Let’s Talk Render Engines: Octane vs Corona vs Redshift There are multiple different methods for rendering 3D scenes these days, from built-in systems such as MentalRay or Arnold in Maya, to the magic spouting from Cinema4D. Other engines have popped up alongside these more mainstream systems, each boasting a long list of projects and accomplishments, and also a similarly realistic end-product.

Octane Render Ver1.00 Win64. Realtime 3D Rendering. Octane Render is the world’s first GPU based, un-biased, physically based renderer. It uses the video card in your computer to render photorealistic. Download Octane Render 1022 X64 Cracked. Octane render 1022 x64 cracked Share. The version of the browser you are using is no longer supported. Octane Render is a GPU based, un-biased, physically based renderer that supports Blender. It uses the processor in your Nvidia GeForce 8000 (or higher) graphicscard. Octane is priced at €99.

When seeking out a new render engine things can get a tad confusing, though, and a lot of these newer bushy-tailed plugins seem to do a very similar job for those with experience in 3D texturing. A few years ago, those with keen eyes could tell what renderer was used based on what the final product looked like, but these days, the lines are blurred. That means your choice comes down to affordability, usefulness, and what you’re comfortable with.

Today, we’re looking at three competitors: Octane, Corona, and Redshift. CPU/GPU and biased/unbiased Each one of these rendering engines works on a slightly different mix of CPU/GPU and biased/unbiased. For those who don’t quite know what this implies, here’s a very watered-down explanation: The CPU is short for ‘central processing unit,’ and up until relatively recently was the main source of rendering power.

Arnold, for instance, is a CPU-based renderer. Obrazec harakteristiki na sportsmena ot trenera youtube. The GPU, or ‘graphics processing unit,’ was originally sold to the public for uses such as 3D game rendering. Artists and programmers (among other unrelated fields) quickly discovered its programmability and potential. If you have good hardware, a GPU-based rendering engine can spit out renders insanely fast- but again, if you have good hardware, cause that hardware can leave you with a rather large bill or tricky setup process. Perhaps one of the best explanations of the differences between CPU and GPU processing power is by Kevin Krewell from Nvidia: “ Architecturally, the CPU is composed of just few cores with lots of cache memory that can handle a few software threads at a time. In contrast, a GPU is composed of hundreds of cores that can handle thousands of threads simultaneously.” Now, onto biased versus unbiased: • An unbiased renderer does its absolute best to compute your scene and lighting exactly as it is.

Error or uncertainty will be rendered as noise, unless given enough time to resolve the errors to mathematical perfection. Arnold, yet again, is a good example, and an engine I’ve personally worked with. I have seen unpleasant graininess in difficult areas, which took a bit of fiddling to rectify. • Biased renderers, on the other hand, are built for efficiency and speed. If there is an area that the program is uncertain about, it will do some calculations to fill in said area with perhaps a bit of blur or interpolation. Your end render won’t be mathematically perfect, but you’ll get more of them done. Biased renderers are also typically more customizable, and if you know what you’re doing, can produce an end result of similar quality to an unbiased render in a lot less time.

If you were going to match a specific job to these different techniques, I’d say that biased renders are good for high-volume jobs such as film and animation, whereas unbiased renders are good for still images, so they can be perfect. This is, of course, a personal take. Let’s file this information away and move on to the three render engines in question, though. Octane First, we have Octane. On their website, the makers of Octane tout it as ‘the world’s first and fastest GPU-accelerated, unbiased, physically correct renderer’.

This means it uses the powerhouse of a GPU to do the longer process of unbiased rendering, which seems like a nice compromise. You’ll need a CUDA enabled NVIDIA video card to use it, though, and they suggest having one of the newer, faster ones.

As for operating systems, the 64-bit version of Windows Vista, 7, 8, and 10 support Octane, as well as the 64-bit versions of Mac OS X and Linux. If you’re unsure about your hardware/software setup, there is a free demo and benchmark tool that will evaluate your computer. Regarding workflow, Octane supports 21 different plugins, and imports geometry and materials through.obj and.abc formats from your original 3D modelling program (unless Octane itself is being used as a plugin). From there, you adjust the materials and lighting to your liking, keeping an eye on the viewport. Once you’re happy, increase your resolution and render settings. One thing to note is that Octane has a Standalone version, and a plugin to go with it.