I split this out of another thread because I can see a high risk that this may turn out into some “app war” as some moderators call it.
Still I think there is some room for users to actually compare and discuss differences between rendering solutions.
There are allready threads for biased vs unbiased.
Lux vs Octane
3Delight vs Lux
So the Octane vs 3Delight seems to be missing.
Just try to keep it civil. pretty please.
The images rendered with Octane look fantastic. As a point of reference would it be possible for people to post render times in DAZ render engine as well so we can compare time savings and quality?
This would probably be hard to do in a scientific correct way.
Both 3Delight and Octane have different kind of render settings that will drastically improve quality and render time.
What could be done is comparing 3Delight UE2 with ambient light with Octane “Direct Light Kernel” in “Ambient Mode”
Ambient mode means there is no “bleeding” of color into the scene. In Octane the Ambient Mode is considered as the low quality test mode.
For high quality final renderings one would have to compare
3Delight UE2 with indirect lights w/Directional shadows mode… and Octane Render “PMC” kernel that also features indirect light.
- - -
The main issue that makes direct comparison impossible:
Can anyone show any 3Delight render in DS of a complex scene that was ever created with UE2 with indirect light?
On the old forum adam once did a test comparing the different modes of UE2. Even a simple sphere on a plane took a lot longer to render with indirect light active in UE2.
To put it different with 3Delight it is currently not possible to render with indirect lighting active in any reasonable quality / time relationship.
Please correct me on that if you have made some images with indirect light and “color bleeding” with 3Delight.
From my point of view it was exactly this lack of indirect lighting that made people turn to Reality and Luxrender.
And it is exactly the “bleeding” effect of colors that makes images look so much more realistic.
From that point of view there really is not much point in comparing render speeds.
It is not so much about the speed but the more “realistic” quality that can be achieved with other rendering solutions.
But there are enough threads on that topic allready…
- - -
My personal test render to compare speed:
My personal stress test was the “Vanilla” image with fiber hair I allready posted.
The main idea was to see how octane deals with fiber hair.
I did not pay any attention to recreate the DS materials.
The 3Delight UE2 version with default UE2 and 1 directional light took more than 48 hours.
The Octane Version default “Direct Light” “Ambient Mode” version took about 50 minutes.
Win 8 Pro 64bit | Asus GTX660 Ti DCII OC, 2048MB GDDR5, 6008/967 MHz | AMD Phenom II X6 2.8GHz | 16 GB RAM
Total Vertices :
Total Triangles :
Total Quads :
Total Faces :
- - -
For the sake of this test I post both images here.
The 3delight version is the one with the cyborg. The Cyborg and the background are composited on another layer in photoshop.
The Octane version is the one with the character alone. The octane version features depth of field.
- - -
All in all from my experience so far I can say that Octane is 10-20 times faster in ambient mode.
If you are comparing high quality indirect lighting modes that may be even a much higher factor.
- - -
If someone has made more test images with 3delight and octane please share.
- - -
In the end there is one important thing to remember:
Each of the render engines available has their plus points and also their flaws.
There probably will never be one solution that is better for all cases.
It will always depend what the user wants to achieve.
- - -
The downside of the faster solution:
In octane you will not find any cartoon shaders and displacements maps will not be supported for probably quite a long time.
You also have to deal with VRAM limits. There is not unlimited space available for textures and maps.
You need a Nvidia Graphic Card. You will have to spend some additional money for licence fees.
But I guess at least something is certain. Octane is faster.