Arnold on GPU when?
Private beta starts soon(?) (may have already started) Release "when it is ready"
>>618082I estimate 1 year.Redshift will do in the meantime.
>>618119Yeah 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.
>>618140What 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.
>>618167Redshift 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]
>>618453Do 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 applicationHow do you remember to breathe?
>>618514>paid plugin>not a producthttps://www.autodesk.com/products/arnold/overviewThe state of /3/
>>618560>https://www.autodesk.com/products/arnold/overviewYou know that there is a standalone version of arnold right?
>>618082>Using anything but cycles
>>619227Why would I use Cycles over better alternatives?
>>619534you better have the renders to prove that something better than Cycles actually exists, shitkid
>>619541>low quality baitOne word: caustics.
>>619699caustics are great in cycles already
>>619700...are they? How can I make spectral dispersion in Cycles in a reasonable amount of time?
>>619719rent a farm. It'll easy pay for itself, just like when someone who owns a business hires more workers at cheap cost
>>619722Why 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?
>>619978you can rent a blender farm and put it down as a charitable donation to Ton and Brecht
>>619980Or buy some real software.
>>619982thanks, kike
>>619988d-delet this
>>618082Is that muddy blurry pixel soup supposed to be impressive?
>>618082Have 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.
>>620006Arnold is so simple to use it doesnt need tutorials.
>>619995I'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
>>620006Because 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.
>>619722Cycles isn't capable of rendering accurate spectral dispersion. The question was a trap.
>>620020arnold is endless tweaking just to get some semi decent result
>>620182Cycles isn't capable of rendering.
>>620750How do you explain the donuts, then?
