Planetside Software Forums

General => Terragen Discussion => Topic started by: FrankB on December 22, 2006, 07:47:32 am

Title: Interesting Showcase of how small changes impact render time
Post by: FrankB on December 22, 2006, 07:47:32 am
VisionBlue has rendered two of the same images, with just slightly modified settings.
The perceived overall quality is close to identical, while he was able to save ~47% render time.

All details in the images below:

Example 1:
http://hitkarussell.de/virtuellart2/terraart/terragen/testrender1.jpg

Example 2
http://hitkarussell.de/virtuellart2/terraart/terragen/testrender2.jpg

Cheers,
Frank
Title: Re: Interesting Showcase of how small changes impact render time
Post by: FrankThomas on December 22, 2006, 07:53:12 am
ummm you know those are both the same file ?
(I assume the second one is testrender2.jpg)

and for the record, I prefer the second one for some reason
Title: Re: Interesting Showcase of how small changes impact render time
Post by: EoinArmstrong on December 22, 2006, 08:26:20 am
AA really hammers you, apparently.  The quality isn't so noticable for this (low/medium-sized render), but AA might have a much larger impact on large renders.  Still, this is really useful to know - thanks!
Title: Re: Interesting Showcase of how small changes impact render time
Post by: Njen on December 22, 2006, 08:33:46 am
I don't think it's the AA, but more to do with the Detail and GI settings. AA is just a 2D post process and is quite cheap compared to the other settings in terms of cpu power.
Title: Re: Interesting Showcase of how small changes impact render time
Post by: oggyb on December 22, 2006, 11:40:34 am
I'd hazard a guess that the biggest increase in time will be got from GI.  I have mine on 1 for the renders I've done so far.  2, and the render time almost doubles.  3 and I have to cancel at bed time ;)

M.
Title: Re: Interesting Showcase of how small changes impact render time
Post by: Oshyan on December 22, 2006, 06:12:46 pm
GI does have a significant impact. AA should be relatively less so but still has a definitely effect. It's good to see concrete example that "higher is not always better". In fact I prefer image #2 as well, with the lower settings. I do find it odd that he used such a strange and precise decimal value for detail in the 1st though. It would have been a better test if detail had been the same and only AA and GI changed.

- Oshyan