OctaneRender™ Standalone 1.50

[stratified]

Yo - Thanks for 1.5 Octane Team!

Marcus/Roeland, now that you mad scientists are going to be in your evil lair, making the next batch of diabolical weapons, I am very curious how things will work in regard to future release candidates and 2.0 - which presumably we will be paying for an upgrade... I mean, those of us that like to be on the bleeding edge with RCs will get to test new features as you add them, right?.. but will need to pay after 2.0 is released? Please do tell... unless you haven't thought that far ahead...

The 2.0 release candidates will require an upgraded license, they won't work with the 1.5 licenses. If you want to test the features before upgrading there will be a 2.0 demo version once 2.0 final is released.

cheers,
Thomas

[FrankPooleFloating]

No RCs before 2.0?.... how.... but if you.... never mind.

[stratified]

No RCs before 2.0?.... how.... but if you.... never mind.

sure, we'll have RCs before 2.0 as always but they'll require an upgraded license.

cheers,
Thomas

[MinT]

Any lower price for licence upgrade from 1.5???

[stratified]

Any lower price for licence upgrade from 1.5???

Hi,

The pricing will be announced soon.

cheers,
Thomas

[FrankPooleFloating]

Sorry stratified.. just saw this for first time:

http://render.otoy.com/forum/viewtopic. ... 35#p176435

I will be one of the first in line for upgrade, the moment it is available.. Ready and eager to plunk down a fist full of cash. Oooh baby.. I can't wait to effing pounce on that - and get to those features. I am still trying to wrap my head around us getting all of that in 2.0...

[gordonrobb]

So this may have been reported already, but it's my first real go at reporting a bug, there are two problems with the Matte object when used for shadow catcher.

Firstly, it reflects like it's normal material and secondly, when viewed through a spec material, it shows as a normal material.

It's the same in the LW plugin.

try this:
http://render.otoy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=38911

OK, I've tried this and it makes a difference. Still working out how to do it in Lightwave plugin (which is what I'm interested in). However, what you offer is a work-around (thanks for that). What I want is a way for it to work properly in the software. That way I won't have to worry about it when it get's to Lightwave.

Any response to this (my first real bug report) form the Team?

[gordonrobb]

Right now, bug reports and feature requests should be posted on the forum. Bug reports should go to the corresponding release thread and feature requests either to their own thread or to http://render.otoy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=37045. Please do not post feature requests in release threads, since they tend to drown the bug reports.

And contrary to the opinion of some users, we are reading feature requests and take them into account. It's just a lot simpler to write a feature request than to implement that feature. So things need to be prioritized and may take some time.

And if you want to motivate us, render stuff and show it here on the forum (gallery / WIP sections). At the end of the day, user results are what is driving us the most.

I firstly want to apologise for you 'complainy' this post is going to come agross, but....

I did what you ask. I reported the issue with Matte (shadow catcher) objects not showing properly in either reflection or refraction. What I got was a helpful (in standalone) workaround from another user. What I expected was at least some kind of response form the development team. I report things to have things fixed. Workarounds are good only in that they allow you to work around the problem till it is fixed. If this thing is fixed in the main software, I wont have the problem of having to figure out how to apply the workaround in my LW plugin.

Secondly, I have mentioned in numerous places feature requests, not least of which is my desire/request/requirement for a better/bigger choice of procedurals. Not things like bricks or patters (although I'm sure some may like that), but good fractal noise, crumple, crust types. I find them invaluable in my texturing. Other than people posting +1s after my posts, I haven't really had anything back form the development team.

So having done what you asked, I ask again. How do I go about reporting bugs and posting feature requests?

[abstrax]

So this may have been reported already, but it's my first real go at reporting a bug, there are two problems with the Matte object when used for shadow catcher.

Firstly, it reflects like it's normal material and secondly, when viewed through a spec material, it shows as a normal material.

It's the same in the LW plugin.

try this:
http://render.otoy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=38911

OK, I've tried this and it makes a difference. Still working out how to do it in Lightwave plugin (which is what I'm interested in). However, what you offer is a work-around (thanks for that). What I want is a way for it to work properly in the software. That way I won't have to worry about it when it get's to Lightwave.

Any response to this (my first real bug report) form the Team?

What exactly do you want to achieve with the matte materil? Do you want to compose the result onto some arbitrary background after rendering or do you want to use the background during rendering?

[gordonrobb]

I know that there is an issue with compositing as the alpha doesn't can't work properly through the specular.

All I am doing is using an HDRI background to light the scene, and either have it be the background too, or separately composite it on having used the shadow catcher to get a ground shadow. However, if there is any glass in the object that reflects the ground, it reflects the object's diffuse channel, and if there is any glass that you can see the ground object through, same problem. The workaround would see to be fine, if I could figure out how to do the same in LW, but I was more thinking that it is something that could/should be built into the matte object (or at least an option t).

Problem can be seen in this example.