would have to investigate to narrow it down to any reasons, taking too much of my time and therefore rendering this too expansive for my client, regarding that he already had sufficient results.
i believe it would take less time for me, if i decided to try and mimic the old result by playing around with the new version for long enough until the rendering-result looks similar enough for the differences not to be recognized.

the cheapest way would be to just keep rendering with the old version, when it comes to keeping up with the results that had been achieved with those.
thinking economically i tend to choose the last option.
this, of course, does not help others, possibly having the same situation. and: it would make me stuck with this version, including all benefits and "non-benefits" that this old version provides while keeping me out of the evolution of the software (at least with this client).

well, could be this... could be that... who knows.

thx for the help.
win7prof. | i7 4930, 32gb | 2*980ti 6g for renderings | 1*660 for displays
mesut
Licensed Customer
Licensed Customer
 
Posts: 137
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 8:00 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Version 3.07-R2 (Stable) update on 01.11.2017

Postby frankmci » Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:46 pm

frankmci Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:46 pm
the cheapest way would be to just keep rendering with the old version, when it comes to keeping up with the results that had been achieved with those.
thinking economically i tend to choose the last option.


mesut,

I've been working in the CG world since the early 90s, and that's the way we've always done it; get a system polished to the point where you know its strong points and weak points, then stick with it until you actually need newer bells and whistles to do your work. Reliability is usually worth far more than a new feature or two. It's not been unusual to stick with one setup for three or four years for the bulk of the work. Our main Maya pipeline, for instance, uses Maya 2016, and probably will for at least another year or two, but it does everything we need it to do with no surprises. Sure, we might need a new geegaw for a particular shot or effect, but we do that in isolation from the rest of the workflow. We just recently jumped to C4D R-18 and will probably stay with it for the next few years.

It's great to keep up with the bleeding edge of development, knowing what's going on and what's available, but I don't think it's wise to depend on it.
Technical Director - C4D, Maya, AE, - Washington DC
frankmci
Licensed Customer
Licensed Customer
 
Posts: 338
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 2:00 pm

Re: Version 3.07-R2 (Stable) update on 01.11.2017

Postby mesut » Fri Nov 10, 2017 7:00 pm

mesut Fri Nov 10, 2017 7:00 pm
frankmci wrote:
the cheapest way would be to just keep rendering with the old version, when it comes to keeping up with the results that had been achieved with those.
thinking economically i tend to choose the last option.


mesut,

I've been working in the CG world since the early 90s, and that's the way we've always done it; get a system polished to the point where you know its strong points and weak points, then stick with it until you actually need newer bells and whistles to do your work. Reliability is usually worth far more than a new feature or two. It's not been unusual to stick with one setup for three or four years for the bulk of the work. Our main Maya pipeline, for instance, uses Maya 2016, and probably will for at least another year or two, but it does everything we need it to do with no surprises. Sure, we might need a new geegaw for a particular shot or effect, but we do that in isolation from the rest of the workflow. We just recently jumped to C4D R-18 and will probably stay with it for the next few years.

It's great to keep up with the bleeding edge of development, knowing what's going on and what's available, but I don't think it's wise to depend on it.


thx for your comment frankmci.
i have been experiencing the same effects for over a decade now and made the same decisions as you did. the most immediate impacted seemed to be made by renderengines, at least in my experience.
be it with the evolution of maxwell, or vray, or - as in this case - octane.

i'm on cinema, so in retrospect i must admit that it's very own "standard" renderer has been rendering in the most consistant manner, but... well it's the standard renderer ;)

that's the way to go: keep the winning team and use it again, when neseccary... while parallely enjoying the new bling-bling stuff that comes around the corner... as i wrote: i am also (still) doing this for fun, so i love playing around.
in this octane-case it's not really a biggy, just keep using old version when that specific client comes around the corner... just as i am used to do it with the other renderers.

in case of octane: it's just a bit... well... early. in the other cases - renderers - there was quite some time until a point had been reached, where some kind of break had been introduced, rendering the need to keep the old version for continous results.
but that is probably a quite individual sensation i am experiencing, since i dived into octane only summer 2016 - trying out that cold water by moving the former pipeline that i established for said client to octane; for a few projects, that is. main goal of course, as always, to deliver better results in shorter amount of time for that said client. after some nice projects, leaving behind a very satisfied client, the beginning of 2017 marked a point, where it completely shifted to octane, so quite a lot of few-minutes-animations were produced using octane. was great.
and now this situation. well.. as i said, not a biggy... just use the old version - but this break came quickly - for me -, with other renderes i usually could go for a few years until at some point in time, the ways had to be splitted.
on the other hand... i am relativly new to regularly using octane.
so maybe it is not early in a more objective way... others may have been using octane since years without a break in looks...

additionally: maybe it is a bug. from aoktar's reaction obviously not on the plug-in side, but more on the core side. maybe it's not and it's just a natural consequence of design-decisions that had to be made to lay ground for coming developmnet-steps of the renderer.
well.. .i don't know. i thought it would at least make sense to confirm zoppo's observation in case that this could have been some buggy beahviour.

again: thx for sharing your experiences, much appreciated.
as much as aoktar's efforts and performances regarding the development of the plug-in for my fav. 3d-host. :)

cheers,
mesut.
win7prof. | i7 4930, 32gb | 2*980ti 6g for renderings | 1*660 for displays
mesut
Licensed Customer
Licensed Customer
 
Posts: 137
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 8:00 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Version 3.07-R2 (Stable) update on 01.11.2017

Postby thanulee » Sat Nov 11, 2017 10:39 am

thanulee Sat Nov 11, 2017 10:39 am
I remember at some point as i was following updates that i read something about a color change (in the lights maybe or albedo internal or idk?)
Eg. Something instead of 255 pure white if it goes to 200 as default it can have drastically impact on the look of the scene. Maybe thats the reason here if aoktar remembers this change, if its relevant.

In any case mesut i feel u and thats why im using octane only for personal projects so far and not commercial unless very simple.
2 years im using octane and i take this as a fact: in different versions i get broken functions or different results.

Octane to me has never reached the steady product phase and go on from there. Thats why u dont see any commercial jobs in general rather than small scale stuff or few titles here and there from very experienced guys like R Marks which knows how to cover anything weird in compositing.

Strongly advising u to stay in 1 version which u found it can work for ur needs or use different engine for production.

cheers
i7 3930K | 2 x GTX 980 ti 6gb | 32GB RAM | Corsair Carbide 540
R18 | win 10 home
thanulee
Licensed Customer
Licensed Customer
 
Posts: 461
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2015 11:00 pm

Re: Version 3.07-R2 (Stable) update on 01.11.2017

Postby mesut » Sat Nov 11, 2017 12:11 pm

mesut Sat Nov 11, 2017 12:11 pm
thanulee wrote:I remember at some point as i was following updates that i read something about a color change (in the lights maybe or albedo internal or idk?)
Eg. Something instead of 255 pure white if it goes to 200 as default it can have drastically impact on the look of the scene. Maybe thats the reason here if aoktar remembers this change, if its relevant.

In any case mesut i feel u and thats why im using octane only for personal projects so far and not commercial unless very simple.
2 years im using octane and i take this as a fact: in different versions i get broken functions or different results.

Octane to me has never reached the steady product phase and go on from there. Thats why u dont see any commercial jobs in general rather than small scale stuff or few titles here and there from very experienced guys like R Marks which knows how to cover anything weird in compositing.

Strongly advising u to stay in 1 version which u found it can work for ur needs or use different engine for production.

cheers


thx for your input, thanulee.

well, if that's the case, that would definitely explain differences.
and if that would be the only thing that changed, it would also render quite easy to translate. say, before it was 200, now it's 100, so all needed to be done to adapt settings in new version would be based on a factor of 2.
that'd be done quickly. as said: if that's the only thing that changed. but... idk. and i'm not that sure, i want to invest time to investigate, at least at this point in time.

in this short period of time i have been using octane in, i can't say that i experienced a situation in which octane rendered useless for my production needs. in contrary. i have made excellent experiences, both in development stages as well as in results.

the phenomenon of breaking continuity in looks though, is not a parameter, that would qualify a renderer as production-unworthy per se, imo.
with all of the renderengines i have been using so far - except for the c4d- standard renderer ;) - i. at some point, found myself in that situation. with both of the most crucial aspects in terms of looks, lighting and materials.
thus, adapting to those situations along the lines of frankmci's - and your's as i understand it - advice: keep the version, that had been used in the development stage, if continuity is needed without having to newly develop or change things, that already had been established in some kind of pipeline.

so, i guess, that's the way to go for me also in this case. if client comes knocking, i'll just grab the old octane-version and render his stuff with that one.

i mean: if i were in a situation where this client would be new right now... i would go ahead and establish a pipeline to achieve the repeatable looks based on the most recent release, wouldn't i?
and i guess, the client and i would be very happy with the results. again, that is. the upside of repeatable results on the basis of an established pipeline is, imo, the cost/benefit-ratio per product (or how one calls it in english), once the pipeline is established.
for me, as the 3d-guy, and therefore for the client as the one, that needs to pay at the end of the day.

again, as frankmci stated: once the situation arrives, where all the new fancy features of a new version scream right at me: "invest some time to adapt, and you'll get even more awesome results", i'd be the last one to stand in the way of evolution.
until that day comes, i'll stick with what results in the best cost/benefit-ratio. commercially speaking, of course.

the child in me still loves to play around with all the great stuff that is being provided to us :)

and furthermore: it's not just established pipelines and repeatable product-looks that come my way. so i'm in no way disappointed that things do change, on the contrary.
if that's the case that, as you suggested, some basis in the light standards may have been changed in the past updates, i trust, that something like this does not happen arbitrarily, but much more would be a design decision, that lays ground for improving the engine even more.
so, i do keep looking forward to enjoying the things to come.

cheers,
mesut.
win7prof. | i7 4930, 32gb | 2*980ti 6g for renderings | 1*660 for displays
mesut
Licensed Customer
Licensed Customer
 
Posts: 137
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 8:00 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Version 3.07-R2 (Stable) update on 01.11.2017

Postby aoktar » Sat Nov 11, 2017 6:46 pm

aoktar Sat Nov 11, 2017 6:46 pm
If there's some changes on rendering calculations these are not up to plugin devs. We're trying to convert some parameters to keep backward compatibility for possible cases. But we can do nothing for some cases like changes on renderer calculations. So asking or judging a plugin dev is not meanful. I'm looking example scene and it's behaving same between 3.06 and 3.07 standalone too. I'll investigate more to be sure about that. Please use older versions of plugin for older scenes for now.

Here's some notes about changes of 3.07 and emission has some differences on lighting effect.
viewtopic.php?f=24&t=62395
Octane For Cinema 4D developer / 3d generalist

3930k / 16gb / 780ti + 1070/1080 / psu 1600w / numerous hw
User avatar
aoktar
Octane Plugin Developer
Octane Plugin Developer
 
Posts: 12614
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 8:28 pm
Location: Türkiye
PreviousNext

Return to Releases


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: gowcoizer and 5 guests

Fri Nov 22, 2019 10:30 am [ UTC ]