The right tool for an .ORBX export - import workflow?

[linvanchene]

Especially for casual 3D users it can be quite challenging to decide which 3D tool they should add to their portfolio.

When using OctaneRender it would make sense that you can send scenes as .ORBX from one software to the other without loosing information.


Here is my impression of the current situation written from a casual 3D users perspective:


@ blender plugin

- It seems the blender plugin developer is not that active on the forum.
It seems the blender plugin is now in a similar state as the DAZ Studio plugin was before the change of developers.
From February 2014 to November 2015 there was almost no progress with the DAZ Studio plugin until finally a new developer took over.

I am not again investing money into an Otoy plugin that does not have an active developer with up to date releases.

- ORBX scene import is not working in blender:
viewtopic.php?f=32&t=50266&p=251175&hil ... rt#p251175

- - -

@ lightwave:

- This would actually seem like an interesting option at a reasonable price.
- concerns: what is the future of lightwave? does lightwave offer any area in which it excels and is specialised compared to other 3D software?

But unfortunately:

- ORBX scene import is not working in lightwave:
viewtopic.php?f=36&t=50550&p=251280&hil ... rt#p251280

@ Modo:

- ORBX scene import is not working in modo:
viewtopic.php?f=34&t=39119&p=249576&hil ... rt#p249576


- - -

If you want to do some project, always look which tools are available and use those that are appropriate. Don't try to use a screwdriver as a hammer or the other way around

That is actually what I am trying to do. I am using specialised software for specific tasks.

- Zbrush for sculpting
- e-on vue for environment scenes
- DAZ Studio for licensed 3d content
- Element 3D for motion graphics.
- Adobe Creative cloud, Sony Vegas etc. for video and photo production.

From my point of view the issue with most of the so called high end 3d applications is that they do NOT specialise in any area.

Example:
Can anyone tell me in which areas 3DS Max, Maya, Cinema4D, Modo, Lightwave etc specialise?
They are all generalist tools. Jack of all trades but master of none.

@ Houdini

The only exception is Houdini that currently seems a great option for VFX.
But then again Houdini also includes a modeller and the customers have to pay for that to be included in the package as well.

I would like to pay Sidefx for just a tool to create openvdb files.
I am not interested in paying for the modelling parts of the package when I already have Zbrush.

Unfortunately all of those high end 3D software have prices that are in no way comparable to affordable design software like Adobe Creative Cloud.

Some companies claim to have cheap Indie licenses but then they come with restrictions like limited render output resolution or no 3rd party render engine support.
In addition some indie licenses do not allow to use the software for commercial projects with yearly income of you and your partners with more than 100'000$.

In practice this means you must pay sums of 4'000$+ to use those "high end" applications even if you only would need one single feature of the whole application for some projects every few months.


My conclusion:

I may have another look at Lightwave or Modo after .ORBX import is working.

I will consider adding a "high end" software to my portfolio when they have reasonable subscription models like Adobe Creative cloud.

- - -

As some people say:

Don’t use a cannon to shoot a sparrow.

- - -

I am happy to read trough any inputs that can provide some more information which 3D applications seem to be a bit better than others at some specific tasks.

[abstrax]

In short: None of the plugins support an import of arbitrary .ORBX packages into the host application.

The main reason for that is that they would need implement a conversion from Octane land to 3D application land, which is a lot harder than it sounds, mostly because things are done differently in different 3D application, especially the materials. Another issue is that a lot of geometry in 3D applications is generated on-the-fly, i.e. not explicitly stored in their project files. This includes deformers like bones or generators like particles. To make the export to Octane work, the plugins usually bake the geometry frame-by-frame, which creates a lot of data. (This is the reason why those .ORBX are often so big.) This makes the exported geometry quite cumbersome to use.

So in theory you could use Octane projects as a common denominator to exchange project data between different 3D applications, but in practice it's very hard to do and therefor no plugin has even tried it as far as I know.

[linvanchene]

In short: None of the plugins support an import of arbitrary .ORBX packages into the host application.

The main reason for that is that they would need implement a conversion from Octane land to 3D application land, which is a lot harder than it sounds, mostly because things are done differently in different 3D application, especially the materials. Another issue is that a lot of geometry in 3D applications is generated on-the-fly, i.e. not explicitly stored in their project files. This includes deformers like bones or generators like particles. To make the export to Octane work, the plugins usually bake the geometry frame-by-frame, which creates a lot of data. (This is the reason why those .ORBX are often so big.) This makes the exported geometry quite cumbersome to use.

So in theory you could use Octane projects as a common denominator to exchange project data between different 3D applications, but in practice it's very hard to do and therefor no plugin has even tried it as far as I know.

Thank you for clearing that up.

I assumed that it would be incredibly difficult to find a conversion from "Octane land to 3D application land".

Because of that I expected that the development would go in the direction of "all ways lead to OR standalone".

ORBX import export workflow v1001.jpg

The user creates individual parts of the scene in different plugins and then exports to OR standalone where the elements are combined.

I will wait until later this year to see if some plugins will be able to exchange some information like geometry with material information directly.


In any case thank you for all your work with ORBX. It does seem to open up a lot of new creative workflows.
- - -

[face_off]

I didn't read all this thread, but the OctaneRender for Nuke plugin can read and write ORBX files.

Paul

[linvanchene]

I didn't read all this thread, but the OctaneRender for Nuke plugin can read and write ORBX files.

Paul

Thank you for sharing!

I had a look at



It is very impressive to see in action how you can work in the Nuke Node Graph Editor with the same UI options as in OR standalone.

It must indeed also be more convenient to code in such an advanced environment than for other applications with limited options.

[prehabitat]

It is very impressive to see in action how you can work in the Nuke Node Graph Editor with the same UI options as in OR standalone.

It must indeed also be more convenient to code in such an advanced environment than for other applications with limited options.

I've always been fascinated by Nuke (and the rest of the suite/collective). Non-destructive; node based workflows make so much sense.

I think last time I stopped looking into it because the workflow took me one way (the wrong way) down a non-CAD dead end street.
ie anything where actual real-world sizes becomes irrelevant/inaccurate moves too far from my world to be useful and although the effort isn't wasted - ie because I get my image/animation - I cant actually use anything that I do after the export-to-mesh BECAUSE it is no longer 'really' accurate.
I might be wrong though!!