It´s worth using the redshift3d shaders, the new blend material is really nice, normal map blending works nice and the conductor/dielectric option to drive reflection gives believable metal reflection behaviour results easily.
You´ll also get better (lights/shadow) sampling compared to using default shaders. Imho, if you spent time with mR or VRay or Arnold shaders, you will have no problem transfering your knowledge to Redshift3D. In terms of benefiting from speed while tweaking, go and set the renderers threshold to 0.2 or even higher, I find that is good enough for judging light/color intensities and gives fast turnaround. Personally, I tend to push per light lightsamples higher than default, even if that is not neccessary in Redshift3D´s "unified" sampling aproach, to me it feels I have influence on the wheight of samples anyway. Enjoy. It´s really, really cool. Cheers, tim On 08.01.2014 19:08, Byron Nash wrote:
When switching over to Redshift, are you all typically redoing the shaders using the Redshift ones or trying to rely on the compatibility with standard ones? I'm interested to check it out but would like to approach it correctly. Thanks, Byron On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Emilio Hernandez <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: It sounds promising. I don't know. The funny thing is that Quadros actually render slower than GTX in my experience. As they have lower CUDA cores. My GTX470 alone rendered faster than a Quadro 3000. As the GTX is more focused to games and Quadros to faster video display processing, the Quadros have a lower memory bandwith and less CUDA cores. At least from the last comparisions I have doing in the Nvidia site. Actually I was planning to upgrade my GTX470 to a GTX 780Ti instead of the Titan. A few bucks off the price and it has excellent specs. GTX 780 Ti GPU Engine Specs: 2880CUDA Cores 875Base Clock (MHz) 928Boost Clock (MHz) 210Texture Fill Rate (GigaTexels/sec) GTX 780 Ti Memory Specs: 7.0 GbpsMemory Clock 3072 MBStandard Memory Config GDDR5Memory Interface 384-bitMemory Interface Width 336Memory Bandwidth (GB/sec) >From this numbers what you are looking for, is to see which GPU will perform faster are the number of CUDA Cores and the memory bandwith. The higher the better. As the memory bandwith is how fast the data can be transfered to memory to be processed by the CUDA cores. Some guys are already using Redshift with RoyalRender. I don't how fast they are rendering, but now you can have a render farm with cheap processors and a couple of this GPU inside. A quick example. The same scene in round numbers per frame in my machine. Arnold: 15 min Redhsfit: 4 min So you can expect at least a reduction of 73% in your render times. 2014/1/8 Dan Yargici <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> Anyone tried using gpubox with Redshift? http://renegatt.com/ On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 3:55 PM, Stephen Davidson <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: +1 here. Redshift is faster on one machine than Mentalray on two of the same CPU (i7 950) and I am using a Nvidia Quadro FX 3800 (older card) I would imagine multiple CUDA cards would be lightning fast. Redshift is also so well integrated into Softimage. Very little learning to be up and running in a short time. Basically, just a few custom shaders, the rest are the existing shaders. Well worth the $100 Beta and then $300 more when the first release comes out. The tech support is outstanding. I was an Alpha user. Very happy. On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 10:55 PM, Emilio Hernandez <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hey Sebastian have you tried Redshift. The beta is only 100USD and it works like a charm, it is full integrated into Softimage and unless you are going to do Hair or Strands it is worth every penny. Specially for a one man show. Forget about CPU and use the GPU. In my case I can continue working while I am rendering and that is surely a big added value. Faster than MR and faster than Arnold, and zero flickering with GI in animation. 2014/1/7 Sebastien Sterling <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> 9000€... it's going to be tough, but your worth it :) On 6 January 2014 13:34, Sven Constable <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Maybe true but one thing to keep in mind is you don't have to spend extra money for mental ray (at least no significant amount). For one man shows like me mr is still useful. I use it on a small farm with 8 nodes plus the workstation. Switching to arnold will cost me 9000€ . Thats roughly the same cost that my whole DCC apps are about. I see mr like I see the FXTree...it's does not compete to nuke but it's integrated in soft and already there. I agree that there aren't any reasons to stay with mr except the the expense factor and legacy things. sven -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Tim Leydecker Sent: Monday, January 06, 2014 12:12 PM To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: rumor, Soft dead within the next year Now while we are at it. I´m currently preparing assets that need to be free of 3rd party functionality. This means I have to set them up with a mR shading network to start folks off with. mental ray. The common thing between 3DSMax, Maya and Softimage. Please. Kill it. It´s not getting anyone anywhere anymore. I don´t want to discuss details or legacy reasons. Kill it. It´s over. It won´t come back. Selling three different DCC apps that actually share the fact that you will first have to invest in a 3rd party renderer to get something looking half way decent out of them can´t be the most ideal situation but a pretty nice way of creating an industry standard of wasting people´s life with forcing them in personal overtime. What a crap. Really. Provide a renderer that actually works as advertised. Or don´t make me pay for that mR crap. tim On 06.01.2014 11:38, Graham Bell wrote: > Ah, the Dreamcast, a fine console but flawed form the beginning. The tech was ok, but really just a pc and essentially the predecessor to the Xbox. > The problem with the Dreamcast was that it launched right in the middle of when a lot of developers were looking to retool for the PS2. People were caught in the middle of whether to go short for the Dreamcast, or go long for the PS2. Most went with the PS2 and then eventually the Xbox. > > On the Soft and Maya usability front, personally I don't mind both, but then I've always been used to jumping between the two, even back in the Power Animator and Soft3d days. > I've often heard that Maya is hard to learn, or its UI is tricky, but I think this is one of those myths. It's really no better, or worse than any other package to learn really. The one thing to remember about Maya, is that it's very open, it was designed that way. So there can be different (some would say to many) ways to do the same thing. Also, Maya has a lot of preferences, so you can actually change many things, including the UI. It's mastering those things, that can often be the trick. I still see people now, some experienced Maya vets, who aren't using the hotbox or marking menus correctly and they can be key to Maya's UI and usability. > > However I'd still like some Softimage fairy dust sprinkled on some of > Maya's UI though. Now when it comes to Max, don't get me > started.......:-) > > > > From: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Dan > Yargici > Sent: 06 January 2014 09:44 > To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: rumor, Soft dead within the next year > > Softimage is the Dreamcast of DCC apps. > > Playstation had the slick marketing, Dreamcast had the tech but got chewed to pieces by the Playstation hype machine and Playstation won. When Sega finally gave up on the console business every man and his dog came out singing the praises of the Dreamcast. > > > > > On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Stefan Kubicek <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote: > Is it just my biased point of view that all studios that closed or filed for bancruptcy last year were Maya based? > It could of course be that there are more Maya based studios closing than Softimage based ones simply because there are more Maya based studios, but I still smell a pattern there. > > I always felt that the number of users on Softimage is directly related to marketing efforts. I remember Alias/Wavefront doing a remarkable job in the early days of Maya in this regard. I never saw anything like that happening for Softimage at any time of it's existence. > Ultimately, there are only two types of 3D artists: those who use Softimage, and those who have never tried. -> Get more prople to seriously try it. > > > > > > > So guys, I spent a weekend working with Maya...HOW THE F@CK THIS PROGRAM IS USED IN PRODUCTION????????? > > > This is the same question I always ask myself after using Maya when required... and Maya being the "Industry Standard" makes you understand so many things about the industry standards... > > [http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/8965/erojamailpleca.jpg] > > 2014/1/6 Szabolcs Matefy > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> > So guys, I spent a weekend working with Maya...HOW THE F@CK THIS PROGRAM IS USED IN PRODUCTION????????? > > Ok, I can use Maya, I have a quite solid background working with Maya, > but seriously guys...It's so overcomplicated, and brainkilling...In > Softimage almost everything is just fine (OK, we need development), > but in Maya, the easiest task takes quite long compared to > SI...Finally I found myself fixing UVs, Unfolding, etc. in > Softimage...Anyway, I need some samples in Maya, so I take a big > breath, and continue working with Maya...But seriously, Softimage is > way better in many point of view. It has no artisan, has no PaintFX, > but for example rendering is way faster (with MR), shading setup is > way faster, modeling is lot faster, and so on. So I really don't > understand, how come that Softimage is not acknowledged at all. I > swear guys, that I'll spread the Word of Softimage > > > Cheers > > Szabolcs > > From: > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]><mailto:softimage-bounces@listp <mailto:softimage-bounces@listp> > roc.autodesk.com <http://roc.autodesk.com>> > [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]><mailto:softimage-bounc <mailto:softimage-bounc> > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>] On Behalf Of Henry Katz > Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2014 8:18 PM > To: > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > > Subject: Re: rumor, Soft dead within the next year > > Good thing I asked. > > On 01/04/2014 05:40 PM, Stephen Blair wrote: > Softimage doesn't support Python 3.x > > > On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Henry Katz <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote: > Steve, > > No issues with python 3.3 as well, before I bruise my knuckles on the bleeding edge? > > Cheers, > Henry > On 01/03/2014 02:47 AM, Steven Caron wrote: > really? > > install pyqt > set softimage to use system python, uncheck... > file>preferences>scripting>use python installed with softimage run the example scripts pyqtforsoftimage plugin provides. or just 'import PyQt4' > > s > > On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Angus Davidson <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote: > A non nonsense guide to installing pYQT would be great. So many great tools are never used because people cant get past trying to get the install to work. > > > > > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------- > Stefan Kubicek > ------------------------------------------- > keyvis digital imagery > Alfred Feierfeilstraße 3 > A-2380 Perchtoldsdorf bei Wien > Phone: +43/699/12614231 <tel:%2B43%2F699%2F12614231><tel:%2B43%2F699%2F12614231> > www.keyvis.at <http://www.keyvis.at><http://www.keyvis.at> > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > -- This email and its attachments are -- --confidential and for the > recipient only-- > -- Best Regards, * Stephen P. Davidson** **(954) 552-7956 <tel:%28954%29%20552-7956> * [email protected] /Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic/ - Arthur C. Clarke <http://www.3danimationmagic.com>
