Hi OSTexo - the other thing I seem to remember is that it didn't handle the situation of 2 faces sharing a point location in common but having unique vertex normals for each one. You'll get a mesh like that if you have the "Weld vertices along edges" option set when you are exporting from MoI.

So I'd recommend turning welding off and set "Output: Quads & Triangles" when exporting to Octane and see if that makes any difference.

- Michael

Hello,

Both were exported triangles. I tried the other options including n-gons but ran into the same problem. You are correct that if the object is not transparent / translucent it doesn't seem to exhibit these problems. From a purely consumer standpoint, this seems to be a pretty fundamental issue for a renderer, how you can ignore the elephant in the room makes me wonder about the caliber of development going into Octane.

Hi OSTexo,

> Both were exported triangles.

That should be fine - either all triangles or quads & triangles will avoid any n-gon processing issues in the renderer.

But what about welding? Did you export from Moi with welding on or welding off?

At least at one point in the past Octane had difficulty dealing with welded meshes, if you exported with welding enabled then that could be what you were running into.

- Michael

Hello,

Exported from MoI ,quads and triangles, welding off, the Octane Render doesn't look to good. This will render correctly in Thea.

OSTexo:

I believe that those are smoothing issues and not normal issues. If you make your mesh finer (by increasing the number of triangles), then it should work much better.

Hello,

So how do you explain the smooth result in Thea with the same file? The vase objects are certainly dense enough to show a proper result. It's a bug in Octane, a finer mesh does not fix the problem.

<< So how do you explain the smooth result in Thea with the same file?>>

Thea and Octane are extremely different programs and use different smoothing algorithms. IMO, one of the weaker areas in Octane is that it requires a very high polygon count when using glossy or specular materials. Thea actually announced that they had rewritten their smoothing algorithms to get rid of the terminator artifact issue that many other renderers have. You can read about it here: http://www.thearender.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=4331

<< The vase objects are certainly dense enough to show a proper result. It's a bug in Octane, a finer mesh does not fix the problem.>>

I seriously doubt that it is a bug in Octane. There are hundreds of amazing images that are coming out of Octane every month. Nobody on their forums is complaining about this issue. Why don't you post your issue on their forums. There are lots of friendly users that I am sure would be glad to help.

Hello,

The terminator artifact problem is present in Octane, I tried some tests thinking that might be the problem, but it doesn't make sense that when I switch to different materials in Octane the problem goes away using the same model, does it?

I'll have to disagree with you about it not being a bug in Octane. Like I said previously I have posted the issue on the forums, and have heard nothing from the developers. I get the indication that the developers are aware of the problem, but choose to ignore it. In fact, there are numerous examples on the Octane Render forums with similar faceting in transparent materials present in objects created in modelers other than MoI. Just because someone doesn't complain about a problem doesn't mean there isn't a problem. Some of the more vocal users on the forum gave the same lines that you are typing, not enough mesh density, smoothing problem, problem with the model, which leads me to believe these users are not interested in insisting on a fix, they choose to ignore the error as well.

In short, this problem is not user error, it is an Octane error. I realize it is in beta, so hopefully someone over there will come to their senses and squash the bug causing this. I'll agree with you that it is a fast renderer, although not accurate at this point. I think the Octane developers are working at a significant disadvantage. I have to think that the Thea developers have a much greater depth of experience in this field, so it is not surprising that they are much further ahead with a relatively slower CPU based, but highly accurate product.

OSTexo,
you had a bad export to .obj and even if THEA partially correct the prob - by removing itself double vertices - you still have construction problem with Thea, Octane, Blender, Wings,... Here speaking about 'vases.obj' you send on forum, so again: give us the vase MoI model and we sure find a solution correcting the export.

I took the time to try and replicate your image. It isn't an exact match, since I don't know a lot about the specifics of your setup (rendering kernel used, lighting environment used, specular settings, camera setttings, etc), but it is relatively close.

This is a direct export/import from MoI to Octane. As you can see, I am not getting the issues that you are, so there must be something specific that you are doing that causes the issue.

Here is the Octane render:



And here is the screen capture from MoI:



And here are the export settings for MoI:

Hello,

You can't explain why it is happening so how could you possibly help with a fix? Ycarry, you were one of the posters who saw no problem with Octane, so why are you here exactly since you don't acknowledge a problem? I don't think I ever got an explanation on why every other renderer I try with this scene renders it properly, except for Octane. I'm not looking for conjecture by any user, I am truly interested in hearing for a developer why this is happening. If you'd read the Octane thread in its correct context you will see that some users acknowledge that there is a problem with Octane and transparent materials. In fact, if you look at some current images involving transparent materials on the Octane forums you will find examples with gross distortions in transparent materials, even the one a user tried to use to say my model was the problem.

Yhwh, are you using a specular material with index around 1.6? Your surface looks highly reflective on the top. Your comparison isn't close enough, a tighter fit would be to see how it looks when viewing through the top and backside of the model. I'm not doing any material mixing at all. You realize that you will see the same faceting when you zoom in on the object given your higher mesh density? Your "test" smacks of dishonesty, I would hope it is unintentional especially when you have access to my test mesh. Increasing mesh density does not solve this problem, if you zoom in even at density 3 using your settings you see the same faceting.

OSTexo:

<< Your "test" smacks of dishonesty...>>

I have a few choice words for you but I won't post them on this forum. I (as well as many others) have tried to help you on this forum, as well as the Octane forum, but all you want to do is bash everyone around. Everyone on both forums is telling you that it is your mesh that is the issue, but you don't want to listen. Everyone else must be wrong because you know better!

I tried to create a cylinder that looked like yours. I didn't have the specifics to your scene, so I did the best that I could. I think that I came pretty close. And my image has no vertex issues at all.

I read the thread that you have discussed (from over a year ago) on the Octane forums and one of the developers did reply to you. It was also pointed out that your meshes contained duplicate vertices (which will cause problems with many renderers). If you created a mesh from MoI, then you shouldn't have had duplicate vertices, so I am now starting to wonder how honest you really are about all of this.

It seems that you don't really want a solution, so at this point I have decided that you are a troll.

Good day sir.

...And a perfectly good thread catches a flame. ;-)

Sorry Mike,
I feel I had a part...

I also feel a "Making it with MoI TOO" comming on. :o

All right guys - I split off all the Octane posts to a separate thread here and please lets just let it die off instead of continuing into a flame war. The Octane forum would probably be a better place to have this discussion.

- Michael

Well, if anything, it put Thea Render at the top of my renderer consideration list. ;-)

Hello,

Yhwh, someone interested in coming to the root of a problem would gather as much information about the settings as possible, not throw up an image using a different material and mesh density to deflect criticism, that's hardly a "solution". So yes, whether intentional or not your example was not honest, and your response to being called out confirms your true intent. Your thoughts on me being a troll are immaterial to the discussion, background noise, and do not explain the problem that Octane Render has, it's just another attempt at deflection.

You seem to keep forgetting Octane is still a beta product, and as I have said before these problems are expected in beta software. An Octane developer did request the test file, it was provided promptly and there was no response either publicly or privately afterward from the developer. It makes sense from a development and commercial point of view that an explanation be given if it was a problem with the model. I did not receive any statement from the developer to that effect. The "response" from the developer was a request for further information to investigate the matter, I think anyone would agree that is not a solution explanation.

By the way, creating the same scene in modo 501 sp4 gives a similar faceted result in Octane. I created a cylinder primitive, created a plane for the floor and and a plane for the backdrop, and export to OBJ. The problem is repeatable and consistent. If you choose to ignore it I have no problem with it, but others might. I typically like to give my impressions of products, whether good or bad, especially when those products involve someone parting with their hard earned money.

While you think it is insane to pay $2K for a renderer, $140 may be just as serious to those without many funds. I don't think someone would be too happy with this result if they encountered the same result, with no explanation from the developers and an unsatisfactory "solution" from users that masks, rather than fixes the problem.

On a different note, I apologize for the thread hijack Magic and MG.

Hi OSTexo,

I feel your pain about Octane, I was having some really hard time to resolve basic vertex normal trouble last year.
Taking one week to proove that :

- No my model is not wrong (as it render right in many other renderer)
- Yes I know what I'm doing
- No MoI is not doing anything wrong.

Then, only, they slowly accept the idea that something was wrong in Octane.
They tried to fix it the wrong way first (using smoothing group), and claim everything was ok now.

At that time I was really upset :P so they manage to kick my ass from the forum,
and my licence was refund. So pay attention how far you are ready to go when complaining, as they
are not always open, and emotive like a teenager.

About the product itself, Octane is really great for product shot ...

but ...

- it's buggy and easy to crash (beta beta)
- not that fast if you are after a clean final image (grain, aliasing)
- so many features missing compared to a 'cpu' renderer
- you need a second gfx card if you expect to use your computer while rendering
- you need an active internet connection to use the software.

Hello,

PaQ, I'm sorry to hear that, hopefully you found a renderer that would fit your workflow more appropriately. I invested in both Thea and Octane, they were inexpensive enough for my budget and I thought there might be room for both of them in the toolbox. I have to say I am really happy with Thea, and although it is slower I have a much higher degree of confidence that it will continue to deliver the great results.

I think I got my answer by not getting one from the Octane developers. In a broader sense, people usually invest in perceived value more than actual value, and I believe it is absolutely critical to know this when releasing a product into the market. Certain companies are acutely aware of this, and others are not, and the ones that aren't usually end up in a worse spot than those that do. I never understood the thinking behind not responding to these sort of support requests corporately, rather allowing end users with no involvement in development or vested interest in the financial well being of the corporation speak for the company. It certainly is cheaper to do it this way, but it leads to a highly distorted view of what the real market is looking for and doesn't end well.

Hi

OSTexo,
You send to Octane a CAD obj made in MoI converted to poly .obj
and as in 99% of cases (!) the prob appear when converted to poly

In the case of "vase.obj", I showed you the prob after conversion: duplicate vertices (not some but hundreds!), edges weld,...
I showed you with screenshots made from Thea that prob appear in Thea too, and how Thea (try to) solve it transforming itself the object

The most important for all is not only to criticize an application (here Octane)
when/if a prob appear but to understand how and why and solve it.
Im sure you can solve your problem only by different export setup
just send us the MoI file and we try to help you.

Its just to understand, not against you or your work or Octane

all the rest depend of mood (or testosterone rate, or day time, or...)

ps: hope my english is good enough to calm you all