Started by seanQuixote, March 30, 2010, 06:05:43 pm
QuoteDude, I've never seen someone having so much troubles with his animation
Quote from: MKE on August 09, 2011, 06:07:50 amHi Martin,without GI the non-existent shadow is still there. So afterwards I run with GI and a RDM of 1.0. And it looks good, but it's rather slow, about 14 minutes.QuoteDude, I've never seen someone having so much troubles with his animation Hmm, I wonder why it should be more troublesome in my animation. It's a normal DEM without any special details so the problems I have should occur everywhere else...The animation has already improved a lot thanks to the help of different people of the forum but still:IT WOULD BE MUCH EASIER IF WE HAD A KIND OF HANDBOOK!!!
Quote from: Tangled-Universe on August 09, 2011, 10:25:32 amThe test you did isn't very conclusive.It is "w/o GI + rdm 0.25" vs "w/ GI + rdm 1", so the beneficial effects cannot be certain because of the GI or RDM alone.Looking at your previous test it seems to be RDM.
Quote from: Tangled-Universe on August 09, 2011, 02:13:40 pmThe naming convention you used for the files clearly said something else, so that's why I made the remark peace
QuoteHow are things going now for the other frames with RDM increased?
Quote from: MKE on August 10, 2011, 05:04:04 amHi Martin and Oshyan,Oshyan, thanks for telling Matt about this thread. I wonder if "ray trace everything" means the same as "ray detail multiplier = 1.0". When I look at the render time, it could be the case.
Quote Yes, peace. But it doesn't say anything else. I just didn't upload the original problematic image with GI on and RDM=0.25, that's all. But that doesn't matter any more, it's clear now that it's not the GI which causes these problems and that with a higher RDM one can solve this problem.
QuoteJust before I wantet to leave office, I noticed that there is still a specular reflection in the shadow which looks unnatural. Therefore I increased the GI sample quality from 10 to 12 and now it's much better and not disturbing any more in the animation. There seems to be no problem any more with retreating and disappearing shadows, that's fine.On the other hand, the render time gain of your solution melts with every parameter value I increase. It's now 17 minutes per frame compared to 19 minutes as it was before.
Quote from: dandelO on August 10, 2011, 09:38:39 amJust for the point of confirmation on my earlier posts in this thread;I said I'd noted this happening on fake stones as well. Here's two tests, a simple and entirely default fake stones shader, no surface shaders or other modifications added. Both tests at final render detail=1 for consistency. Both with the default micropolygon renderer.Firstly, an RDM setting of default=0.25 with fully adaptive enabled;[attachimg=#]Lastly, the very same with RDM=1;[attachimg=#]The difference is plain to see.
Quote from: dandelO on August 10, 2011, 09:50:01 amRight. I knew rendered shadows were RDM dependant. Not that 'shadow casting detail' was.This still really confuses me, Martin, as the shadow casting geometry is being rendered with the MP rasterizer and surely every element in a scene that has height and a light behind it will cast a shadow, what if I remove the light or make it directly above, so it won't cast a shadow? ...So, pretty much every element in a scene is degraded by the default 0.25 RDM setting, all but colour shaders, really. Do I have that right?
Quote from: dandelO on August 10, 2011, 09:52:25 amOr, even uncheck 'do ray traced shadows'? Will this then make the displaced surfaces render correctly?Do you see what I mean, or am I confusing things further?