Page 6 of 8

Re: OctaneRender™ 4.0 for LightWave™ - Beta build 4.00.0.9 XB4

Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2018 5:56 am
by pixym
Thanks Guys for your replies.

Re: OctaneRender™ 4.0 for LightWave™ - Beta build 4.00.0.9 XB4

Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2018 2:13 pm
by juanjgon
dmodric wrote:Did anybody noticed this?

When rendering with denoiser I get this white transparent thing on transparent materials.
This problem has been fixed in the latest RC2 Octane core. A new LW plugin build using this core will be released soon including this fix.

Thanks,
-Juanjo

Re: OctaneRender™ 4.0 for LightWave™ - Beta build 4.00.0.9 XB4

Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2018 7:57 am
by dmodric
juanjgon wrote:
dmodric wrote:Did anybody noticed this?

When rendering with denoiser I get this white transparent thing on transparent materials.
This problem has been fixed in the latest RC2 Octane core. A new LW plugin build using this core will be released soon including this fix.

Thanks,
-Juanjo
Thanks Juanjo.

Looking forward for a new release.

Re: OctaneRender™ 4.0 for LightWave™ - Beta build 4.00.0.9 XB4

Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2018 2:59 pm
by BorderLine
Hi JuanJo,
Do you think it's ok for network render with new version ?
Thanks

Re: OctaneRender™ 4.0 for LightWave™ - Beta build 4.00.0.9 XB4

Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2018 8:54 pm
by lightvu
Hi how are you guys testing the new version of Octane while still keeping production going from an earlier build?
(As it says to not use this for important work yet etc. as it is beta)

thanks :)

Re: OctaneRender™ 4.0 for LightWave™ - Beta build 4.00.0.9 XB4

Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2018 10:51 pm
by juanjgon
BorderLine wrote:Hi JuanJo,
Do you think it's ok for network render with new version ?
Thanks
It should work, but better wait for the upcoming RC3 plugin, that should be a lot more stable.

Thanks,
-Juanjo

Re: OctaneRender™ 4.0 for LightWave™ - Beta build 4.00.0.9 XB4

Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2018 3:56 pm
by pixym
lightvu wrote:Hi how are you guys testing the new version of Octane while still keeping production going from an earlier build?
(As it says to not use this for important work yet etc. as it is beta)

thanks :)
In the last three months I have only use v4 from XB3 to XB4. I have never use V3.
Octane V4 has really changed my Arch Viz life for stills and Animations :o
Hope this helps.

Re: OctaneRender™ 4.0 for LightWave™ - Beta build 4.00.0.9 XB4

Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2018 9:19 am
by BorisGoreta
I am not quite yet feeling that super fast object moving in heavier scenes that Brigade promised. Is that something that LW is not capable of ?

Re: OctaneRender™ 4.0 for LightWave™ - Beta build 4.00.0.9 XB4

Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2018 10:06 am
by 3dworks
lightvu wrote:Hi how are you guys testing the new version of Octane while still keeping production going from an earlier build?
(As it says to not use this for important work yet etc. as it is beta)

thanks :)
i took the risk of using it in production and it was worth it. if you know the issues and workarounds and handle them with care, these versions are producing quite predictable results. also, the system is relatively stable here, not many crashes (LW2018 and OSX). i agree with others here saying that V4 is a game changer for archviz, not only because of denoise but AI lights - which are really improving the base quality of renderings with almost no extra setup time.

Re: OctaneRender™ 4.0 for LightWave™ - Beta build 4.00.0.9 XB4

Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2018 6:45 pm
by Lewis
3dworks wrote:
lightvu wrote:because of denoise but AI lights - which are really improving the base quality of renderings with almost no extra setup time.
How?
Can you please show me settings/example render where AI lights improved quality that much?

I tested today on one of my arch-Viz interior scenes and i got worse image quality and longer rendertime result than without AI lights ?

my interior was rendering 1000 samples with AI lights 5m 6 sec and i had tons of tiny fireflies scattered around render
Without AI lights render was same noise level but almost no fireflies and it rendered in 4m 40 sec

So either I'm using it wrong (default settings) or 1000 samples is not to see the difference in quality or speed ?