OTOY Forums

@aoktar: Is this a definite no to Proxys in C4D Octane? Need to know this for choosing my future renderer.

fLuppster wrote:@aoktar: Is this a definite no to Proxys in C4D Octane? Need to know this for choosing my future renderer.

As try to describe;
Orbx loader is a kind of proxy or loader for exported meshes. It will eliminate to re-export geometry to engine. But still needs to be loaded from octane scene. But It will not eliminate the processing the data for rendering. I cannot know a proxy type will be added in future in manner of you wish. Orbx loader still has some potential of optimisation to boost the viewport performance.

Can we have Orbx fully compatible with multi-instances in cloner ? It can boost viewport with huge amount of Orbx clones.

aoktar wrote:

fLuppster wrote:@aoktar: Is this a definite no to Proxys in C4D Octane? Need to know this for choosing my future renderer.

As try to describe;
Orbx loader is a kind of proxy or loader for exported meshes. It will eliminate to re-export geometry to engine. But still needs to be loaded from octane scene. But It will not eliminate the processing the data for rendering. I cannot know a proxy type will be added in future in manner of you wish. Orbx loader still has some potential of optimisation to boost the viewport performance.

Kind of proxys but not the advantages of real proxys.

fLuppster wrote:

aoktar wrote:

SSmolak wrote: Octane has not any proxy support, it's probably same as our orbx loader system. Show me if you think that's different.

3ds Max - Octane Proxy = same size as the poly object
3ds Max - Octane Orbx = three times the size of the poly object

https://docs.otoy.com/3DSMaxH/3DSMaxPlu ... eProxy.htm

Hopefully we all agree, that there are proxys in Octane. So that would be such a great feature for the C4D version. Right now it is not possible to create really large scenes with Octane because of that restriction.

Yes, Orbx has "some" potential for viewport optimization. But its still not even close to real proxys. Right now its not doing anything for faster parsing times or VRAM optimization. And it is not possible to tweak the materials of it, which makes it pretty useless. Unfortunately.

Would an implementation be more likely, if there were more people asking for it? Proxys should really not be something to argue about. :/ Its pretty standard in every major render engine. Maybe thats the reason why many people are scared to use Octane for Archviz...

+1 for Octane proxies!!

Absolutely! +1 for real proxies! This would be a gamechanger, a reason to switch back our pipeline to Octane.

real proxies would be great! please!

Redshift proxies are different compared to orbx as the are processed during generation time.

Proxies have almost no time cost during scene translation. Extracting large amounts of geometry from Maya, 3ds Max Softimage can be slow and using proxies means you pay that cost only once when you export the Redshift Proxy File.

Proxies are stored in an optimized format on disk so that the renderer can immediately use the data after loading from disk without additional processing or memory overhead.

This though needs to be implemented in core engine not in plugins.

Okay, i did a bit of comparing. I took 10 tree models (10 mio polys total) and rendered them as RS Proxys and Orbx. Here are the facts:

1) RS Proxys do not save VRAM. That is my fault. They do not put them into out of core, BUT: The vram they need for these 10 trees is 1,32 GB. Octane needs 3,673 GB for the exact same geometry. So its like 2,7 times of RS. So this topic is more about Octanes capability or efficiency of RAM handling in general. The VRAM limit is reached very fast.

2) Next point is the export time and the file size. Exporting a single tree takes 30 - 120 seconds. That is pretty much, but i can live with it. Whats more annoying are the huge file sizes they produce. The 10 Orbx files of the trees are 2,91 GB in total. With Redshift we did every single asset as a Proxy version. So our library consists of proxys. If we would do that with Orbx, our library would suddenly take three times the hard disc space. That is way too much. :/

3) Materials. In C4D it is not possible to change materials of Orbx object. Most of the objects in my scenes have do be modified for each individual project. That is another point why Orbx for me is not production ready. Not at all.


I had these debates so often now, and Octane users always tell me to use Orbx. I am a bit tired of explaining. Why do every Renderer see the importance of real proxys? All but Octane and its users... :/

What is the difference between "proxies " and render instances?