So we have a future scenario where the external renderer cannot get maximum or optimal performance simply due to hardware incompatibility. It is important to note that iClone has features like PHYSX that rely on NVIDIA cards and will never work on AMD cards. I am beta testing indigo as well - with my primary focus being its suitability for iClone user needs. NVIDIA still doesn't support openCL (which AMD heavily supports) and any comment suggesting that openCL performance is at par with CUDA is highly subjective, misinformed and at worst probably dishonest. Indigo uses 25% of NVIDIA memory for textures - compared to 65% for AMD for example. yes I was being diplomatic - but not fooled). reminds me of a politician's subjective-objective doublespeak.

I disagree The indigo beta testers actually confirmed the fatal mismatch (re-read the carefully worded comments in the forums. Please RL, give us Octane in 6.x as a consolation for indigo dissapointments! Octane is the natural 'next step' for iclone rendering. Despite that, I think having support for octane will bring tremendous long term value for RL in terms of new leads as well as the type and scale of projects implemented with iclone. The only negative being that they keep the copyright. Time to make a switch? Octane renderer seems to be a perfect match for iClone and the vendor currently supports products like DAZ and Poser which are like functional cousins to iClone.ДЄccording to Otoy, if someone develops a plugin according to their standards (which they provide), they will adopt it. This guarantees 'functional incompatibility' over the long term even with new releases of indigo, leaving iclone users frustrated and disappointed thanks to unmet expectations. iClone6 leans towards NVIDIA, whereas indigo leans towards AMD. There is a fatal mismatch between indigo and iClone6 in terms of Graphics card support.

Octane render plugin maya