Slow Performance In Octane?

[TogTobias]

Hi guys.

Let me start by saying I'm sure I must be doing something terribly wrong.

I haven't touched Octane in some time and wanted to give it a go with the latest version 2.23 for a new project. I setup a scene with a simple wooden grail object with octane camera and area light. Duplicated scene to use C4D native cam and light. Applied octane materials in the octane scene and C4D materials in the other. For all intended purposes, these scenes are essentially identical.

Octane render took 1 minute 50 seconds to render. Direct lighting.

C4D Physical render took 14 seconds.

Images are very similar. C4D physical render is just a little darker.

My gear is listed in my signature. What am I doing wrong?

Thanks for your feedback!

[aoktar]

Strange! Propably you leave the maxsamples=16000 by default, isn't? Could you say that why don't use it so much? It's for my curiosity...

[TogTobias]

Strange! Propably you leave the maxsamples=16000 by default, isn't? Could you say that why don't use it so much? It's for my curiosity...

Excellent point and my apologies for not providing that information in my original post.

My samples were default to 128 then I up'd them to 500 max. the 1 minute 50 second render was at 500 samples.

[aoktar]

Why don't you post any image to show what are you comparing? That's very strange because it's very depends to what are you doing... DL is very fast against to Pyhsical rendering, maybe 10,20,30x... But if you set similar effects on renderer and materials, etc.. That's the why we use Octane. But if you don't use any reflections, refractions, dof, moblur, etc.. can be faster.

[TogTobias]

Why don't you post any image to show what are you comparing? That's very strange because it's very depends to what are you doing... DL is very fast against to Pyhsical rendering, maybe 10,20,30x... But if you set similar effects on renderer and materials, etc.. That's the why we use Octane. But if you don't use any reflections, refractions, dof, moblur, etc.. can be faster.

I'll rerun the test and upload.

[TogTobias]

Ok, here's the test run again.

This image is rendered with Octane in the picture viewer with C4D materials. 500 samples. 43 seconds.

This image is rendered with Physical render in the picture viewer with C4D materials. 8 seconds.

This image is rendered with Octane in the picture viewer with Octane materials. 500 samples. 45 seconds.

Finally, this image is the Octane Live Viewer image with Octane materials. 500 samples. 1 minute and 25 seconds.

[aoktar]

I'm away from pc but your test is not a good comparision. I'll post some scenes when come back. try to find somethings to compare better.

[TogTobias]

I'm away from pc but your test is not a good comparision. I'll post some scenes when come back. try to find somethings to compare better.

Not a good comparison?

Same exact model in both cases. Same lighting. Same camera. Very similar materials including the displacement of the rim in each case. Same methods applied in both cases.

Could you please elaborate on why this is not a good comparison AND what I should do to perform a better comparison?

Please very specific as I have afforded you the same.

Thank you.

[aoktar]

Yes very bad comparison. It's far from real-world rendering or production rendering. There is not any reflective materials, also pyhsical rendering is propably setted to low quality.
You might try to put at least some images as i posted. Also i don't have to prove the power of Octane. You may take a look people what/how does the awesome renderings.

physical 1:50 min

Octane 8 sec.