Community Forums for OTOY Customers
https://render.otoy.com/forum/
Hmmm, they worked fine on my system and installed into both 2012 and 2013 at the same time.Joss wrote:Tbh, neither of the latest installers was able to detect maya 2012 installation, when 2013 is installed along with 2012, jfyi.
that is weird, the install was the same for 3.03f as it was for all the others for me.Joss wrote:Tbh, neither of the latest installers was able to detect maya 2012 installation, when 2013 is installed along with 2012, jfyi.
1. Do you mean that if you install only 2012, all is detected OK?Joss wrote:Tbh, neither of the latest installers was able to detect maya 2012 installation, when 2013 is installed along with 2012, jfyi.
It is the engine issue, I can't do anything else from plugins side, except what I already did...jmfowler wrote: Jimstar and TBFX - using 3.03f - good news and bad - I have studied the frames from last night, the first frame rendered in an hour, but the four frames after that took 1.5 hours meaning the 580 card ( probably this one as i have seen this one fail) failed on the second frame and the others, BUT the render kept going!!. NOW - I also had another render command in the .bat file and the render started on the same scene but at a different place - Again the first frame rendered in 1 hour but the frames after that took 1.5 hours...
So - jimstar's workaround fix appears to keep the render going with a failed card but I still don't know why my 580 card fails after the first frame???.....when I render the same scene on my other
computer using 3*680 cards it takes an hour for the image - so I am positive the 580 works all the way through on the first frame, plus the 1.5 hours versus 1 hour is another sign.
I'm going to make my .bat file with a command line for each frame to see if I can keep all 3 cards going.
Jimstar any thoughts?
Yes, thank you, there was the bug. Will be OK in next version.TBFX wrote:I was doing some virtual shader tests on a simple particle instance scene and have come across some weird behavior. It seems depending on the method of cycling through different geometry on the instances Octane is rendering different geo to what is shown in the viewport. I've attached the scene.
If you go to the instancing section of the particle shape attribute editor and change the cycle options age attr from Birth Time to Particle ID you will get a different result but one that still does not match the viewport.
JimStar wrote:It is the engine issue, I can't do anything else from plugins side, except what I already did...jmfowler wrote: Jimstar and TBFX - using 3.03f - good news and bad - I have studied the frames from last night, the first frame rendered in an hour, but the four frames after that took 1.5 hours meaning the 580 card ( probably this one as i have seen this one fail) failed on the second frame and the others, BUT the render kept going!!. NOW - I also had another render command in the .bat file and the render started on the same scene but at a different place - Again the first frame rendered in 1 hour but the frames after that took 1.5 hours...
So - jimstar's workaround fix appears to keep the render going with a failed card but I still don't know why my 580 card fails after the first frame???.....when I render the same scene on my other
computer using 3*680 cards it takes an hour for the image - so I am positive the 580 works all the way through on the first frame, plus the 1.5 hours versus 1 hour is another sign.
I'm going to make my .bat file with a command line for each frame to see if I can keep all 3 cards going.
Jimstar any thoughts?
I think that all is OK in the next render command due to full reloading of engine module, so during initializing the engine reinitializes all cards (it does not do it when the plugin is going to render just the next frame). So, if you will render every frame in separate render command - the render will last much longer, as the engine module will be reloaded every frame...
Now I've understood correctly. Just from your previous explanation "neither of the latest installers was able to detect maya 2012 installation, when 2013 is installed along with 2012" I understood that it just does not install the 2012 to the right place when you choose the 2012 checkbox.Joss wrote:Both 2012/2013 installed into c:\program files\autodesk, and it's default path. Also i checked the registry keys and they're ok.
The problem is that if you have both maya versions installed, installer offers you to install octane plugin just for 2013, 2012 is unchecked by default.
I can turn it on manually, just thought it would be nice to do that automatically as it supposed to be.
I already answered you: It is Octane engine problem. And I already wrote you that all the memory which this plugin uses for mesh data during compilation of your scene is just about 60MB.Joss wrote:PS: Jim, i sent you PM - i was able to render these scenes just fine with 2.58 version. So it seems it's not octane engine eats all the memory.
