No sorry I haven’t messed with uefn

Aw man thats a bummer to hear! Leave it to epic to drop important features :(

In this case it’s the most basic setup ever, the provided usb c cable, with a powered usb extension cable, directly into usb on a pc machine. The other way you could do it is usb cable to a small pc computer that is mounted in it camera that runs the bliss software, then Ethernet from this small computer to it render machine.

@@AlexPearce3d Thank you

Hey tom! I used owl and it works pretty well all things considered. If you’re using unreal, I think it makes more sense to just use the owl plugin. Octane does have an unreal plugin and you can technically use it and save out the files needed to render in the cloud but I think it probably makes sense only on smaller projects and such.

@@AlexPearce3d I'm still dabbling in 3D for VR (though I do have someone who wants to shoot an actual s3D project with VP!), so just looking at tools and such. But meanwhile, quicker high quality rendering is always a good thing ... although with my bandwidth here, I'd be limited on what I could realistically upload to a cloud.

I think you just need to make sure the Denoise beauty pass is exported when you render, I think it automatically does that when you enable the denoiser.

@@AlexPearce3d Thank you, it worked! I had to enable the "Octane Output" at the Output properties, they weren't enabled by default in my perticular case.

@moritzniehage5281 ah yes, glad you figured it out!

Thanks!

We’ve already chatted on Discord, but thought I’d answer in case someone else sees this. I haven’t used this plugin in a very long time. Jacob wasn’t able to get it to work out of the box.

Thanks!

Short answer is yes I think out of the box, Octane is a lot more photo realistic than most render engines. With the right team and settings you can make any render engine look great, but for me, octane handles this better by default because it is an unbiased spectral render engine, meaning it’s using real world physics to simulate light and such

@@AlexPearce3d thanks. I will be trying to learn ocatane in my freetime.

You should definitely try this first! Cause it won’t cost you much at all to test it out, and you can scale however and whenever you need. The short answer is yes, if you can export an orbx, the render network should be able to handle it! One thing I didn’t mention in this video is that the size of the orbx does dictate how many nodes you get, so if you do have tons and tons of scatter elements and simulations, you may only be able to pick up a few nodes and if they are 100gb files, your internet speed and the node operators internet speed may be a concern, but I would still imagine it would be faster than 10 local machines, even on the extreme ends.

@@AlexPearce3d ooof. Yeah. Good to know. I’ve gotten the scene managed down to apx 6-12 minutes per frame with a dual 3090 which for a single 4090 would be about 4.5-9 minutes per. Worth checking out still. I guess for me it’s just making sure the cycles data translates to octane seamlessly. It’s been years since I’ve tried it.

@@cgooch_ yeah that’s not bad, there are certainly pros and cons to have a local render farm. 6-12 min per frame is not too bad.

@@AlexPearce3d 4K render with a lot of geo scatter and moving parts. Barely fits in 24gb of vram but works out. Yeah. Cutting corners where possible 😮‍💨

@@cgooch_ the geo scatter, if you can do that with octane scatter instead, I would bet it’s a lot more efficient and smaller vram footprint. We’re building a biome addon using octane scatter at the moment. Octane scatter is somewhat limited, but a lot more efficient then most other ways.

You can certainly just file export directly from blender, and not join or test on octane standalone. And with simpler scenes this probably works with no issues at all. In general it’s good practice to test you file on octane standalone and make sure it’s good, and for me, I actually prefer doing a lot of the final tweaks with lighting/materials/render aovs etc in Octane Standalone, I find it faster, easier and more intuitive, and especially with big scenes (but that may be just personal preference). If I’m rendering an animation locally, I also prefer to render it from octane standalone because I feel it’s faster and more stable. I can’t really give a ballpark because it depends on so many factors, but if it’s a simple scene, but if you use the scene from this video, 20 frames of 1080 cost .77 cents. 1440 frames in one minute/20 frames *.77 = $55

@@AlexPearce3d Thank you for the reply, i understand now. And again, great video.

Thanks!

There are many things that just don’t work when you package in the web remote, and I don’t know why :( you might be able to take touch osc or some other protocol to change those parameters. I don’t think i have the bandwidth to do anything on this at the moment.

I doubt it because it relies on nvlink. You can research that term and see what the limits are but I only know of being able to use 2 at one time.

Sorry I haven’t used it in a very long time and can’t answer those questions.

No

Do you have an animated camera that you have imported? If so you can’t really change that. If not, use the camera icon then select a piece of geometry you’d like to orbit around

No idea. Sorry :(