Water Render times

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

Previous topic - Next topic

Will

yea look pretty much the same

regards,

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

Superza

@3DGUY  In your case 0.7 and 1 is quite similar also if the lighting is clearly better on the second one;
More similar than in my tests, on which as  Edlo said the different settings are unfortunately more than one.

4 sure that increases also GI and AA improves render  using different way.

Actually i found enough quality only using no less than 0.85 Quality,  AA 4 and GI 3 or 4;
Atmo about 48 samples and clouds at least 0.8-0.9.
I think it's also a question of personal taste.
Best Regards
Max

3DGuy

You like the second one better? Guess what.. That's the one with 0.7 detail ;)
Detail setting is the only thing I changed for that.

Will

The only diffrence I saw was a slight varience in reflection.


onguards,

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

gradient

Quote from: edlo on January 15, 2007, 03:25:11 PM
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  ;)
@edlo;
In order to increase the pixel count, it will cost me considerable $$$$...something I currently can not afford, nor would I be prepared to do given the current state of development of TG2.

Superza

Quote from: 3DGuy on January 15, 2007, 06:04:10 PM
You like the second one better? Guess what.. That's the one with 0.7 detail ;)
Detail setting is the only thing I changed for that.

OMG anyway in that close visual is quite impossible to appreciate the better depth that the 1 details give.
In my opinion the light of the second looks more "photographic" :)

I'm quite sure that in complex scene the detail on far part is more incisive.
Best Regards
Max!

edlo

Quote from: gradient on January 15, 2007, 07:40:59 PM
Quote from: edlo on January 15, 2007, 03:25:11 PM
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  ;)
@edlo;
In order to increase the pixel count, it will cost me considerable $$$$...something I currently can not afford, nor would I be prepared to do given the current state of development of TG2.

Ah my bad then... I assumed you had the registered version because of the quality of your work, it would be a very nice investment for you to have the registered version though.

Dark Fire

Quote from: edlo on January 16, 2007, 10:04:48 AM
Ah my bad then... I assumed you had the registered version because of the quality of your work, it would be a very nice investment for you to have the registered version though.
T2TP is too expensive for most people if it is not going to be used commercially.

Njen

This came up in another thread, but I whole heartedly believe that as a hobby, a license of TG2 is relatively cheap compared to other hobbies. Compare it to photography (*very* expensive), video gaming (console + many games), collecting *anything*, model building and painting, etc.

I could go on with many hobbies that are much, much more expensive, and chances are you would easily spend lot's of money  on other things. But many people believe that because it's software on a computer, that anything other than free is too much. I don't understand...

Dark Fire

Quote from: njen on January 16, 2007, 10:59:50 AM
This came up in another thread, but I whole heartedly believe that as a hobby, a license of TG2 is relatively cheap compared to other hobbies. Compare it to photography (*very* expensive), video gaming (console + many games), collecting *anything*, model building and painting, etc.

I could go on with many hobbies that are much, much more expensive, and chances are you would easily spend lot's of money  on other things. But many people believe that because it's software on a computer, that anything other than free is too much. I don't understand...
Photography can be cheap if you are good at spotting bargains and you are very patient. Video gaming isn't even that expensive when you consider that the PS3 and other consoles are now designed to be the hub of your media experience. You can collect Tube Maps for free. With TG 0.9 you could render near hi-def quality images and animations without paying. Programming is generally a free hobby, and you can even have a website for free these days.

Anyway, many hobbies are free and many people give out free software. I do not think T2TP should be any cheaper than it is now, but I cannot justify spending a huge sum of money on it because, if I am not going to use it commercially, I would require an army of computers and a working command line to get enough enjoyment out of it and, unfortunately, I do not have a load of computers and T2TP does not yet have a working command line.

Once TG2 is released it should have a working command line and it should have been optimised quite a bit, so it may be worth purchasing then.

gradient

Sorry folks... I didn't want, nor did I think this would turn into a thread concerning the price vs. value of TG2.  That is something each one of you must decide on your own.....

Now, let's get back to water render times.....hmmmmm, no comment from Jo yet.....

Will

heh yea I think you guys scared him off  ::) But I know that using the water shader with a non water object (like terrian or clouds) the render times are good....yea that was off topic too.

regards,

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

gradient

#42
A further thought on render times....it is becoming apparent that in order to reasonably be able to use TG2's features....3d clouds, water and imported objects all require enormous processing power.

I wonder what Planetsides estimate of potential optimization is....it may affect registered version purchasing decisions.....In other words if we can only reasonably expect a 25% improvement in render time....it may not be enough to convince folks to purchase the software if their CPU systems are not state of the art.
Jo?...Java?...anyone?

Dark Fire

Quote from: gradient on January 17, 2007, 08:46:45 PM
...a 25% improvement in render time...
Optimisations are really badly needed - T2TP takes too long to render reasonably good images.

Superza

Quote from: gradient on January 17, 2007, 08:46:45 PM
A further thought on render times....it is becoming apparent that in order to reasonably be able to use TG2's features....3d clouds, water and imported objects all require enormous processing power.

I wonder what Planetsides estimate of potential optimization is....it may affect registered version purchasing decisions.....In other words if we can only reasonably expect a 25% improvement in render time....it may not be enough to convince folks to purchase the software if their CPU systems are not state of the art.
Jo?...Java?...anyone?


Btw i think that Tgd looks like to be at least with great scalability.

25% could be a great improve. It will be also the multicore support, so for example using a dual core processor we could expect another 60% boost performance or even more using a quad core processor, If this is not enough, i read that in final version network rendering will be supported.

Suppose to have a 100 hours render with the actual version;
with 25% of speed optimization we speed up to 75 hrs,
the dual core owner can expect 45-50 hours and the quad core owner, 22-25 hours.
if this is not enough with network rendering and another quad core time should be around 11-13 hours!

So render time becomes only matter of hardware power and unfortunately money to bought it!
Best Regards Max