Water Render times

Started by gradient, January 13, 2007, 06:48:43 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

3DGuy

I see you used quality set at one.. you don't need that. 0.6-0.7 is enough.

Superza

Quote from: 3DGuy on January 14, 2007, 07:39:43 PM
I see you used quality set at one.. you don't need that. 0.6-0.7 is enough.

In my opinion the difference beetween 0.8  and 1 it's still visible.

I attach some very similar render one with 0.8 Quality AA 3 and GI 3 3 and the other one with
Quality 1 AA 4 and GI 4 4 and slight little bit more of atmo quality.

btw agree that in some cases 1 quality is damnly slow to render: on the example i put, quality 1 render need 4x time if compared to 0.8

Regards Max

Dark Fire

I agree - the difference is clearly visible.

Will

yes, I take it the first is the one with the lower quality its defnialy clear.

regards

Will
The world is round... so you have to use spherical projection.

moodflow

Hi Superza,

Do you still have the .tgd files for that scene?  If so, could you post them?

Many thanks!
http://www.moodflow.com
mood-inspiring images and music

Superza

Quote from: moodflow on January 15, 2007, 10:04:26 AM
Hi Superza,

Do you still have the .tgd files for that scene?  If so, could you post them?

Many thanks!

I have TGD still in render so i'm not sure what of the two images is this .tgd i sent, so try to render it and see which of the two images goes out :D




MeltingIce

I have a scene I've been trying to render for awhile now but after it's crashed 3 times about 7-8 hours into rendering, I've given up.  It keeps crashing when it gets to the water too.

MeltingIce Network | Wii Number: 3881 9574 8304 0277

edlo

Quote from: gradient on January 14, 2007, 07:13:23 PM
@Dark Fire; some difficult atmo settings used in combination with water often resulted in long render times with version 0.9XX as well....as Buzzzzz above indicated.  You wouldn't get anything of "high-def quality" in 10 to 20 minutes with version 0.9XX.....
However, I do agree with you that some optimization clearly needs to be done (and Planetside had made this very clear at the outset)....I just hope that there can be adequate optimization accomplished, otherwise many of us will not be able to participate.....

I am sure  that your quality settings or AA; maybe both where set too high, if you set the Quality to 4 and the AA to 3, you can even throw in some GI and render at 2500 pix and you will seehow fast you can render the same thing at higher printable quality.  ;D

fmtoffolo

if you wanna make a comparison you should render the same image.

changing the detail but also the AA and GI will not give you the correct information.
You should only change one at a time


My Terragenn site
www.cgworlds.com.ar

gradient

Quote from: gradient on January 14, 2007, 03:56:48 PM
@Hannes; My Render quality tab was set at 1 and antialiasing set at 3
@King Tiger 666; There were NO clouds...atmo was set at quality setting of 16 samples....

As I said I used a few shaders to get the berg texture...it rendered all that first including the entire full subsurface parts...then layered over the water. The actual rendering part of water overlay didn't take that long....the most time was taken to render the subsurface parts....But, I don't know if the two are linked in computation?

@Hannes...try a multi-shadered surface with water shader at render quality 1 setting to see what you get for render time....also, what processor are you using?

@Jo......you didn't touch on water render times.....

@edlo;
As I indicated....my quality was set at 1 and AA was set at 3
@fmtoffolo; yes, of course.....but I am not in the mood to try a different setting and wait for let's say... 56 hrs to go by....then another at 42 hrs....etc.

Dark Fire

Quote from: MeltingIce on January 15, 2007, 10:56:49 AM
I have a scene I've been trying to render for awhile now but after it's crashed 3 times about 7-8 hours into rendering, I've given up.  It keeps crashing when it gets to the water too.
When you say 'crashed' do you mean Terragen stops responding or closes or something like that? I have never had the new Terragen crash, but I have wasted hours rendering images that come out with a purple tint or that just come out as a huge rectangle of one colour (blue and white are common colours with this error).

edlo

Quote from: gradient on January 15, 2007, 02:49:07 PM
Quote from: gradient on January 14, 2007, 03:56:48 PM
@Hannes; My Render quality tab was set at 1 and antialiasing set at 3
@King Tiger 666; There were NO clouds...atmo was set at quality setting of 16 samples....

As I said I used a few shaders to get the berg texture...it rendered all that first including the entire full subsurface parts...then layered over the water. The actual rendering part of water overlay didn't take that long....the most time was taken to render the subsurface parts....But, I don't know if the two are linked in computation?

@Hannes...try a multi-shadered surface with water shader at render quality 1 setting to see what you get for render time....also, what processor are you using?

@Jo......you didn't touch on water render times.....

@edlo;
As I indicated....my quality was set at 1 and AA was set at 3
@fmtoffolo; yes, of course.....but I am not in the mood to try a different setting and wait for let's say... 56 hrs to go by....then another at 42 hrs....etc.


Yes Pal sorry about the misunderstanding I meant to say 0.4 Quality and rendering a 2000+ pixel image that is of course if you have the registered version.

gradient

@edlo....of course setting quality to 0.4 will reduce render times....but if you look at Superza's posts in this thread...you will see that there is already a substantial difference in Q between 0.8 and 1.0.  Setting it at 0.4?....well it would look like crap.

edlo

Quote from: gradient on January 15, 2007, 03:11:55 PM
@edlo....of course setting quality to 0.4 will reduce render times....but if you look at Superza's posts in this thread...you will see that there is already a substantial difference in Q between 0.8 and 1.0.  Setting it at 0.4?....well it would look like crap.

Not if you increase the pixel count to 2000+; this is rendered at 0.4 take a look  http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/46256703/?&q=by%3Aedlo&qh=sort%3Atime+-in%3Ascraps it surely doesn't look like crap  ;)

3DGuy

Ok, I gave it a shot. 1 piece was rendered at quality 0.7 and one at 1.


That's 15 mins versus 1h22m