From my experience It might be worth mentioning that Octane 3.0 will have both GPU/CPU rendering. Its Network rendering is incredibly easy to use and is very efficient.
Also the stand alone app is great for folks who use alembics as part of their pipeline. I find it easier to tweak to get what I want then Vray (I only have V2 for vray though so that might have changed a bit) Arnold of the ones mentioned to me seems to give the best result out the box if time is not an issue. Redshift3d Fastest results out the box If time isn’t a major factor then Renderman RIS still to me gives the best looking result. There’s just a certain something there which you don’t seem to get from the others (But that’s very much a personal thing) Kind regards Angus From: Tim Leydecker [mailto:bauero...@gmx.de] Sent: 07 August 2015 07:09 AM To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com Subject: Re: OT'ish: Redshift renderfarm with Softimage setup? Hi Morton, now that information is trickling in about Redshift3D would you mind sharing how you are rating Arnold and Vray in comparison? How about Clarisse as the new kid on the block? In my understanding, Arnold has an edge when it comes to supported 3d application plattforms and the user choice of OS, with one license useable in all scenarios and combinations. There is SitoA, MtoA, C4DtoA, HtoA, support for OpenVDB and solid support for rendering haircurves. The caveats one may run into is best tried in an interior scene, a hero tree element with lot´s of overlapping, opacity mapped leaves, a few glass objects with lot´s of reflection&refraction and and actual test with a OpenVDB volume and light scattering through it. For VRay, I´m not up to date currently so I would welcome any findings, I always liked working with VRay and would love to hear how other´s run VRay 3.x and how they like it, maybe even comparing scenenarios as I listed above for Arnold. Plus SSS. Clarisse info would be generally nice to get. All those of the above run on the CPU with one way or another of having more than one CPU contribute to a local rendering or a rendering in general, all of the above use the CPU, some easily use all available CPUs in a network. In comparison to that, a GPU based solution is a very specific solution to a problem simply because GPU solutions aren´t as widely supported as the general basis of computing to turn to (yet). Cheers, tim P.S: Another thing you may want to test is how dependent you are on raytraced SSS, Redshift doesn´t have that yet and is using a pre-pass instead currently, which is worth checking in your workflow expectations, comparing the IPR preview with a final render and how you get there in something like Maya IPR vs. Maya Rendering into Renderview. Am 05.08.2015 um 12:05 schrieb Morten Bartholdy: I know several of you are using Redshift extensively or only now. We are looking in to expanding our permanent render license pool and are considering the pros and cons of Arnold, Vray and Redshift. I believe Redshift will provide the most bang for the buck, but at a cost of some production functionality we are used to with Arnold and Vray. Also, it will likely require an initial investment in new hardware as Redshift will not run on our Pizzabox render units, so that cost has to be counted in as well. It looks like the most priceefficient Redshift setup would be to make a few machines with as many GPUs in them as physically possible, but how have you guys set up your Redshift renderfarms? I am thinking a large cabinet with a huge PSU, lots of cooling, as much memory as possible on the motherboard and perhaps 8 GPUs in each. GTX 970 is probably the most power per pricepoint while Titans would make sense if more memory for rendering is required. Any thoughts and pointers will be much appreciated. Morten <table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="width:100%;"> <tr> <td align="left" style="text-align:justify;"><font face="arial,sans-serif" size="1" color="#999999"><span style="font-size:11px;">This communication is intended for the addressee only. It is confidential. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and destroy the original message. You may not copy or disseminate this communication without the permission of the University. Only authorised signatories are competent to enter into agreements on behalf of the University and recipients are thus advised that the content of this message may not be legally binding on the University and may contain the personal views and opinions of the author, which are not necessarily the views and opinions of The University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. All agreements between the University and outsiders are subject to South African Law unless the University agrees in writing to the contrary. </span></font></td> </tr> </table
