Leaderboard

It is not correct that RS in the latest release of C4D is NOT GPU enabled. It was at one time when you could purchase C4D without RS but no longer. You only have to look at the pricing to convince yourself that RS is now GPU enabled in C4D. Here is why. Maxon raised the prices of an annual C4D subscription from roughly $720 USD to $983 per year with the latest 2024 release (maybe it was the 2023 release, not sure). That is exactly $263 more which is about equal to the annual subscription price for the full stand-alone version of RS at $264/year. Oddly enough that increase is also equal to the annual subscription cost for Octane which is $264.4 USD (at this time as Octane is only priced in Euro's). So, if Maxon is increasing the prices for C4D + Redshift (the only option they offer for C4D now), then you are getting the full RS which means with the GPU renderer. These facts also fly in the face of the arguments of people switching to Octane if they are forced to pay additional for RS as part of the C4D bundle. Cost is removed from that argument if you are a render engine agnostic (e.g. no render religion). This may be why RS was bundled with C4D to begin with because if you are only looking for a GPU enabled renderer, then C4D now has one and therefore removes the financial need to look elsewhere. Getting Octane for C4D is now an additional cost on top of the C4D + RS subscription in achieving that goal. You can still have that choice between Octane or RS at cost parity, but only if you want to stay with C4D R25 (the last perpetual license) or earlier. And honestly when you look at all the advancements made with C4D since then (pyro, new improved physics' system, some great modeling tools, capsules, etc.), then you have to rethink your entire DCC kit of tools because staying with C4D R25 is NOT the best choice for keeping current (already 2 years behind). Therefore, the choice between Octane and RS is NOT a financial one. It is whether or not each renderer is meeting your personal and artistic needs. The personal needs come from ease of use, stability and speed. Which is more valuable to you? Honestly, this is something you can't argue simply because it is personal. I don't think RS is that difficult to optimize and I like the control it gives me. If I am rendering with motion blur, then do I really need to worry as much about noise? Probably not so let's cut back on the ray count to decrease render time. I also love the fact that I can import an old C4D scene, and the materials automatically convert to RS. This keeps all my old assets relevant. Now is the conversion 100% perfect? Well, it is getting there, but at least the integration with C4D gives me a very good starting point and removes a ton of work for large scenes. Does Octane convert old C4D AR scenes to Octane materials? Not sure but that would be good to know. So, if you leave ease of use and speed off the table, then the argument comes down to stability and artistic fulfillment. Simply, which renderer produces the better image with the least amount of effort. Note the emphasis on effort. Why? Well in the hands of a true master, you can get great results out of any render engine. Now that is a discussion worth having! Dave