[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/3/ - 3DCG



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: THOR_0010.png (629 KB, 1206x702)
629 KB
629 KB PNG
Arnold on GPU when?
>>
Private beta starts soon(?) (may have already started)
Release "when it is ready"
>>
>>618082
I estimate 1 year.

Redshift will do in the meantime.
>>
>>618119
Yeah Redshift is great, I love it. Sadly though, when a production-ready renderer introduces comparable GPU render speeds it will be pretty much over for them.
>>
Any chance they switch the default Maya renderer to the GPU version? I'm building a new computer for rendering and don't want to get stuck with a CPU renderer if Maya switches to GPU.
>>
>>618140

What makes you say that? I have used Redshift, but not Arnold. In what ways does RS fall short of being production-ready? To me it seems like they have a big head-start as far as production GPU renderers go.

Would definitely give Arnold on GPU a try though.
>>
>>618167
Redshift is a biased renderer which means if you want to do matching and composite CG with real life footage, Redshift does not guarantee it can be done, even with perfect measurement of the lighting, camera lens, etc.


Anyway that's interesting but even as a low level hobbyist like me, there's still something about Arnold looks a bit more beautiful and real, kind of "neutral" in a way, while Redshift looks a more video gamey. That's fine because I'm not aiming for photorealism, but I just like the look of Arnold better. (My favorite is Renderman, which seems less realistic than Arnold but more beautiful. However it's a buggy piece of shit and causes me nothing but trouble, so fuck it.)
>>
>>618082
>using autodesk products
>[current year]
>>
>>618453
Do you just come to /3/ and shitpost about blender in every thread one after the other?
>>
>>618453
>I think Arnold is an Autodesk product
>I don't know how plugins for work
>I don't know the difference between a render engine and a DCC application

How do you remember to breathe?
>>
>>618514
>paid plugin
>not a product
https://www.autodesk.com/products/arnold/overview

The state of /3/
>>
>>618560
>https://www.autodesk.com/products/arnold/overview

You know that there is a standalone version of arnold right?
>>
>>618082
>Using anything but cycles
>>
>>619227
Why would I use Cycles over better alternatives?
>>
>>619534
you better have the renders to prove that something better than Cycles actually exists, shitkid
>>
>>619541
>low quality bait
One word: caustics.
>>
>>619699
caustics are great in cycles already
>>
>>619700
...are they? How can I make spectral dispersion in Cycles in a reasonable amount of time?
>>
>>619719
rent a farm. It'll easy pay for itself, just like when someone who owns a business hires more workers at cheap cost
>>
>>619722
Why would I rent a farm if I needed caustics, when I can use a better renderer and get more accurate caustics, in less time, for a fraction of the cost?
>>
>>619978
you can rent a blender farm and put it down as a charitable donation to Ton and Brecht
>>
>>619980
Or buy some real software.
>>
>>619982
thanks, kike
>>
>>619988
d-delet this
>>
File: 1511686346651.png (572 KB, 640x920)
572 KB
572 KB PNG
>>618082

Is that muddy blurry pixel soup supposed to be impressive?
>>
>>618082
Have you noticed that Arnold is quite now?
All the tutorials are either RS or Octane.

Arnold can't keep the interest of it's users.
>>
>>620006
Arnold is so simple to use it doesnt need tutorials.
>>
>>619995
I'm not sure if it's a JPG that some mong turned into a PNG or some yify-tier rip that someone took a screenshot of
>>
>>620006

Because a GPU renderer like Octane or Redshift is far more reasonable (Price and render time) to your average home freelancer/hobbyist (The type of person who needs youtube tutorials to begin with) than something like Arnold or VRay, where you're looking at several magnitudes longer renders, and in VRays case an absolutely unacceptable price tag.
>>
>>619722
Cycles isn't capable of rendering accurate spectral dispersion. The question was a trap.
>>
>>620020
arnold is endless tweaking just to get some semi decent result
>>
>>620182
Cycles isn't capable of rendering.
>>
>>620750
How do you explain the donuts, then?




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.