OTOY Forums

maximum-attack wrote:Thanks for the update yoyoz. Nice to have you back. This animation wouldn't have been possible without your plugin!

WOW.....just WOW

Thanks for the update !

What about instancing ?
As soon as Octane supports Instancing you have do update your Plugin, right ?

Kind regards
Alain

Instancing support might be much more difficult to implement than it sounds, but I can hardly say what it could look like until I get more information about the way it'll be implemented in Octane.

I also have very little time left at the moment for updating the plugin, but I'll do my best if something relevant can be done

Cheers,
Lionel

yoyoz wrote:Instancing support might be much more difficult to implement than it sounds...

That's what I've been afraid of

Anyway, does it make sence to continue working on the script ?
RS is searching for a developer to "integrate" Octane in Blender. See here: http://www.refractivesoftware.com/forum ... =32&t=9474


Kind regards
Alain

Well, it will make sense as long as I've fun doing it and until something else is available

cheers,
Lionel

yoyoz wrote:That's an awesome video! I'm really pleased as I put lots of efforts trying to make my plugin usable for animations... and thanks for the credits

Can you give us some numbers? (DL/PT/PMC, # of samples, time per frame, etc...)

Pathtracing, 1024 samples, about 2.5 FPS with Quadro 5000, 1260 mb used

Thanks again Lionel

Hi Lionel, Thanks for updating the exporter.

I just discover this thread and I have not yet tested this new version, but as you didn't answer to my questions in the previous version topic, I ask it here again : Your exporter (at least the previous version) gives an export time twice longer than the exporter for Blender 2.49.

Is there an explanation for that ?

A possible solution to reduce the export time ?

It is very important because my current big landscape scene (3GB in Octane) requires 41 minutes of export time per frame (and almost the same to load in Octane, which is an other story).

Thanks in advance for any idea.

Philippe.

Hi Philippe,

I've never used the 2.49 plugin and therefore cannot make any comparison nor explain why there's a difference in performance.

Basically, the code that makes the OBJ export in my plugin is almost the same as the builtin one for Wavefront (written and maintained by Campbell), with some tweaks to allow export of extra objects that were not taken in account natively at the time I wrote the plugin. If export time through my plugin is similar to the Wavefront one, I doubt I can make any optimization on the algorythm.

However, I already made some tests with multithreading that demonstrated I could save a lot of time with this method, but the final implementation required extra job because Octane doesn't support relative index for OBJ files. I gave up at this time, awaiting for new import format that was supposed to be available quickly, and I'm still waiting...

Cheers,
Lionel

The Octane exporter takes almost the same time (~5% slower) that the .obj exporter bundled with Blender takes.

As an example, on a scene I was working on some weeks ago,(1247MB in Octane), the export time was 3 min 40s when exporting from blender 2.49b with the old script, and 7 min 52 when exporting from Blender 2.59 with the unsupported Blender plugin v1 !

As I said in the topic of previous version, I have noticed something weird thanks to the ressource manager of Windows 7 : During the export process, at a moment, the exporter for 2.59 puts in cache around 4GB of data. It is weird, because there is still half of my RAM amount available at this moment (around 4GB of the 8GB total).

I don't know it this information can help to find out what slows down the exporter.