Mash

Well, All I'd suggest is turning off all SDS and instead apply an octane tag with SDS. SDS at octane render time is basically free as far as memory goes so there's no need to mess around with distance-based tricks. Just leave everything at the base resolution in the c4d editor and let the octane tag handle smoothing everything regardless of distance.

Generally it follows exactly what the final rendering will look like so the picture viewer and live view match. You can use the solo mode to quickly get rid of stuff from the live view. For subdivisions, there's the option to not use c4d's SDS, instead you can add an octane tag to an object and use the octane SDS to use a specific level of smoothness.

What is it thats different? are we just talking object subdivision levels?

You were all annoyed when they got rid of the cheaper C4D Go, Broadcast and Art editions, well now they're basically back! Everyone rejoice!, Maxon are listening to their userbase and doing exactly what they asked for! I strongly suspect the number of users who will be pissed off by this move and will go find another app, is greater than the number of users they will get to upgrade to the full One bundle.

First step is always remove plugins and see if it still happens. If so, you have an answer. This much ram could only legitimately be used up by some sort of particle/fluid system.

Well... you're either making it in 3D, and then we can help, or you're drawing a fake one in photoshop/illustrator; In which case that's not really a topic anyone here is going to spend the time to walk you through step by step.

Octane support of c4d gradients is a little hit and miss, only the basic abilities are supported, things like cycle (tile) just dont work. You have 2 options: 1) set the texture tag uv tiling back to 100% so theres only 1 copy, then add all the stripes into the gradient itself. Right click the gradient and start hitting "double knots" and "distribute knots" to do this quickly. 2) Leave it as you have it, but tell octane to bake the gradient shader down to pixels. Open the node editor, right click the gradient node, select "OSL/baking mode > Bake it > " and then select a resolution to bake to.

Go from the 17 minute mark. In short they're not massively useful.

Open c4d Open the preferences Click the button at the bottom This takes you to the location for c4ds prefs and caches Close c4d Uninstall c4d Delete everything you see in the folder you left open from before Reinstall c4d

The CPU engine is multiple times slower than a typical GPU will be. There's pretty much no reason to use it, its largely just there to upsell you on a redshift or maxon one subscription.

Yes, but ironically depending on the resize sample mode, that would soften the image and actually improve the image quality due to the bump algorithm now having some shades of grey with which to create a slope in the normals 😄

Just FYI, the DPI of an image will do literally nothing to the image/texture quality, its a meaningless value as far as computer graphics go, it only has context if you start printing artwork. All that matters here is that the bump has enough pixels of resolution (~4000 should be fine for what youre trying to do), that you dont mess it up with a lossy file format like jpg (png would be a better choice), and that the artwork has some softness to the edges (gaussian blur it)

We'll be able to help an awful lot more with a project file. Looking at the screenshots my main guess would be that you have 2 bottles in the same place, one with a bump and one without, and theyre fighting to see which gets rendered. Maybe you copied the bottle model intending to change it into a liquid or outer label but forgot about it?

Is this a new machine youve recently bought or have you already had it a couple of years? I guess my main question is why a pair of expensive, energy sucking xeon server chips and not a single more modern efficient threadripper? They're 14nm 200+ watt chips when you could have a slightly slower 32 core threadripper (but faster for everything else outside of rendering old projects) on much newer 7nm tech or a 64 core chip which would be faster and still cheaper than a pair of xeons.

I couldn't recommend either of those specs to anyone as a 3d workstation personally. The budget build blows its own foot off with a shotgun by using an intel arc gpu. Immediately most of the gpu render engines are off the table due to no cuda support, but beyond that I would never recommend a system with V1.0 gpu drivers for a work machine, its just begging for something to not work. Streaming is broken, video encoding is broken and you cant reliably render with them. Maybe further down the road when the drivers are sorted out it might be a viable choice, but not today. For the high end machine, what reason would someone pick 2 xeon cpus and then pair it with an A6000? This system makes a significant single threaded speed sacrifice in order to get those 48 cores, you would only pick this system if you are doing heavy 3d cpu renders, but if thats the case then why blow half the the system's budget on an A6000 card? If you're deep into CPU rendering territory then you would be much better served by a 64 core threadripper. If youre doing gpu rendering then you would have far better performance with an 8-16 core cpu with higher clocks and a pair of 3090 or 4090 cards. It isnt a bad machine, its just a machine which wastes half of its budget no matter which way you slice it.

I think you probably need to go spend some time researching the topic as you have some misconceptions about what they will offer and the main reasons for using one. First of all, there are no render engines where you will be able to open an old c4d project, press render and have a better looking image, it simply isn't going to help, and even if it did work, it would be missing the point. Whilst most engines will have a basic conversion function, that conversion is only a starting point to begin moving things over. There are several reasons to use another render engine, but you need to strike "it looks better" from the list, what you're really aiming for here would be "it looks better with less effort and in a shorter amount of time" All render engines have their own materials, their own lights, their own cameras and their own render settings, you will need to get familiar with these to make any progress. I'll use octane for my examples because its the one im most familiar with. In physical I have to spend time messing about with the clunky multilayered reflectance channel, dialing in obscure conductor and dielectric settings to get a realistic finish. In octane, just pick the starting material you want and 90% of the work is done (metal, glass, diffuse, glossy etc) In c4d I have to spend ages adding polygon bevels to my models to get nice realistic edges, In octane I just tick the "round edges" setting in the material and it does a high quality bevel at render time. In physical I have to restrict usage of area lights, area shadows, soft reflections and frosted glass because it destroys render times, in octane I turn on whatever I want because it makes no real difference. In physical I avoid GI because it adds a zero to the end of the render time and flickers if I get the wrong setting. In octane, GI is on by default and it makes no significant difference to render times. In physical I render out depth passes so I can apply DOF in after effects. In octane its so fast and looks perfect, so I just render DOF in the renderings. In physical I click render, go make a sandwich and 5 mins later I can see enough of the image to make a judgement call about whether my light has the right brightness, is in the right position etc. If not, I adjust it, hit render and browse reddit for another 5 minutes. Basically when it comes to the final look, Im making about 10-15 decisions an hour to get it looking right. In octane, the change is instant, maybe up to 5-10 seconds of rendering before I can make a decision. I can get 100's of adjustments done to my scene per hour. Regarding hardware and render speed, it opens up a whole world of opportunities. If you took a single machine and put a single 4090 gpu in it, you would possibly have all the render power you would ever need all in a single system. You would be able to churn out thousands of 1080p animation frames overnight, or 100's of high res 8k stills. In octane a full production quality 1080p animation frame takes us about 10-30 seconds to render with all the bells and whilstles on. That same frame with AO, GO, blurry reflections, best AA, motion blur, DOF in physical, would take an hour on a 16 core Ryzen system. If we're doing 8k stills then it might be 2-10 minutes depending on complexity compared to a couple of hours for the same still in physical. TLDR; You need to look at alternative render engines as an opportunity to get better looking images in a fraction of the time, and to be able to do all renders in-house with no more render farms. They're not a simple way to click a button and everything looks better. PS. just to say clearly what Srek probably isn't allowed to say. Redshift in CPU render mode is complete garbage and should be used by nobody. It has no reason to exist.

To add to the above, don't be afraid to cut, either in the 3d timeline or in post production. One pit that many 3d people fall into is animating one single never ending camera movement. In the real world they would have filmed the left to right pan with a camera on a rail or crane. Then they would switch to another camera shot for the closeup. It will help you to get a more natural animation if you do the same. Either animate the camera suddenly jumping to a new location over the span of a single frame, or render out 2 individual sequences and stick them together afterwards. Considering your shot, go watch some lord of the rings and find a scene where they do some ring closeup shots

Make sure "View > Use as render view" is enabled on your main camera's viewport.

Much better 🙂

You have several keyframes all set to disable your arrow extrudes.

All Octane dcc plugins are a single dev afaik.

Use pcpartpicker.com to check your system for compatibility Between the gpus, theres not a massive difference, theyre just different manufacturers sticking the same parts together into a product. The only differences are the fan cooling system and the warranty. https://www.techpowerup.com/review/gigabyte-geforce-rtx-4090-gaming-oc/38.html

I have no idea about the financials behind it, but if I had the choice, I would go back to opening up the forum for all visitors. you can ignore ads, you can ignore hit and run questions, I dont think theyre a significant detriment to the site.

Not sure. If you can whack that material on a cube and share it then we can take a look though.

Whats the texture tag settings next to the object?