Hydra wrote:There's no mass market here. All of this stuff is low volume, industrial scale.
That's part of the point I keep making.
When you look at something like Reality, it bridges two programs in very complicated ways. This makes it very specific in its use, and difficult to maintain because the two programs are moving targets. The number of users begins very small, but once people begin to see the potential, it gains momentum in the market. Couple this with the improvements made in both moving targets the plugin bridge connect to, and things get even better over time.
To have something like Octane be so efficient and reliable leverages the recognition and adoption. Compare Octane to LuxRender, in this case. LuxRender is open and cheap, but moves very slowly because of its openness. The downside is that its function is slow, but stable.
When you compare OcDS to something like Reality, it's really comparing plugin to plugin, and renderer to renderer, since they both use Daz Studio, which in itself is a limited market.
I believe the market gets even smaller, because *everyone* can use Reality/LuxRender, since it requires no special hardware.
Octane requires an nVidia graphics card -- the better the graphics card, the more you have of them, the faster it will work. So, it makes sense that Octane, and its plugins, have a smaller audience.
The highly illogical thing, though, is how something with a much smaller audience can be so unstable and buggy. One would think that something so specialized and specific, for such a small group of people, would be much more stable, because the "beta testers" are the audience. (I'm overlooking the braindead decision to cut out some of the very limited audience to make them a subset of "beta testers".)