Vs modo render

[jagger]

Hi, I would like to know what are the advantages and disadvantages of octane vs modo engine.
I suppose that octane is faster and modos engine is better integrated.

[Talleman]

Modo is Biased, Octane is unbiased...

Unbiased does not necessarily mean faster.

Modo's engine is more integrated, and supports more features. It is also faster in a lot of ways.

Octane is fast (for some things) and physically accurate. Brute force. Easy to set up the render.

[jagger]

What are the things that cannot be done in octane in comparision to modo?
(I mean octane 2.0)

[Battery555]

Just to add one point. Image Realism is what I care and Octane got it there!

[face_off]

What are the things that cannot be done in octane in comparision to modo?

The plugin supports the majority of Modo features. The limitations are covered at http://render.otoy.com/manuals/Modo/?page_id=185 - although Render Curves is included in Octane 2. Rendering Proxies is being pushed into the longer-term, since it is going to be quite complex to implement. Support for Modo procedural textures will be started soon, and will be ongoing - but realistically, only a sub-set of Modo procudurals will be able be converted to Octane node equivalents.

Paul

[cuffi]

Modo is Biased, Octane is unbiased...

Unbiased does not necessarily mean faster.

Modo's engine is more integrated, and supports more features. It is also faster in a lot of ways.

Octane is fast (for some things) and physically accurate. Brute force. Easy to set up the render.

I thought the same way until I listened to the Modcast(http://community.thefoundry.co.uk/modca ... spx?id=267)with Allen Hastings. Modo in fact is being able to render biased and unbiased. There is an unbiased render attribute in the channel list of the render item...Unbiased by the way doesn't mean physically correct necessarily...

EDIT:

You have to set the preview renderer to "Full Resolution" and the Quality to "Extended Refinement" passes in the Options of the preview window for a unbiased rendering in the preview. Along with the statements of Allen Hastings regarding to physically correct rendering (no clamping, low specularity etc.) in the Modcast, we should be able to render in MODO unbiased and physically correct. Referring to Wikipedia "Pathtracing" means Monte Carlo Algorithm wich we still have in MODO (when IC is switched off) and we can Mix IC and MC now in MODO 801. This should give us faster and cleaner images with less flickering in animations. I have to test this shiny new world...

[Talleman]

I thought the same way until I listened to the Modcast(http://community.thefoundry.co.uk/modca ... spx?id=267)with Allen Hastings. Modo in fact is being able to render biased and unbiased. There is an unbiased render attribute in the channel list of the render item...Unbiased by the way doesn't mean physically correct necessarily...

EDIT:

You have to set the preview renderer to "Full Resolution" and the Quality to "Extended Refinement" passes in the Options of the preview window for a unbiased rendering in the preview. Along with the statements of Allen Hastings regarding to physically correct rendering (no clamping, low specularity etc.) in the Modcast, we should be able to render in MODO unbiased and physically correct. Referring to Wikipedia "Pathtracing" means Monte Carlo Algorithm wich we still have in MODO (when IC is switched off) and we can Mix IC and MC now in MODO 801. This should give us faster and cleaner images with less flickering in animations. I have to test this shiny new world...

When you switch the Modo renderer over to unbiased, you loose the speed advantage that Modo has. The biased nature of Modo makes for faster renders at the expense of accuracy.

In a straight Brute force contest between Octane and Modo, Octane should win (dependant on gpu).

[jagger]

Ok, I´ll change the question. Why should I choose Modos renderer over Octane?

[riggles]

Ok, I´ll change the question. Why should I choose Modos renderer over Octane?

MODOs renderer still has some advantages over Octane. For one, it's completely integrated, so all MODO features are supported. Particles, variation textures, texture offsets, procedurals, gradients, cell shaders, and many more things all work, but not in Octane. There are dedicated fur and skin shaders as well. And until Octane 2.0 and 2.x features are released, even things like displacement, render passes, and object motion blur can only be had with MODOs renderer. MODOs preview render also offers features that Octane doesn't, such as the ability to preview specific outputs (AOVs).

Then there are other rendering scenarios where MODO might be better. I've found that product shots can render cleaner and faster using MODO irradiance caching than Octane's brute force unbiased method.

So, whether Octane or MODO is better really depends on what kind of renders to need to produce and what features you need to produce them.

[riggles]

Ok, I´ll change the question. Why should I choose Modos renderer over Octane?

MODOs renderer still has some advantages over Octane. For one, it's completely integrated, so all MODO features are supported. Particles, variation textures, texture offsets, procedurals, gradients, cell shaders, render booleans, proxies, and many more things all work, but not in Octane. There are dedicated fur and skin shaders as well. And until Octane 2.0 and 2.x features are released, even things like displacement, render passes, and object motion blur can only be had with MODOs renderer. MODOs preview render also offers features that Octane doesn't, such as the ability to preview specific outputs (AOVs).

Then there are other rendering scenarios where MODO might be better. I've found that product shots can render cleaner and faster using MODO irradiance caching than Octane's brute force unbiased method.

So, whether Octane or MODO is better really depends on what kind of renders to need to produce and what features you need to produce them.