TG2 as a Hobby?

[joshbakr]

Hi,

I just use TG Tech Preview for a hobby, however I like to print out my scenes.
For a 12"x18" Print, the "Recommended Minimum" is to render at 1800x2700 and for "Excellent Quality" which I prefer, a 3600x5400 render is recommended. At the current state of TG a render of either size would take a month to render. And with the GI issues, Crop rendering isn't very desirable at this point. Just wondering if I'm being realistic in thinking this will be possible with TG2 after the next release or the final release?  I can't afford to buy or build a cutting edge computer in the 4-7k range.

I'm also wondering which User Base this Program is really being developed for? At this point it doesn't appear to be users like myself like I said: just as a hobby. Or is it really being developed for pro's with super computers and Render Farms or the Movie Industry? I hope my questions are not too vague, but I think most will know where I'm coming from.   

PS- I suppose some of the TG defenders will be chiming in here, and I don't really care for  Ass kissing responses.

What I would like is knowledgeable Honest answers because I'm really getting tired of waiting.

Thanks,

[dhavalmistry]

first of all you dont need a 4000-7000 computer to render TG2 scenes....and 3600x5400 renders shouldnt take more than a week of non stop rendering at high quality....

I am not saying I am defending TG2.....I am saying from experience...I normally do 800 x 600 renders a rather high quality and on my computer it usually takes between 2-10 hrs maximum, depending on what the scene consists of....

my comp specs:

Core 2 Duo E6600 (2.4 GHz)
4GB Ram
820 GB HDD
640 MB XFX 8800 GTX

for TG2 renders you only need ram and processing power!....and with multi core support coming...these render times should crank down even more....

[joshbakr]

first of all you dont need a 4000-7000 computer to render TG2 scenes....and 3600x5400 renders shouldnt take more than a week of non stop rendering at high quality....

I am not saying I am defending TG2.....I am saying from experience...I normally do 800 x 600 renders a rather high quality and on my computer it usually takes between 2-10 hrs maximum, depending on what the scene consists of....

my comp specs:

Core 2 Duo E6600 (2.4 GHz)
4GB Ram
820 GB HDD
640 MB XFX 8800 GTX

for TG2 renders you only need ram and processing power!....and with multi core support coming...these render times should crank down even more....

I am speaking from experience also, been using  a registered version of TGTP since it was first released in Dec 06. I'm wondering if you are a registered user and if you have attempted rendering anything larger than 800x600?

[peejay]

Hi Josh

I think the question you're asking is 'will TG2 ever be fast?'. Sadly I believe the answer is no. We've been told the final release will be 'significantly faster', but to be honest I'm not holding out too much hope.

What TG2 gives us is the chance of superb quality landscapes at a really good price point, but given the nature of what it does, (calculate and render a near photorealistic surface of a landscape all the way to the horizon, including volumetric clouds) I can't see it ever being fast. I share your frustration (I'm not rich either), but TG2's nearest rival, Mojoworld is even slower - certainly for the renders I have tried to do. I have both programs, and have all but abandoned Mojo out of sheer irritation at it. The interface for TG2 is much easier to use, the application looks to have a good future, the support for XFrog plants is a huge bonus, the community here gives amazing support, and the results TG2 can produce are awesome.

But yes, it's slow. I don't know if you've searched the form for hints and tips on speeding up renders, there have been some helpful posts.

Depending on what kind of images you want to create, you may find you can get a surprising amount out of Bryce - now a really low price at DAZ3D. Bryce renders a lot quicker (but then it does a lot less).

There's Vue Infinite of course - an amazing program, but at a steep price.

I think the only real hope for us on the horizon is that computers keep getting faster and cheaper, so maybe in say 2 years time we will both be able to afford substantially better machines.

In the meantime, I'm sticking with TG2 simply because it's the only program I can afford, that even gets close to doing what I want. I guess the answer truthfully is ' it depends on what you want most?'

[dhavalmistry]

I am speaking from experience also, been using  a registered version of TGTP since it was first released in Dec 06. I'm wondering if you are a registered user and if you have attempted rendering anything larger than 800x600?

yes I do render larger than 800 x 600 but it has never taken longer than 2 days max.....I render maximum at 1920 x 1200

[rcallicotte]

@joshbakr - As Oshyan has said again and again, sometimes it's just good to take a break from TG2 for awhile during this process.  This sort of process isn't for everyone and I'd go so far as to say it isn't for anyone hardly at all.  LOL. 

Nevertheless, the low price point (why we're going through this right now) and the end result we expect are good reasons to be patient.  It easier to be patient by playing with something else once in a while, in my opinion.  Like Silo or Call of Duty or whatever gets your mind on something else that's interesting.

[DanD]

  Wow...I render at 2400x2400 and usually at high quality settings.
and my longest one was maybe 40 hours,not a month. I'd say get it.
One reason ?...Misery loves company..you can wait with us for the final release.
(Just yanking your chain). Seriously, I'd go for Tg2,simply because you have a great
landscape tool, There's a hugely loyal customer base, Planetside is super quick to answer questions. Its a long list...You cant model with it...wont do Greyscale or
solid modelling,but..its not supposed to, It is a bit pricey, but then again Vue Infinate
is more expensive and maybe its just my system, but stability was horrible,
 

[Matt]

Hi J,

It really depends what you're trying to render. Scenes with lots of reflections are slow in the current release, but that is being improved for 2.0 (it will render reflections faster, more accurately, and with fewer crashes). The GI problems have been reduced for 2.0. Other changes mean that GI at high resolutions now renders a lot faster in some situations. For large renders this often results in very significant speed improvements. Scenes that use heavy volumetrics are also slow, and will probably always be slower than you want, but GI was often the culprit so you may see improvements all-round.

Multi-threading will provide a good speedup if you have more than one core or processor.

This is an ongoing development. Even after 2.0 you should see incremental speed improvements as core renderer features stabilise and we are able to spend more time on optimisation.

As for target userbase... Terragen 2 has been developed with goals which are not entirely the same as TG v0.9. That has resulted in a product which some professionals prefer over v0.9, and some don't, and the same divide is true in hobbyists. I had thought that by now we would have more than one edition of Terragen 2.0 on the market, each with different strengths and retail price, but of course that has not happened yet. I hope that in future releases after 2.0 we can give users more choice over the kind of interface they want to use and the kinds of features they value most. Render time is something that everyone wants to see reduced, professionals and hobbyists alike.

Matt

[joshbakr]

Thank You for your reply Matt.

[Harvey Birdman]

Hey, Josh. Long time no viddy, droog.

[treddie]

Howdie.

I assume that TG2 uses the Monte Carlo Method, or its equivalent to deal with GI.  If so, rendering time will ALWAYS be slow even when optimized.  But I understand this when using programs with GI.  Your'e talking about a s___load of numerical calculations and whenever you have to do that (whenever there is no quick, analytical solution), even with optimization, it will still be slow.  Years ago, I played around with something I called the "Gigacube".  Purely theoretical, it was a virtual volume 1 billion pixels per side, so that you could conceivably be immersed in a virtual 3D world about 20-30 miles on a side, with no pixelation visible to the viewer and real-time 30 frames per second.  And that was ONLY ray-traced, no GI.  I calculated that roughly 100,000 times the present (late 1980s) processing power would be required to pull it off.  So you see, the math is what it is...we live in a particle-based universe and to precisely model that universe, you need to rely on particle-based methods, or algorithms that can SIMULATE particle behaviour.  Optimization will only take you so far.  The burden truly falls on the machine's processing power to take us to the next step and I would imagine that would be heavy parallel processing in a compact form.  We "aint" there yet by a long shot, but it's coming as new technologies come to bear.  5-10 years?  20 years?  Who can say, but certainly within our lifetime.
But back to TG2...I LOVE it.  I remember back in the '60s when I dreamt so hard that I could have a COMPUTER!  Like Will Robinson's little compact dealy he was playing with in episode 2.  Well, here we are, and I am thankfull and fortunate to live in a world where a truly lifelike scene at 3000x2000 pixels can be rendered at all.  Put what you have in perspective.
For those of you with limited budgets, I can only suggest to try and find SOME way to purchase a second computer that you can let render from here to eternity and not have it interfere with your regular computer's use as a general purpose machine.  There are killer deals out there around $700.00 US.  Not bad for 2008.  Then all you need is some Zen-patience, not a bad virtue to practice.  And the render farm prices are coming down too.  The movie studios have nothing to worry about...if they feel they need 1000 machines to render some scenes, they'll fork out the bucks.  And since TG2 can deliver the quality, the studios will grab it, when it fits there needs.
Anyhoo....I'm out of breath.

[sjefen]

I also just use it as a hobby

[jaf]

I guess this is why I asked in another thread if there is, or will be, a "save incomplete render" feature.  I remember when I used Bryce, I could save the scene and image file and pick up later where I left off, mainly to free up the memory for other uses.

For those of us with one "capable" TG2 computer, long renders really tie up the computer when it may be needed for work with other programs.

But wow, the terrain renders capable from TG2 are just better than any other application I've used.  Maybe multi threading will ease some of the pain.

[Harvey Birdman]

Treddie -  good advice, and nice history.

[treddie]

You're very welcome, Birdman.
And DEFINITELY, a "save incomplete render" would be MOST nice.  I've had to cancel renders from time to time, when I REALLY needed both my machines for REAL work.

One thing for sure...TG2 has without a doubt the most amazing atmosphere system out there.  Blows me away.  Well worth the rendering time.