Rendering speed

Started by A4size, October 02, 2010, 12:06:38 am

Previous topic - Next topic

A4size

will improve in the next update?
From Japan.  / a4size.3dcg@gmail.com
I am afraid I am not good at English.  | Twitter - http://twitter.com/A4sizeCG
CGHUB  | http://a4size.cghub.com/

jbest

Holy, that's a very large pic! 172 hours!!! What did you put the anti-aliasing on? 20?
Heard of computer graphics? CG? Terragen 2, the landscape generating program, also known as TG, a whole cool way to create realistic CG - with TG.

A4size

Anti-aliasing is 6.
From Japan.  / a4size.3dcg@gmail.com
I am afraid I am not good at English.  | Twitter - http://twitter.com/A4sizeCG
CGHUB  | http://a4size.cghub.com/

jbest

You do seem to have the GI blur radius at 16 ... would that make rendering time 172 hours?  ???  Sorry, I can't help you  :-[
Heard of computer graphics? CG? Terragen 2, the landscape generating program, also known as TG, a whole cool way to create realistic CG - with TG.

dandelO

I can't imagine what's making it so long to render this, you're well out of the atmosphere and GI isn't excessive, the render isn't even so big that I'd expect it to take this long. It seems ridiculous that a space scene like this render was so long. Maybe you have just really excessive values in your atmosphere/cloud/AA sampling settings, a render detail of '1' is probably unnecessary too. Good luck with tuning it...

sjefen

Is there some raytracing on that shouldn't be on?

Regards,
Terje
ArtStation: https://www.artstation.com/royalt

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X
32,0 GB RAM
GeForce GTX 1060 6GB

ttoommmmoott

wow dude, you can turn your GI settings down to nothing and it will make no difference to this pick, and it would drastically decrease render time

freelancah

You should really just tune down your settings. A typical scene like this takes less than 10 hours, probably around 3-8 on my machine and I have the same processor as you and I usually render 3000x wide. Also I  use raytrace everything if I dont have and land visible, obviously you do have here but it might still be worth a shot.

PorcupineFloyd

Detail: 0.8 at max (0.75 would be fine)
Anti-Aliasing: 6 without any customisation, narrow cubic (you will sharpen in post-process)
GI Relative: 1
Supersample GI prepass: On

Re-render.

EDIT: Also what are your cloud layer and atmosphere quality settings?

Tangled-Universe

Unless you have enabled the options below this shouldn't render so slow.

1) your sampling is customised. How? full sampling isn't really needed here, as it only works for ultra-fine jagged details, which aren't present in this case.
I'd go for a sampling of 1/16th first sampling.

2) detail blending? (Extra tab) Although set to 0 by default, maybe you increased it back to 1 for some reason? If so, it would at least double the rendertime.

3) check atmosphere/cloud raytracing settings. These settings are only required if the terrain casts shadows into the atmosphere or onto clouds, which is not the case here. So disable raytracing for the atmosphere and/or clouds if you had them enabled.

4) check quality level of clouds. A detail level of 1 should give smooth noise-free clouds, unless you have very high density/cloud depth settings. Then you might have to go to 1.5 for example. I've seen tgd-files of people here which had cloud quality set at >20, ridiculously high.

5) check sample level of atmosphere. For this scene I'd estimate that around 80 samples should give nice results. I don't know how many cloud layers you have? The more, the higher the atmosphere samples I'd advise. However, I'd never go much higher than 128 samples in scenes like these.

Further some comments on earlier suggestions:

GI blur radius has no effect on rendertime.

PorcupineFloyd's suggestions are good. One little remark is that a detail level of 0.8 would result in GI detail of 0.8 as well which is low.
(GI relative detail = 1 and detail = 0.8 --> GI detail = 1 x 0.8 = 0.8 --> the "relative" means it's relative to the detail setting)
Clouds really benefit from good GI settings.
So by definition I'd never disable GI when rendering clouds, without it they look drastically worse.

If none of these things improve it then I'd strongly suggest to either post or IM the tgd-file.

Cheers,
Martin

PorcupineFloyd

I agree Tangled-Universe, but for scene like this it would be more important to set GI relative at 1 with supersample prepass but with acceleration cache in clouds set at "None" than setting GI relative at 2 (perhaps). I think that it would provide better render times with comparable quality.

A4size

 The verifications result, I found some points to reduce  renderingspeed. Thank you
From Japan.  / a4size.3dcg@gmail.com
I am afraid I am not good at English.  | Twitter - http://twitter.com/A4sizeCG
CGHUB  | http://a4size.cghub.com/