Vray Vs Octane

[Eliz Cisneroz]

Mostof the spaces I model are atriums and now working on an airport sculpture proposal. So, fairly large interiors. And I develop 3-4 proposals a year spending 2-4 weeks per for modeling and rendering.

Dont get me wrong but I think that you initail investment calculation is wrong.

For rendering with OCTANE with some normal rendering times (not +24hours) youll need to buy at least 3 EVGA GeForce cards.

Im kinda in situation as you. Looking for an rendering engine for Rhino.

So far THEA or VRAY

Maybe not.

I went thru OCTANE forum and found few guys who are using it with Rhino. I think they are present here also. Anyway heres an egsample of interior rendering with one card in 9 minutes.

render.otoy.com View topic - first Rhino testView topic - first Rhino test

First of all it is important to note that both engines come from different directions, although vray4Rhino has been receiving gpu rendering support (as part of the vray RT engine) in recent times, these capabilities are not 100% developed until now imho. So vrays origin is CPU rendering which can be done one one single computer or on a huge network. Octane4Rhino on the other hand is strictly gpu based rendering and until now limited to one machine, so it is by far not as scalable a v4r. At this point I have to say that concerning to Otoy there are current developments to change this and even to enable a cloud based commercial gpu power support.

Octane is a relatively young engine. A great feature is the ability to see changes made to materials an lightning in real time. It offers different rendering pipelines, one is the ambient occlusion pipeline which can deliver very very fast but biased (no diffuse reflections!) visual feedback. So you really can save a whole lot of time when tweaking and experimenting with light and material. This is very nice for experienced users but even more useful for the new ones.

Like vray octane knows proxies, which is important for vegetation, it can use obj. files for that purpose which is nice.

Concerning the price it is a bit hard to tell, the initial price for the software is 279 Euro for the standalone version + the plugin which is a bargain imho. Vray is around 700 Euro which is also great for this software.

however to get optimal performance you also need to invest in your hardware, which means CPU power for vray or gpu for octane. At this point it gets quite complicated because you cannot compare both programs in an objective way concerning the given performance / Euro.

Vray can use a grid of computers e.g. in a larger office this is very nice, octane right now is limited to one machine which should be equipped with a few good GPUs and a good power supply and cooling.

I think Flamingo is an other story. Some years before I bought Flamingo and I was very disappointed about the outdated render engine, extreme slow and very basic features only. If I look at the Flamingo nXt gallery now, than I get the old feeling - the interiors looks like the beginning of rendering. I would prefer Octane. Or maybe the free Neon.

So OCTANE has also few rendering option to choose from, AO like you said, and unbiased one. These are DL, PCM? Can you tell us a bit more oaboth these. What is the difference? YOu said AO is the fastes of them all but with lack of blurry reflections?

While this is not that much of an issue when you have one or more GTX

Titans with 6GB Ram it can easily become a problem when you have e.g.

a gtx 590 with 3GB which is further divided by 2 for each GPU

Andreas, wich one of the two software do you find more user friendly and stable when working with Rhino?

Forgot to ask one thing, OCTANE only uses GPU power right? It cannot use GPU+CPU at the same time?

Mario, concerning your question both programs are very stable, although i have to say that I have not tested octane on big commercial projects, whereas i have done over 400 projects ranging from big sport arenas to residential homes with vray.

User friendliness is kind of relative, you can say that for a noob, octane is probably easier to learn but this is also due to the vast amount of possibilities and tweaks vray offers.

Hi guys I recently read about the new developed "THEA render", and apparently the results are nice. Has anyone used both V-Ray and Thea render in order to have a review specifically for interior visualization? Does it worth to change the working flow...

In the blog today, we continue to compare the two most famous and most widely used: VRAY, developed by the Bulgarian Chaos Group and used by numerous graphic programs (such as Studio Max, Maya, Rhinoceros, Cinema 4D, Softimage XSI, SketchUp, Blender) and Octane Render, such as OTOY, a startup based in California which can be integrated, for example, with Autodesk 3D Studio Max, Maya and Lightwave.

VRAY is considered the foremost flexible engine because it allows recreating any kind of scene and supports many different tools and plugins, however, additionally several materials and mappings, whereas octane is much more limited. However, based on the configuration of the renderings, Octane is better because it allows getting satisfactory results even with a lot simpler settings; furthermore as avoiding all issues (being an Unbiased motor) like spots or flicker.

This could only be eliminated with lots of work and effort when using VRAY. On the other hand, as for the utilization of memory, VRAY appears to prevail, because it uses RAM rather than the limited VRAM.

Render Engines is dependent on GPU performance. Some processes, though, that happen before and during rendering rely heavily on the performance of the CPU, Storage, and (possibly) your network. For example, extracting and preparing Mesh Data to be used by the GPU, loading textures from your Storage, and preparing the scene data.

iRender has appreciated in many global rankings (e.g: CGDirector, Lumion Official, Radarrender, InspirationTuts CAD, All3DP, VFXRendering). With the above advantages and the machine configuration package that iRender has just released, we believe that Octane & Vray users will have the most comfortable, quickest, and most effective rendering time.

To actually compare render engines you have to have the same scene with the artistic approach from the same person with the same technical level in both engines.

from my experience using various render engines i believe that all of them have their pros and cons since you mentioned vray this render engines needs alot of tweaking to get photorealistic result compared to lets say corona render, some render engine gives you full control others help you to get the fast result of photorealism i could say achieving a stylized look in corona would be hard compared to achieving it in vray.

I believe the main difference in Vray vs Corona or Cycles vs Octane is being a biased render engine or unbiased render engine corona , octane are both unbiased render engines while cycles, vray they are both biased render engines you could read more about them in this article : -and-unbiased-rendering-algorithms-which-is-better/

From my perspective yes render engines like corona and octane are able to achieve photorealistic results easier than cycles because there is not alot of tweaking to do so they handle lighting and atmospheric effects (what i believe octane excel at) better than cycles immediately .

The high illuminated scene i think is not conclusive, it depends on materials reflectivity and or sun energy - it seems to not be the same. In the 2 render engines i would have expected some GI from the colour balls.

First of all, I have attached a screenshot of the material and exactly the walls. The same roughness, the same color, and I found for myself that this is the ratio of reflectivity will be the same. Like the metal - the roughness is the same. Again - different bump and works differently, not just its values, but how the renderer sees the map. In cycles two values to customize this, in octane one and the result is different.

The next thing is to note in general that cycles and octane are both unbiased. And they both produce phenomenal results.

The point is that in my opinion octane is the best renderer in the world in terms of quality, without nuance or compromise.

Different with the displacement. In octane it is the possibility to use it without subdiv but with uv and without procedural maps, in cycles on the other hand there is adaptive subdiv, due to which already real displacement works better in cycles.

No matter how you spin it, we have blenderartist where we see a lot of works, absolutely different level and orientation. And many of them are amateur, and even those that are professional are still from a specific niche, resulting in a different sample.

Further, most addons, objects and other things are made in the same way. Plants in a number of addons are configured through mix node for leaves, rather than through add, which distorts their display, compared to the same octane, and any other renderer, and in fact in a lot of works used these libraries of vegetation, rather than manually customized trees maxtree for example. In Geo-scatter is done through add!

Cause and effect are different things. You are talking about the highest level, about large projects, the realization of which falls on the shoulders of specialists/companies, who use the software that they use in their specialized work.

Moreover, you gave an example of UE, which is not even a path tracer. And even its path tracer is worse than cycles. And there is no point in talking about anything at all - path tracer of such a level is in any case superior to UE in its graphical capabilities.

So the conclusion is the opposite of yours - an artist, or a team, as in this case, who are paid for their work, who use the corresponding library. They had the guys from Gaea help them create a great environment.

In general, my message is that Photorealism and Physical Correctness are different things. You can achieve photorealism with gouache on paper. And you can lose it if the basics are broken in any complex software, so the artist is paramount.

3a8082e126