![]() It's really easy to make a viewport override, forget that you did that, make a bunch of decisions based on those overrides, and then come to find that it doesn't match the information that's sent to your ROP node. * I think it's a big deal to have a mismatch between your viewport preview render and the final USD information that gets processed when using the USD Rop. That being said, simplicity isn't the highest virtue with USD, and having the option to bypass those complications with Redshift is a big advantage to a freelancer who needs as much simplicity as possible to remain fast. There's a lot of complications to USD, and Pixar, the developer of USD, is used to deadlines that are much longer than your average freelance artist. I wouldn't underestimate the gravity of that when you're faced with tight deadlines on a freelance project. ![]() USD can add a lot of complications and a significant learning curve. * Being that you're a solo/freelance artist, I don't think you'll see as much benefit with USD. * Motion blur documentation features scattered ideas that shoot in different directions, don't provide you with the best (or any) examples, and seem to be written with multiple ideas in mind which makes it confusing to read. * Just try to pull up some Mtlx nodes, you won't find much. I haven't tested this in Karma (and maybe it's there) but I doubt you'll find the same thing because SideFX has been trying to catch up with basic features to make a brand new render engine. For example, Redshift just added support for Transmission BTDF shadows. * Karma is still new, and it will take awhile to catch up to some of the latest tech. ![]() which is nice to have when you're time is in a pinch and you need to get a render out quickly. Karma, as a render engine, is still green - Redshift is more mature. Redshift has the advantage of being in the game longer than Karma has. For example, you won't find a car paint shader with Karma, but Redshift you have lots of tools there for layering multiple clear coats, adding specular flakes, and dealing with that specific situation. things that come with age that Karma has yet to incorporate. * When it comes to SSS, redshift provides you with the option of random walk, ray-traced diffusion, and point-based diffusion. Ambient occlusion doesn't work, and even if it did, the node doesn't have any features which would allow you to control things like spread angle, remap the values, etc. For example, in the tri-planar node, you cannot scale, rotate, or offset your projections. * Many basic functions are missing in Mtlx nodes. That's what artists should pay software devs for. Besides, artists don't have time for that. You can hack noises, but at that point you're just creating your own algorithms, and that won't come close to touching the artistic quality offered by Maxon noises. This can make a huge difference in shading workflows that need to take advantage of hi-fidelity detail that doesn't look like a perlin noise. * Karma doesn't have nearly the same variety of noises that Redshift does. * Color management is inconsistent depending on where you decide to preview / export your images. * I've run across major freezes with motion blur. * You can't layer multiple materials together with a mtlx mix node * Mtlx Ambient Occlusion doesn't work for me. The only fix is to reset it occasionally by going to the Houdini GL -> dropdown -> reset Karma * I've noticed that Karma will gradually slow down as I'm building shader trees. If I spend a whole day shading in Karma, I would expect the same. * Yesterday I crashed around 8 times and had one hard reset where my GPU froze. The devil is always in the details, so I'll give you some examples: Karma has been crashy, buggy, lacking in features, lacking in documentation, and harder to use than Redshift for me thus far. XPU, and I wouldn't switch from Redshift quite yet. I've been running quite a few different tests / scenarios with Redshift vs. You have 3 gpu soo if the scene isn't go out-of core i dont think the speed differences will be relevent for youįor the tweaking again it depend which scene because karma XPU isn't perfect ( redshift is easier) most of the users and me will suggest you to use karma because of the quality period.Īnd for the speed redshift is fast and very fast BUT (and thats a big but) in general it depends on the size of the scene ,in very large scenes karma is faster. Afaik, this is not yet implemented in Karma, right? What are the (dis)advantages in terms of speed, tweaking and ease of use?Īs I am no render expert at all, I always liked redshift's autosampling feature. I would like to hear what you guys think about switching to karma XPU. I am a freelancer with a single workstation and three nvidia gpus. It's fast, the houdini integration is really good and feature wise, it suits my needs. I am using redshift for quite a while now and I like it.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |