Octane Render Power Tools

[Refracty]

Up to now this tool does not work correctly. But I will do some deeper testing the next days before I judge.
Any other people who tested it ?

[Proupin]

omg... really, if you just released an API where developers could do a plugin for the different apps, we wouldn't need the "ultimate solution" of having a timeline, and keyframing? features in the UI... I really doubt RS can pull out decent keyframing inside Octane... I wonder RS if this is in the workings (the api)??

[jamnique]

omg... really, if you just released an API where developers could do a plugin for the different apps, we wouldn't need the "ultimate solution" of having a timeline, and keyframing? features in the UI... I really doubt RS can pull out decent keyframing inside Octane... I wonder RS if this is in the workings (the api)??

Isn't basic keyframing halfway there? Turntable and daylight can render a sequence of frames and change parameters from frame to frame. Wouldn't it be just a matter of implementing a timeline and putting a "save value for this frame" (a keyframe ) button for wanted parameters? Then you just interpolate between the values and (couple versions later) introduce a curve editor. Correct me if i'm wrong ;]

[Refracty]

wouldn't be a big deal to integrate a timeline. Some easy and linear interpolation toggles and a little curve editor later, done.

[Proupin]

Isn't basic keyframing halfway there? Turntable and daylight can render a sequence of frames and change parameters from frame to frame. Wouldn't it be just a matter of implementing a timeline and putting a "save value for this frame" (a keyframe ) button for wanted parameters? Then you just interpolate between the values and (couple versions later) introduce a curve editor. Correct me if i'm wrong ;]

Do you realize that with an API a curve editor wouldn't be needed AT ALL?
Then introduce a curve editor?, ok just open 3ds max or maya and just glance at all the features needed for professional work (channel filtering, tangent types, copying curves, ghosting), and you'll see a curve editor is only truly useful with a LOT of work and finesse put into its design. Besides for efficient animation a lot of intermidiate tools are necessary (hiding objects, stand-ins, preview animation, orthogonal views, GIZMOS, snaps, multiple cameras). I, like many, even prefer maya over max for animation because its curve editor is just so well thought. It can be done of course, but how much time are you willing to wait for this??? again, with an API, problems solved. No redundant features that take a lot of thought and time. I just need a floating window in max, I'll do all my material setup, nodes and animation there thank you.
That's not to say RS has come up with some sort of point cache import or other convenient format, and hopefully solving the obj exporting bottleneck. Oops that prop is flying in the air!, ok re-export everything, wait 5 minutes, reload... smh

[jamnique]

Proupin, in my book animation in Octane is needed only for Octane parameters - materials, tonemapping, lens and camera position, since it's such an awesome thing to be able to choose camera angles seeing the final look of objects. For most of these things you could probably even go with linear interpolation. I don't think a full-blown curve editor would be needed for that. I imagine that with fbx you will import your object/objects already animated, and only want to tweak the camera and look. I wouldn't go as far as Maxwell Studio, one thing that would be great is the ability to change light positions inside Octane.

Of course, I am not saying that you aren't right asking for an API. I am sure you know what you're saying and i do not argue. I simply pointed out that from my limited point of view some kind of basic keyframing doesn't sound that far away from what is happening now with turntables and daylight animation. But then again, i am not a developer and i seem to remember Radiance saying it isn't that easy. Perhaps it's a matter of the level they want to take it to, perhaps something else.

EDIT: I only just realized what you're saying. That with an API app integration could be done by the plugin developers. Can't say no to that ;]

[Proupin]

hmm I guess you're right in a way, if fbx can get rid of the bottleneck of frame exporting, with a scrubbable timeline and basic keyframing for Octane stuff, it would suffice... still, the benefits of api go far beyond animation. It would mean a super-boosted workflow in general (you could move lights around, reposition objects etc). But I know what you mean, that'd be neat as well.

[jamnique]

hmm I guess you're right in a way, if fbx can get rid of the bottleneck of frame exporting, with a scrubbable timeline and basic keyframing for Octane stuff, it would suffice... still, the benefits of api go far beyond animation. It would mean a super-boosted workflow in general (you could move lights around, reposition objects etc). But I know what you mean, that'd be neat as well.

From what I understand (or rather seem to remember reading), repositioning objects will still need voxelizing every time, even if the apps are integrated. That's one of the things that make Octane render so super fast. But of course, integration would be great anyway.

I guess we'll just have to wait. I don't recall Refractive making bad decisions so far, so I am confident they will introduce a plausible solution in time.

[face]

From what I understand (or rather seem to remember reading), repositioning objects will still need voxelizing every time, even if the apps are integrated.

I think it should be possible to voxelize only the object which is moved.
The background is, that Octane uses an obj-file. And an obj-file should be split per object.
Means, first the vertices, normals, uvs and indices from mesh one, then the same for mesh two and so on.
If Octane sends first mesh one, then mesh two and so on to the GPU via voxelize, then Octane knows the position in the GPU-ram and can direct change the right mesh.

Ok, btt

face

[jamnique]

From what I understand (or rather seem to remember reading), repositioning objects will still need voxelizing every time, even if the apps are integrated.

I think it should be possible to voxelize only the object which is moved.
The background is, that Octane uses an obj-file. And an obj-file should be split per object.
Means, first the vertices, normals, uvs and indices from mesh one, then the same for mesh two and so on.
If Octane sends first mesh one, then mesh two and so on to the GPU via voxelize, then Octane knows the position in the GPU-ram and can direct change the right mesh.

Ok, btt

face

This sounds good ;] The future is bright