So why showing it? When some is interested in LuxCore it usually means this person is interested in (photo)realism.
Answer in the post you’re responding to.
Just go to the extreme to show you that different artists may have different need and skills level as well as tools have limitation
If this looks to you like Eevee you dont know Eevee well. I dont say its near photorealsim at all but it has nothing to do with Eevee.
The point here is that in general Cycles look closer to eevee than engine like Luxcore.This even true when you start cheating evrywhere to mimic realism or speed up Gi .
LuxCore is better for my goal (photorealism) but it is not rlly fast and easy.
It isn’t fast in wich context for you and compared to what ?. do you have something we can help you improve on ?
Not easy ? I use both engine everyday at work since multiple years. Even at my begining whith luxcore it was faster in most archviz interior/exterior i am working on. Optimizing Cycles for Speed and realism take require more than simple knowledge compared to Luxcore approach.
Cycles caustics + dispersion : from Gleb tutorial
Luxcore Caustic + dispersion :
Same goes for Portal where you need to manually place area light at each opening of your project.
Luxcore does it with one check box same as the paid Vray :
Same goes for interior rendering where people tend to Fake Gi with node trick. Or Fight with tonemapper to simulate realistic Gi in Cycles. Or play with additional area light to boost GI.
In Luxcore it is just that :
If you are able to learn complexe heavy tricks in Cycles why is that so hard with a much simpler Luxcore
It does take time to learn any tool and Luxcore is different from cycles so you have to re-learn some few thing to use it at it high potential.If you switch to Unreal or Unity or Eevee you will have to learn again …