Great tests!
For some reason the e-cycles renders looked less detailed and more washed out, can you try achieving the same look as the octane renders?
Simplifying the end result can give a boost in speed but at the cost of the quality of the lighting..
Makes sense to switch back to Octane Blender
The scene is available on gumroad and blender cloud so you can play and test it too. I only wanted to compare render speed not the look.acoval wrote:Great tests!
For some reason the e-cycles renders looked less detailed and more washed out, can you try achieving the same look as the octane renders?
Simplifying the end result can give a boost in speed but at the cost of the quality of the lighting..
CPU – i9 13900KF, 128GB RAM, GPU – RTX 4090
System – Windows 11
My Behance portfolio, Blender plugin FB support group
System – Windows 11
My Behance portfolio, Blender plugin FB support group
i am in a similar boat as the OP, coming from the opposite direction though.
i had troubles with flaky octane license and reverted to e-cycles to get work done. still have the subscription going - bought 2 years.
i am trying to see actually how far i can get with eevee and the results are not half bad.
now one of the problems with rental licensing is the inherent feeling i am wasting money by not using octane.
with one time purchase its not an issue ofcourse but this way i doubt i will keep on renting.
barring the minutia regarding the speed, there are many other aspect to consider.
switching between eevee and cycles while doing look development is a breeze. most times they identical, in terms of shading.
so working on materials and textures is far, far more convenient.
lighting is easier to setup and control aswell. the shaders are far more flexible too.
obviously the version system with octane is honestly a nightmare to keep track of, yet with e-cycles i just download to whatever pc i want and get to work. 0 hassle.
octane still produces the most beautiful and stunning results. especially when deaing with volumetrics- i cant get the same look in cycles, but honestly this whole rental thing, the insanely cryptic rollout, waiting on promised versions and features, bugs, lack of documentation, its just been a massive pain and quite a disappointment.
i used to get pissed off regularly and come here to vent. its unhealthy and petty and a waste of time.
now, i can just go on with my work. bottom line - i am much happier.
i logged in again just to see if there is any chance compatibility in the material area improved but doesnt seem to be the case.
i had troubles with flaky octane license and reverted to e-cycles to get work done. still have the subscription going - bought 2 years.
i am trying to see actually how far i can get with eevee and the results are not half bad.
now one of the problems with rental licensing is the inherent feeling i am wasting money by not using octane.
with one time purchase its not an issue ofcourse but this way i doubt i will keep on renting.
barring the minutia regarding the speed, there are many other aspect to consider.
switching between eevee and cycles while doing look development is a breeze. most times they identical, in terms of shading.
so working on materials and textures is far, far more convenient.
lighting is easier to setup and control aswell. the shaders are far more flexible too.
obviously the version system with octane is honestly a nightmare to keep track of, yet with e-cycles i just download to whatever pc i want and get to work. 0 hassle.
octane still produces the most beautiful and stunning results. especially when deaing with volumetrics- i cant get the same look in cycles, but honestly this whole rental thing, the insanely cryptic rollout, waiting on promised versions and features, bugs, lack of documentation, its just been a massive pain and quite a disappointment.
i used to get pissed off regularly and come here to vent. its unhealthy and petty and a waste of time.
now, i can just go on with my work. bottom line - i am much happier.
i logged in again just to see if there is any chance compatibility in the material area improved but doesnt seem to be the case.
-
Synthercat
- Posts: 284
- Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 11:12 am
- Location: Thessaloniki Greece
You want realism? I think Luxrender or Indigo look a bit more real that Octane.Obizzz wrote:Not everything is about render speed.
I've yet to see a Cycles render match the quality of what Octane can do. Especially when you do in render DoF.
It might not be by much but Octane still beats Cycles when it comes to realism.
Linux Mint 19.3 | GTX-1080Ti | AMD FX-8320 (OCed 4.4GHz) | 16GB RAM
instead of saying this is complete nonsense i will try to be polite and ask you for some comparisons.
from what i have seen they dont even come close - quality or feature wise.
the thread is about the issue with octane and e-cycles specifically and the fact that e-cycles workflow and cost benefits make octane a bad proposition.
that said ,nothing beats the way octane handles displacements and also very few rendering engines have atmospheric scatter and volumetric gi. all engines have pros and cons but honestly octane produces superb results. i doubt very much that other engines can provide "more realism".
atmospheric volumetric scattering and some other fancy stuff is far away in cycles, but for 90% of use cases e-cycles will be more than enough.
autodesk now has arnold across sthe board, maxon is redshift.
have to wonder how otoy plans on moving forward. i would actually consider keeping it in my tool set but not sure it makes sense to just throw money out the window and probably other will feel the same.
again, permanent licensing would not have produced this dilemma...
from what i have seen they dont even come close - quality or feature wise.
the thread is about the issue with octane and e-cycles specifically and the fact that e-cycles workflow and cost benefits make octane a bad proposition.
that said ,nothing beats the way octane handles displacements and also very few rendering engines have atmospheric scatter and volumetric gi. all engines have pros and cons but honestly octane produces superb results. i doubt very much that other engines can provide "more realism".
atmospheric volumetric scattering and some other fancy stuff is far away in cycles, but for 90% of use cases e-cycles will be more than enough.
autodesk now has arnold across sthe board, maxon is redshift.
have to wonder how otoy plans on moving forward. i would actually consider keeping it in my tool set but not sure it makes sense to just throw money out the window and probably other will feel the same.
again, permanent licensing would not have produced this dilemma...
I agree with many of the points and it's a pity Octane does not fully support all the features in Blender and is not as easy to use.
One of the big advantages of using Octane over Cycles it it's in Viewport post processing tools.
Plus Octane makes use of all the video cards you have while Cycles doesn't do a very good job with that.
I am coming from Fstorm and 3ds Max , and Octane reminds me of Fstorm in many ways.
Hopefully cycles gets the same features .
One of the big advantages of using Octane over Cycles it it's in Viewport post processing tools.
Plus Octane makes use of all the video cards you have while Cycles doesn't do a very good job with that.
I am coming from Fstorm and 3ds Max , and Octane reminds me of Fstorm in many ways.
Hopefully cycles gets the same features .
-
linograndiotoy
- Posts: 1354
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 7:10 pm
To which features are you referring to?acoval wrote:I agree with many of the points and it's a pity Octane does not fully support all the features in Blender and is not as easy to use.
About ease of use, I find Octane to be way simpler than Cycles.
The next Octane for Blender build will offer GPU ram caching for both textures and geomentry. We're currently testing this feature internally and I must say it works really well.
It will be available very soon.
-
linograndiotoy
- Posts: 1354
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 7:10 pm
I spent some time experimenting with the latest version of Luxrender. It's so slow you can't even compare it to Octane. About "realism", well, Octane simply shines bright in that aspect.Synthercat wrote:You want realism? I think Luxrender or Indigo look a bit more real that Octane.Obizzz wrote:Not everything is about render speed.
I've yet to see a Cycles render match the quality of what Octane can do. Especially when you do in render DoF.
It might not be by much but Octane still beats Cycles when it comes to realism.
linograndiotoy
I am new to Octane in Blender , so i might be wrong.
Love the quality and the post processing tools and Lut support, the ability to suppress the highlights burnout, the ability to use both video cards. If i switch of the Denoising there is no comparisons in speed even between the latest E-Cycles and Octane. Octane is much much faster. Plus Often when people compare speeds they compare completely different outputs , that is like comparing Evee with a full path tracer. The quality is important, it is important to be able to post process right in the viewport to get the feel that you are using a film camera not switching back and forth to a compositing software.
The main difference between using cycles and Octane right now is the inability to work with Evee while using Octane shaders, to be able to display the textures from Octane shaders in the viewport.
But that might be because I am having difficulties exploring Octane more because of the issues i am having with the viewport rendering response.
I am new to Octane in Blender , so i might be wrong.
Love the quality and the post processing tools and Lut support, the ability to suppress the highlights burnout, the ability to use both video cards. If i switch of the Denoising there is no comparisons in speed even between the latest E-Cycles and Octane. Octane is much much faster. Plus Often when people compare speeds they compare completely different outputs , that is like comparing Evee with a full path tracer. The quality is important, it is important to be able to post process right in the viewport to get the feel that you are using a film camera not switching back and forth to a compositing software.
The main difference between using cycles and Octane right now is the inability to work with Evee while using Octane shaders, to be able to display the textures from Octane shaders in the viewport.
But that might be because I am having difficulties exploring Octane more because of the issues i am having with the viewport rendering response.
