Re Mocha...

I'm obviously missing something.  Please educate me.

What is the value of adding Mocha to iClone?
- Object removal...  in iClone, just turn visibility off
- Planar tracking to replace screens...  we can already do that by attaching planes (with image or video) to objects and they then move with the target object, or we simply use textures

What am I missing?


UPDATE:  Okay, I probably answered my own question.  If Reallusion really wants to do VFX work by incorporating iClone content into existing camera footage, Mocha looks like a pretty cool tool.  So you could have the big mechanical dinosaur terrorize your back yard after you film your kid's birthday party, or something like that.  I wonder how magical it will be in practice?  Consider the FW plug-in, which does a nice job in many ways, but (AFIK) doesn't do things like the tongue motion for things like the "th" sound when you talk.  Still, please feel free to correct me and provide additional insight for me.

---

iClone 7... Character Creator... Substance Designer/Painter... Blender... Audacity...
Desktop (homebuilt) - Windows 10, Ryzen 9 3900x CPU, GTX 1080 GPU (8GB), 32GB RAM, Asus X570 Pro motherboard, 2TB SSD, terabytes of disk space, dual  monitors.
Laptop - Windows 10, MSI GS63VR STEALTH-252, 16GB RAM, GTX 1060 (6GB), 256GB SSD and 1TB HDD

Do you have a link for that?
I don't see it in the forum, unless it's an old thread.
Facebook?

---

iClone 7... Character Creator... Substance Designer/Painter... Blender... Audacity...
Desktop (homebuilt) - Windows 10, Ryzen 9 3900x CPU, GTX 1080 GPU (8GB), 32GB RAM, Asus X570 Pro motherboard, 2TB SSD, terabytes of disk space, dual  monitors.
Laptop - Windows 10, MSI GS63VR STEALTH-252, 16GB RAM, GTX 1060 (6GB), 256GB SSD and 1TB HDD

@justaviking
https://forum.reallusion.com/357102/iClone-7-Roadmap-2018?utm_source=rc_1802&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter&utm_term=ic_know_more

--
guy rabiller | GOETZIWOOD STUDIOS
"N.O.E." (Nations Of Earth) Sci-Fi TV Show, Showrunner.

I am more interested in the CC3 high definition modeling potential than the Iray part.... 

but, I think the Iray part is going to be AWESOME!

The speed in the test video looks to be like that of Daz Studio's current Iray iteration.  In my opinion , slower than....here we go...Octane....
BUT, right off the bat this iteration of Iray seems to match the output that was in the scene already, which is not default-possible through Octane now.  So, consider what is process-wise faster then.

Also, to put this demo in context, in the test video, you get:
1) 1 mesh, with
2) who knows how many polygon optimizations, and then
3) it's not really a closeup either,
4) the resolution of the image created is unknown, but if I used Daz's iteration as a benchmark, it outputs on the screen an image matching the resolution it is rendering at.  So my hunch is that it is a render < 1080p...
BUT, is that a 4K monitor?...so it's unknown 

So now, as far as raw speed goes, it will obviously not be the 1-second thing we can potentially have now in iClone through strict-PBR.   
This example was not a demanding scene for Iray, and it took about 20 seconds individually, or so, for each of the 2 frames rendered.  That's not really too bad considering what you would get say in the old Indigo plugin.  Indigo could make great images fast once in the engine, but the export process was too slow, unfortunately process-wise making it unusable for animations. 
As far as process output, 1000 frames at 20 seconds is reasonable (20,000 / 60 = 333 minutes....333/60 = 5.5 hrs for a 30 second-30 FPS video) when compared top say Octane or Indigo, with regards to outright render speed. 
Also, how many GPU were being used, because if only 1, this is pretty damn stellar.  So, if you use Octane or Iray for Daz or anything else, let's say, you could possibly burn that time down correspondingly by adding in another GPU. 
Going off of Daz Iray, I would estimate if the demo is 1 GPU, 4 GPU would knock that render time down by 10-12 seconds.  Iray has its own processing time it has to compute and this is held up by more GPU, so a lot of times it's not about adding in as many GPU as possible, but by finding a sweet spot where it can 'process', not alone render, an individual frame.  Then again, maybe the demop was in fact multi-GPU....this is unknown as well
(Speed metric unknowns - resolution, and GPU type/count)

So, an image rendered off of an iClone scene with many meshes, not optimized polygon wise, and at HD, may be in fact WAY longer.  Again, Daz can give you a better idea how long it would take as it has Iray already. 
BALLPARKING for a 'modest' scene (couple avatars, props) - 1  minute per frame, with say, 4 Titan X.  1000 frames * 60 sec per frame = 60,000 seconds/60 frames = 1,000 minutes = 16 hours for a 33 second video at 30FPS, with all HD.
(I have used Octane, Iray, and Indigo, multi-GPU, so I am doing my best to benchmark what this could look like for us...)

BUT - this is a Kuzzillion times better than not having it at all.  And We will find optimizations for render times just like we do in Daz.  Indigo had SSS too, but it was just too dysfunctional for the greater iClone animatory usage. 
Add to that, PBR rendering abilities will advance independently from anything Iray, and Iray itself will likely get faster as time goes on (although, as a Daz user, not really so much speed increase recently...I am actually rooting, as it were, for a stronger PBR development.)

My thought is that if CC3 is going on its own path it will mean that there are more resources being put into it, independent of iClone. 
This could in turn mean that iClone's own development will be more focused on itself, and we would see all the things we want from that engine's development faster. 
I think of it as we never lose the community we have in iClone, we just join a much larger one. 
None of this is intended to say that this is ideally what you want, or that it will meet your expectations.  I just feel, myself, that this is a very great development for RL and its user base...
So congrats to RL for taking this step! 

4x Titan = $4800.

Yeah... no thanks. (That's even assuming you can get a motherboard to do that - I suspect we're talking at least 10-20K for a machine capable of handling all that, if even possible).

iClone made it's mark as a (wait for it) REAL TIME machine.  i.e. -- you can animate in real time and, yes, it might be a *bit* longer to actually produce content, but nothing approaching the time needed by Max (which, honestly, is FAR faster per dollar -- if you spend $3K for Max you can throw just about ANY old machine at it, don't even need a good graphics card, even just onboard graphics.  Give me 20K and I'll produce Max renders FAR better than anything iRay can do, at a fraction of the time.  My old Max rendering farm didn't cost that much and that was over a decade ago).

But I don't want to get into an argument here -- it is what it is.  It's preposterous, of course, but that's the way RL is deciding to go (and need I say the whole Indigo thing was equally preposterous, but that's for another time.  Except -- you see where that went and I DID tell you so, although years ago nobody was listening).

I won't be around to see the conclusion, but I certainly will gripe from the sidelines <g>.

---

Alienware Aurora R12, Win 10, i9-119000KF, 3.5GHz CPU, 128GB RAM, RTX 3090 (24GB), Samsung 960 Pro 4TB M-2 SSD, TB+ Disk space
Mike "ex-genius" Kelley

@TonyDPrime
Old news, this is what people said with Indigo. Then..
Regarding maths, better see it that way: lets say iRay renders your images in 20s and iClone in 2s.
1 hour of movie at 24 fps: 3600*24 = 86400 images, 86400*2/3600 = 48h of rendering with iClone, 480h with iRay, which is 20 days.
20s is way too long, we are after max 2s rendering for what we do. Else I'd rather use Redshift for instance, which is even far faster than any pathtracer, iRay, Octane, etc..

The only renderer compatible with the realtime/2s rendering time constraints while being a PBR pathtracer is the Brigade engine.

--
guy rabiller | GOETZIWOOD STUDIOS
"N.O.E." (Nations Of Earth) Sci-Fi TV Show, Showrunner.

Hello RL (and all Jubler)
I would like to ask some (for me) basic questions:
(From loud "WOW" and "Wow WOW" and "YEEESSSS" you come to shcon directly as a last and "Nestbeschmutzer" before any concerns against the "super duper great" new CC to express )

1. Does the 2.xx plug-in die for IClone with CC 3?
2. Will Iclone 7.xx (which must appear in order to work together with CC 3) then stop working with CC 2.xx?
3. Is Iclone taking over from the hobby section for movie clip producers to the supplier for the game creators for the commercial ones?
4. Could not some of these innovations (which are very interesting and useful read) not as an update in the CC 2.xx can integrate? (or are previous users not interesting / money-enough?)5. What are the costs for the new CC 3 ($ 200- $ 300, $ 300- $ 500 or more)? Or is it still free for IC 7 users? (which I do not believe !!!)
6. Do I still need programs like ZBrush etc. to work with the new CC?
7. With what resource-effort is to be expected for the Hadrware so that they can work properly with the new Super CC 3.x?
8. Should one as a normal user without interest in game creation, IRay rendering, etc. not say goodbye to Iclone? (The prices for a full Iclone edition rose and went up immensely and for some of us probably too expensive a thing)

The super pros will probably be able to laugh at these concerns only.
It will probably interest you (as well as RL).
But after the long time I've spent with Iclone, it's very serious to me with these questions.

As it now stands for me after these announcements from RL,
is probably the purchase of 3dx7 and the FX plugin have been the last purchase,
I invested in Iclone. Unfortunately, it makes no sense to me anymore
Greetings from Germany

Postfrosch

--------------------------------------------------------------

@ KT & Guy- I am rooting for PBR to get better myself, I LOVE looking at what developments and products Unreal and Unity have been getting with regards to their PBR engine shading routines.
And this does look like an Indigo "reboot".  Yeah, not everyone wants what it gives...but you know a lot of us will be buying this. 
But let's say iRay can cut its speed in half (I know...) ...and maybe not an 1 hr video, but a 10 minute video, this would be < 24 hr...with photoreal reflections, refractions, SSS, and occlusions....this would be pretty compelling.
(Also, as an Octane user I hope Brigade will be something amazing....after a few more updates, not too far off now!  I love the Octane ecosystem very much...)

But I can do that already with Lightwave/Octane or Softimage/Redshift so what the point in using iClone then ?



--
guy rabiller | GOETZIWOOD STUDIOS
"N.O.E." (Nations Of Earth) Sci-Fi TV Show, Showrunner.

Right, but just imagine having PopcornFX, the lighting, everything non-exportable by iClone to these other formats, with said rendering improvement.
But I know what you are saying...I'm imagining lighting the scene in iClone and using its own internals...In this case I think re-doing the texturing & lighting work is a hassle sometimes once exported out, would be quite the convenience all in iClone.   But, if you just create a scene and then go out to texture materials and light later, yeah, nothing really gained. 
Like a convenience thing to have everything in iClone.