Hello,
Ycarry, a logical step in this troubleshooting process is to investigate as many possibilities as reasonable and then come to a conclusion based upon the data available.
I didn't see a problem in Thea or modo with the vases or the cylinder, even on close inspection, I'm not tweaking anything in those applications to compensate. The fact that I simplified the object indicates that I wanted to see if the problem was with a complex model. The teapot example that was given on the Octane forum had horrible distortions when rendered in Octane. Increasing subdivision does not solve the problem, the distortion is still there when you zoom in. It is ironic that the teapot image was given to counter the assertion that there was something wrong with Octane in processing the geometry. If you think MoI does bad exports then you must also think modo exports bad geometry as well, since that geometry has the same faceting problem. You do realize companies buy MoI on the quality of the export alone, and I think the Luxology would have some real big problems if they didn't export OBJ correctly given their pure modeling foundation.
I took the time to go through a logical measured process to eliminate problem sources. It is an Octane problem, not MoI, not Thea, not modo. The only one that doesn't play nice is Octane, it is a repeatable and consistent issue, It is acknowledged by a set of licensed users of Octane even on the Octane forums. You can see evidence of it in transparent images on the Octane forum. I guess the real issue here is being able to acknowledge that Octane is a beta product with bugs. I'm not knocking the software, I'm knocking the denial on the part of the developers and some of the users, by not acknowledging the problem you end up hurting it.
Lastly, I don't take offense at what your saying, some people get highly emotional about products, I'm not one of those people.
|
