FStorm vs Redshift

[Refik]

Hello ! Somebody makes a comparison Fstorm RedShift entirely on one and the same scene? It would be interesting to know the results .. Particularly interested in the difference in speed, light shadows and other things.
Thanks!

[RobSteady]

http://zchen.ca/gpu/

[Karba]

He should use FStorm portals. They are very powerful.

[RobSteady]

He should use FStorm portals. They are very powerful.

Better use portals instead of hidden lights in windows (if I remember right the scene has hidden fstorm lights)? Seems like...

[Karba]

Better use portals instead of hidden lights in windows (if I remember right the scene has hidden fstorm lights)? Seems like...

I didn't find any

[RobSteady]

I didn't find any

But there was a portal - at least when I downloaded the scene.

[savat]

Ok, first of all, there's a portal in the scene (max 2016 version for sure) but...this epic fight can't be closed with a simple "use the light portal!"
104 min v 7.54 min (nearly noise free) can't be an usable result (maybe?) so...redshift users that use fstorm too could better compare pro and cons of these two renderer.
My profane opinion: incredible time render speed for redshift (GI light seems not so good) and incredible light/tuning for fstorm (fast but not fastest).

[Iskánder ivp87]

My profane opinion: incredible time render speed for redshift (GI light seems not so good) and incredible light/tuning for fstorm (fast but not fastest).

I haven't used RedShift myself yet, but... so far the images I have seen have that something that just don't feel right to me, that lumion look to them, is subjective

I have read people saying that RedShift is kind of a VR running on GPU but at the same time I haven't seen a single RS image that can compare to lots of VR images produced even by amateurs and 3d beginners, and maybe this is subjective too, but I prefer a lot the FStorm lighting over the VR anytime and I'm using a FStorm veta, not even the last veta... so I guess it depends
if you are ok with the RS results, and plus it's near 10 times faster than FStorm or anything, I would go blindly with RS and ignore all the comments about how bad or how fake it looks or anything else bad about it

for exapmple, long time ago I had a work for a bowling chain, and RS would have been perfect

[Karba]

Ok, now I see it. Sorry
it is showed as a box, this is why I missed it

What I changed is GI clamp to 0.2, noise threshold to 0.02 and remove environment importance sampling (useless with constant environment)
GI clamp 0.2 is the reason why it has so less noise in my render then. it decreases render time from 104 minutes to about 30

The main difference is FStorm doesn't use any interpolation like Light Cache.
VRay and RedShift use Light Cache.

[savat]

...
if you are ok with the RS results, and plus it's near 10 times faster than FStorm or anything, I would go blindly with RS and ignore all the comments about how bad or how fake it looks or anything else bad about it

...

Less unbiased and "only" 5 time faster could be a good recipe. "10 time faster then vray" is what people says about the brute force in Arnold, so...this could be a good goal for the unbiased roadmap that Karba wants to follow

[antonyebl]

bump map on the floor adds too much noise imho (slow-down?) + visually I even prefer it without (there may be a midde-ground found there...)

(both images are 7m53s on gtx1070 as in the write-up, only resized (h1440) for the forum)

[Iskánder ivp87]

bump map on the floor adds too much noise imho (slow-down?) + visually I even prefer it without (there may be a midde-ground found there...)
[ATTACH=CONFIG]n8370[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]n8371[/ATTACH]
(both images are 7m53s on gtx1070 as in the write-up, only resized (h1440) for the forum)

maybe could you try to lower the bump amount?

[antonyebl]

maybe could you try to lower the bump amount?

1mm bump | 0.5mm bump (7m53 ~315samples)


6000 samples finished in ~25m