I really don’t want to argue either, but dispersion is a consequence of what I said before, octane is spectral (calculates each RGB wavelenght separately) while cycles isn’t. But as I also said, spectral rendering is hardly noticeable in most scenarios, and just as vray does, dispersion can be faked when needed. It would be nice though if cycles could activate dispersion per material and only in refraction and reflection rays to speed up, like vray does. No need to have spectral diffuse bounces in every single object like octane… it would be overkill for animation. It would be always a welcome option though 
The propagation of energy in Cycles is just as physically correct as it is in Octane - assuming your materials are energy-conserving.
It would be completely arbitrary to discriminate Octane as being “physically correct”, just because Cycles doesn’t happen to model dispersion - one could just as well point at other optical phenomena that Octane doesn’t model.
Useful video !
What one can note when comparing Cycles with Octane, if you have to, is that Octane has a renderkernel with their own implementation of MLT, which is neither easy to implement on a GPU, nor widely available for GPU renderers.
And having an Octane license since they started out, I dare to say Octane is unfit for animations unless you got a lot of time at your hands, or it’s a simple turntable animation - and it’s not really intended to render animations either.
I’ll most likely get the Octane Plugin, then I am really set. I got Cycles for quick stills and to render animations, Octane for stills, Yafaray and Luxrender if I need a particular feature or need to fake something that’d take a lot of time, and I got an Indigo license as well, which lately became pretty obsolete to me. I barely touch Indigo anymore as named four renderers play all tunes for me.
Oh, and I still use BI a lot… it’s just like a russian truck that’s powered by potatoes, coal or cats and keeps going 
that’s a great news. I cannot undestand why everytime some kind of fight between engines must come out. It is good that a really good commercial product is beeing fully integrated in blender. As someone already pointed out it shows that the market is getting interested in blender. Moreover is another choice we have, which is always better than don’t have it.
Cycles is not physically correct and never was intend to be.
All modern engines are physically based. The problem is how many global illumination effects a GI algorithm performs efficiently.
I am really waiting it! It is a great announcement for me. Is is somewhere where we can see the news on releasing?
To me, whether this or that rendering engine is physically correct or not is irrelevant. Personally, I like the look of Octane renders better when going for a photorealistic look. It also has a nice sun-sky system which makes setting up a complete render a breeze, and its PMC render kernel is great at removing noise (plus the in-built noise-remover tool). However, Cycles sports a lot of features Octane doesn’t (the recent strand rendering being a major one), and is a lot more flexible in terms of getting THAT look you’re going for (like toon shaders, OSL, etc.). I think both rendering engines are as good as each other, just in different ways, and should be used individually on a case-by-case basis.
Great news, I always had this special love for Octane.
great news…
I’d be interested in knowing that too.
very possible it’s over the network, OTOY demoed a scene rendered in 3dsmax from california (I think they where in SF) on 100GPU network rendering.
- blender is mentioned! yay! *
time embedding didn’t work, so you can skip to 16:00 too se it, blender is mentioned at 16:11
Damn this is really fast.
The opposite is more likely, any external renderer project entering a stand-by development period is likely to have its blender exporter broken due to the fact that it can not keep up with blender continuous changes and systematic breaking of any backward compatibility regarding addons. The situation is getting quite desperate for the Yafaray project in particular. Our exporter breaks every one or two Blender releases, let alone getting implemented some of the stuff Cycles users enjoy, like a progressive rendering viewport, which should be trivial stuff. We need one developer just to fix and keep the exporter up to date, which is just ridiculous. I understand Lux render developers wanting to get out of this madness.
Yes, I thought that was quite interesting when I watched this vid yesterday, as he didn’t explicitly mention Maya, just Max, Lightwave and Blender. I will be quite interested to try out the Otoy cloud service when it rolls out. It is hard to know how practical it will be at “$1/hr per GPU” but this cost is bound to come down over time.
The beauty of this is that you can do fast, low sample render tests of an animation on your workstation until you have it nailed, then hire the cloud service for your final render knowing exactly how it will look.
so is cycles with 100 gpus XD
that’s true.
I am really interested in to those grid system. How one grid perform, and is it acctualy working with cycles.
I have just seen price 25k $ Damn.
Its good to see a commercial render engine for Blender. Now lets see vray!
Not only that, but it’s incredibly well-integrated. There’s also Maxwell, Indigo, Thea, and 3Delight to a certain extent. Many commercial renderers run very well alongside Blender.