1/___already said i my second post.lacilaci wrote: ↑Sat Mar 21, 2020 7:13 pmThere's lot to digest here and a lot that goes into optimizing scenes for each renderer and luxcore is way more demanding on proper scene setup than cycles..
But let's just assume this comparison is as technically fair as it can and you can build a scene for each renderer in the same way.
As you mentioned yourself, cycles-cuda is here 4x slower bruteforcing interior rendering against luxcore with gicache. Now cut the cycles rendering in half on optix/rtx hardware and half again(at least) on e-cycles on rtx and what do you get?
You get cycles(although modified and not free) bruteforcing interior render in the same time as luxcore even with gicache!! And it could be even faster, thats the more interesting takeaway from this test than luxcore being fast with caching imho.
2/___ don't think optix and all thoses hardware accelarated solution will be for cycles only. (Not the case already)
3/___ I'm both cycles and Luxcore user and from my experience Cycles is in general less way realistic and this impression increase when Luxcore GI and caustics feature are even in simple archviz as you can see.
4/___ At the end of the day everyone should use the tool that fit they goal. eeevee /Unity / unreal / Cycles / Vray / redshift / Corona Or Luxcore.