Rohan Dalvi

rohandalvi

About Me

Expertise
Not Specified
Location
Not Specified
Website

Rohan has always been interested in film and animation which led him to life as a 3D artist. He was also passionate about teaching so he started his own “Institute for Advanced Animation.” He primarily concentrated on teaching software skills while working on design visualization, motion graphics, industrial animations and also some medical renderings. He then stumbled upon Houdini and the rest is history as his many Houdini tutorials have helped artists from around the world get into the world of proceduralism.

Connect

My Tutorials

obj-image Intermediate
Procedural Texturing and Baking
obj-image Beginner
Attributes
obj-image Beginner
Making a Chair
obj-image Beginner
Staircase Continued
obj-image Beginner
Spiral Staircase
obj-image Beginner
Making Assets

Recent Forum Posts

Houdini 16 Feb. 5, 2017, 12:26 a.m.

Firstly, really excited for Houdini 16. This is easily one of the biggest upgrades I've ever seen. Congratulations to the entire team at sidefx.

Jumping into the render engine comparison.

Hi pixel8d,

Having tried redshift and octane both and I've been making tutorials for both, I'll agree with most of the points that Daryl made.

Redshift
Pros-
Faster than octane by at least 20-30 percent in most cases. For interiors can be twice the speed of octane.
No geometry limitation. You can exceed the GPU RAM. Great for very heavy scenes.
Better material system. Production ready shaders like car paint, hair and skin
Rendertime displacement using procedural maps. Octane can only use bitmaps.
Huge point in its favour, supports Houdini attributes.

Cons-
IPR is nice but has lag in comparison to octane.
No native point rendering. You need to do instancing.
Too many render settings. (This can be a pro or a con depending upon user)

Octane
Pros -
The best IPR I've ever seen in comparison to any renderer and I've tried a whole bunch of them. Vray, corona, Arnold, Modo, mantra and redshift.
Very good grading tools. Simple but very effective.
The Bloom and glare stuff is great.
Simpler render settings but lesser control. (This can again be a pro or a con)
Native sphere primitive which be used for point and particle rendering.

Cons-
Geometry limited to amount of GPU RAM
very rudimentary material system. no production ready shaders.
No support for attributes. There's a workaround but no native support.
Is slower on interiors because it's a brute force path tracer like mantra or Arnold.
No standard lights of any sort. Everything is based on a light shader applied to geometry like maxwell.

Beyond that, they both support pretty much everything Houdini has. Curve rendering for hair, volumes, vdb and instances(not packed primitives)

That's the stuff that comes to my mind right now. I have been making tutorials for both. You can see them on my Vimeo page and decide for yourself.

https://vimeo.com/rohandalvi/videos [vimeo.com]

Regards
Rohan Dalvi
www.rohandalvi.net