I find I don't have the time (or skill) to do much better within AC and I often find that if I add more detail clients often want design refinements that are beyond the stage that the project is at.īut, I find Lightworks to be pretty cumbersome (at least the way I do it) and slow and it requires a lot of tinkering to get things to look the way I want-especially interiors. I must admit the renderings I do within AC are pretty primitive and I use them primarily to for the client design approval process. Octane Render has something built in to remedy this if you're just using one card but I haven't tested it yet. Also consider having a dedicated GPU for display only so that you can do other task. My tip for choosing a suitable GPU for Octane, the more cuda cores - the faster your renders will process, and the more GPU memory (vram) you have - the larger the scenes and complexity of scenes you can render. I recommend running demos of both first hand if you were choosing between the two. It all depends on what aspects of a rendering program is most important to you. The fact that I embrace the material management part with Octane better, makes me favor Octane over Artlantis, even if I struggle setting up my views. Unless Octane Render made any recent changes to how you navigate/move your camera view, I'd say Artlantis offers better 3d/camera navigation. However, navigating the camera views is somewhat easier in Artlantis. I just understand material management better in Octane.
Interface-wise, I like Octane's 'way' of managing materials. There are many things to compare but here's my two cents. Does anyone have any hands on experience with Artlantis and Octane Render? I would be interested in how the two compare.įrom what I've experienced, they are both great programs with pros and cons.
0 kommentar(er)
