I mean the export from Iclone to Omniverse.
In my experience, rendering in Omniverse is slower than in C4D.
I see.
So, what would be the point in using Omniverse with C4D?
We’ll see how this “partnership” goes.
Omniverse is not really intended to be simply some external render engine for your software
Although it can be used ,only for that purpose, as Reallusion is obviously doing
for Iclone
Those of us who have access to quality render engines ,in our 3DCC’s, really have no need for omniverse unless we want to get into all of the complex development stuff outlined here:
I guess so.
However, I was only referring to the “render engine” in the context of this thread. Also, I don’t think that the other stuff that Omniverse offers is of much use or interest to iClone (or C4D) hobbyists…
From what I have seen the render engine in omniverse is qualitatively no different than Daz studio’s Iray except is supports the more recent RTX cards and “realtime” path tracing if you have enough VRAM.
Is it better looking than the native Iclone?? …yes
Better than Vray, Arnold, Redshift, or even Blenders Cycles?
Not really.
Okay, so you are saying I can stick with Redshift? 
1 Like
Considering that you are already leaving C4D to set up the animated Characters in iclone you would then have to bake out any C4D native cloth & hair, rigid body sims etc to USD and then send the USD export to the omniverse RTX renderer.
No need for all that when you have a perfectly fine, high quality GPU accelerated engine inside C4D .
which returns us to the original point of this thread in that a better render inside Iclone wont really matter for “realism” if you cannot do Realistic cloth, hair rigid body simulation etc animations in iclone as well
Lurking this thread- interesting perspectives -
I think the most reasonable consideration would be, that Iclone is a content development tool ( characters, motions ) with an option to render, but not as a focus. It’s cross-platform usefulness ( to pay bills ) would be in generating content that can be used in other softwares that specialize in realistic based rendering engines or game development. - This is why to me, Iclone 7 was the sweetspot of all versions to date because at that time, it had the most options to link to a variety of softwares, including 2 ray tracing render engines and everything else through fbx and obj among other formats.
when you begin to move it beyond that description / identification, it begins to lose value because now its competing against softwares like blender, maya, c4d, houdini etc.
my 4 cents ( due to tariffs lol )
1 Like
I think the most reasonable consideration would be, that Iclone is a content development tool ( characters, motions ) with an option to render, but not as a focus. It’s cross-platform usefulness ( to pay bills ) would be in generating content that can be used in other softwares that specialize in realistic based rendering engines or game development.
That has been the plan since at least iclone version 5.5 (when I started)
the problem is that the game development communities have there own competing, engine specific content ecosystems that do NOT require spending $900 dollars
(for Iclone 8/CC4) to get started
https://store.epicgames.com/en-US/
And for animated film making
(like the “secret level” video I posted at the top of this thread)
Iclone native content lacks the details
Needed to produce such quality and realism
even when you export from CC4 to the exact same Unreal engine that is being used by BLUR studios for that Netflix series.
This is likely the reason Reallusion has focused on CC5 first, with the higher quality characters, they are showcasing
(instead of Iclone 9) .
1 Like
tbh, the strongest feature for me with iclone ( I jumped in on ic3 ) was its ability to teach me how animation and 3D works. - making iclone itself a fantastic way for beginners to jump into animation. Dual that with it’s content creation ability - makes it a powerful income generating tool as it is first grabbing the “new animator” community and connecting them with pro animators who use it for content development. I feel that as recent versions try to become more advanced, they are losing that entry level appeal - when this can be addressed in the UI interface with basic preset options for beginners, and “Dig deeper” options for pros. presentation is everything, it sells pet rocks lol
This has been my concern as well, as the software had become more and more complicated (I’ve a hard time to keep up), so it’s no more entry level. There used to be two versions, Standard and Pro, but that was difficult to maintain, so RL dropped that idea. Still, an entry-level spin-off would be a good idea I think at a much better price point. And like you, iClone has taught me about 3D animation (since 2006 and v1.58), so I have fond memories and would like RL to continue to thrive.
The use of Omnivers and C4D makes no sense at all. For me, Omniverse only makes sense in conjunction with Iclone. In my experience, the rendering time is significantly shorter than in Iclone, as I can use both my graphics cards, for example, which is not possible with Iclone.
In the meantime, I had considered using Omniverse as a connecting element between Iclone and C4D. However, I have discarded this as I would then have to familiarise myself with Omniverse again. The physics system or the particle system should be mentioned here.
I am now hoping that the C4D plugin for Iclone will be released. Until then, I’ll just get the relevant updates from Ben
Translated with DeepL.com (free version)
Absolutely 
@AutoDidact
@Locutus
As the was to indicate, my question was not all that serious.
Obviously, I’m going to stick with Redshift:
- As far as I know, rendering in Omniverse (from C4D) is not significantly faster (say by a factor of 2 or more) than rendering with Redshift.
- Adding UE for rendering (because of render speed) would require too much of a learning effort, and any potential increase in rendering speed would at least be partially offset by the time and learning required to export the scenes from C4D to UE as well as any additional setting up in UE.
- I’m more familiar with Redshift than with any other render engine (even the original Standard and Physical engines in C4D).
- As far as I can tell, Redshift is the “third-party” (well, not anymore) engine with the best integration into C4D. Since Maxon purchased Redshift, there have been simultaneous updates to both C4D and the Redshift engine as required to work with the latest C4D version.
1 Like
Vray is pretty well integrated into R25
and renders super fast
(even much faster than Blender cycles)
If I was commissioned for some complex 3D Motion graphics job I would probably do All in my old R25 with Vray.
I wouldn’t know; never had or tried V-ray myself. That’s why I said “as far as I can tell”.
However, I kind of doubt that V-Ray is better integrated into the current version of C4D than Redshift, since V-Ray is still a third-party render engine and I don’t think that Maxon is going to give them the same kind of support in-house Redshift gets. After all, you wouldn’t care for somebody else’s “child” more than for your own.
Actually I don’t need its integration to be “better” than Redshift it only need to be good enough for my ocassional purposes and as My R25 was the last perpetual version of C4D and I certainly have no intention of jumping onto the Maxon Rentware hamster wheel to gain access to Redshift when I already have Hollywood production proven render engine in my “old” R25 perpetual. 
The 5th Wave. ScanlineVFXFilm.
Exodus: Gods and Kings. ScanlineVFXFilm.
San Andreas. ScanlineVFXFilm.
Deadpool. Blur StudioFilm.
Ender’s Game. Digital DomainFilm.
300: Rise of an Empire. ScanlineVFXFilm.
Iron Man 3. ScanlineVFXFilm.
Captain America:
The Winter Soldier. ScanlineVFXFilm.
Well, you mentioned V-Ray being pretty well integrated into your R25 version of C4D (which has been out of date for a few years) and I just pointed out that the “degree of integration” that Redshift has these days may not exactly compare to that of V-Ray of some 4 years ago.
I did not suggest that you, or anyone else, should switch to any new version of C4D to get Redshift.
IIRC you have picked Maya as your current (as in keeping it updated) 3DCC of choice, so Redshift is not really in the cards (although available for Maya (I think); but not “for free” of course). Also, you already have Arnold.
There are a number of other render engines available for C4D (as there are for most of the established 3DCCs) but I never found it necessary to experiment further once I got Redshift after a very brief trial of Octane. (When I initially looked at Redshift and Octane, V-Ray and Arnold were still CPU-only and thus not contenders).
Yeah I have alot of experience with
Vray as I had it for C4D way back in my R11.5 days.
But Arnold is a bit of a different beast entirely.
Its a bit ironic that now that I have access to the very top photoreal render engines on the planet
I have become more interested in NPR comic
art here in my “old age”
1 Like
Yeah. However, it is nice to have a choice to use whatever style you prefer and not be limited by what any one render engine can do.
1 Like