Sebastion, I think they're comparing it with Mental Ray simply because
of its degree of integration within Softimage, not because of its
results. And as Andreas said, MR really does have great shaders. The
"Redshift Architectural" material was originally derived from the MR
version, for example, but has since evolved. There are plans to replace
the RS_Arch shader entirely with a new uber-material that would include
SSS as well (I've been wanting to blend SSS and Refraction in the same
shader for a while now...). Beyond the integration and shader support
though, /Redshift is nothing like Mental Ray at all/.
If you're interested in what kinds of shading nodes Redshift offers (or
which XSI ones it supports), you can see that in the public docs here
<http://docs.redshift3d.com/Default.html>, under the 'Shaders' section.
As for the contrast between the Octane workflow and the RS workflow...
surely it's night and day. Redshift is very tightly integrated into XSI,
much like SITOA is. It's a really smooth experience. Unless they've
changed some things recently with Octane, the raw workflow for using
Octane is not nearly as fluid.
In regards to Nancy's original question... it's amazing how many
proponents of Redshift have appeared in the last few months. Having used
all the renderers mentioned here, I'd also suggest Redshift, since
Arnold is just overkill for the kind of work you do, Nancy (judging
strictly by what I can gather, of course).
-Tim
On 3/23/2014 12:56 AM, Sebastien Sterling wrote:
What is the workflow like vs Octane ? has anyone tested ?
I mean i hear people comparing Redshift to Mentalray in matters of
handling, personally i'm not a fan of MR interaction, but that might
just be bias on account of the slowness, and the all around
instability, and the crashing and the artefacts...
Are the nodes anything different to what you would usually get ?
On 23 March 2014 05:00, phil harbath <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I don't know much about mac pros, is that a pci-e 2 slot (or
less?), so even though you are putting pci-e 3 cards in an older
slot you are still getting that kind result? I have an computer
about that age, if that works, that would be a no brainer.
*From:* Ed Manning <mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent:* Sunday, March 23, 2014 12:05 AM
*To:* [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: Rendering alternative to mental ray needed..
On the economic advantages of redshift or other gpu renderers.
My current workstations are Mac Pro 3.1s which are left over from
the company I shut down in 2009 (bootcamped into Windows).
Essentially worthless from a CPU standpoint. Putting a single
$1000 titan gpu into one of them makes it more efficient at
rendering than any modern 16-core $8,000 workstation running any
CPU ray tracer. Putting 2 titans in them is like having my old
162-core blade server renderfarm without the $5000/month electric
bill. Not to mention all the IT overhead and license costs.
I have never seen a single piece of software (in concert with the
astonishing graphics hardware that is now so cheap and still
getting cheaper) have such a cost-reducing impact.
Plus they are fanatically hard workers and great communicators.
--
Signature
