Hi guys, so i picked up Maya some days ago and i am learning modelling for now but the progress is steady and the skills are going up and some of my models are already reaching pretty high amounts of polygons etc. and i wanted to ask, i have a Ryzen 7 1700 (8 cores/16 threads for those who don't know) and a GTX 1080, what render engine should i pick, a GPU based one (Octane) or a CPU one (Arnold)? I don't really care about photorealistic results but i know both of these are pretty fucking good.
Forgot to add i am looking for the fastest one for my PC specs.
Redshift. 100% Redshift.
>>575060Nigga i am a beginner not a pixar employer
>>575061Pixar uses Renderman. Redshift is a good choice, the only problem is their jewy pricing model where you only get updates for one year
>>575061Redshift is a GPU renderer and the fastest one.
>>575054I'd probably lean to GPU rendering simply because it'll be easier for you to get the hang of things when you see results immediately as you change stuff.You can always throw a second 1080 in there down the line and double your rendering speed, or have one dedicated to your viewport so that you can edit and render at the same time with no slowdown. Remember that rendering doesn't use shit like SLI, so every extra card you can physically cram into your system adds that much more speed.Some renderers like VRay are already heading into hybrid territory, so it'll be a matter of time before you may not have to choose at all. But yeah, for personal stuff GPU is preferable and cheaper than trying to squeeze more out of CPUs.
>>575061Redshift is cheaper than Octane, and more flexible. It is widely considered the best GPU renderer available at the moment, and a GPU renderer will be orders of magnitude faster than a CPU one in your case (I have a 1080 and an i7 4790k, I get about 10x the speed of a CPU renderer).
>>575092do you think redshift will remove the necessity of having real time movies? like in unreal
You should just use Arnold w/ your cores/threads as it's going to get GPU eventually...
Could someone for the love of god please tell me whats the current version of Redshift?
>>575213If you're so utterly retarded that you don't know how to find that by yourself forget about rendering, flipping burgers is better fit for your skills
Cycles. Free and easy.
>>575213You can download the demo from their site, I think the current demo version is 2.5.24, they just updated it a couple days ago. If you have bought Redshift you can either get the latest official release from the main page, or you can go into the forums and get the experimental, customer only builds that have the newest features but sometimes minor bugs.
>>575054what's everyone's opinion of keyshot?
>>575092>Redshift is cheaper than Octane, and more flexibleWhen it works with the applications that Octane does you get to call it more flexible.
>>575371It works with everything that matters. And this thread is about rendering in Maya you knob. Are you one of those Octane+C4D motion graphic guys?
>>575245He said he's in maya autismo
>>575338I use keyshot. It's fast as fuck. Easy to set up, but unless you have "pro" you're going to be in a bit of trouble with the lighting. My workflow is model in zbrush, texture in substance, use bring it into keyshot and use the material graph to set up my mats, textures etc.Then set up my HDR lighting and render away.
i been doing 3d about 17 years now, never once have i thought to myself "aw man i really wish i hadn't learned X rendering engine, what a waste" also, all renderers are like 99% understanding universal principles and 1% actually understanding specific thingsdon't fucking worry about it, worry about understanding how light interacts with the real world and how to translate that into things a computer understands, it doesn't matter if it's POV-Ray or Maxwell the underlying principles are what lets you make dope renders and they're the same everywhere
>>575512if that was the case they would have stopped developing renderers after Toy Story was released. Gb2 your shitty job
>>575513you do realize most of the "advances" in today's renderers was in Siggraph papers like 20 years ago right? none of this shit is particularly new