PDA

View Full Version : LW10 slower than LW96



Mr Rid
08-08-2011, 12:20 AM
I was experimenting with Simple Skin in LW96. I loaded the scene in LW10 and noticed the render time jumped from 23 mins to 32 mins!? After a few tests, I saw that the Classic camera was taking much longer to render in LW10. Perspective camera is taking just a few seconds longer in LW10.

I tested different scenes with GI and reflections, but I cant quite narrow down what the slowdown is. Some scenes render near the same time in LW96 as LW10, and others are taking longer in LW10. As an example, ten24's 'free head' scene involves similar elements to my problem scene.
http://www.box.net/shared/static/cv817f5nd7jq1k9ugsan.rar The first Persp cam uses AA settings that came with the scene. The 2nd cam is Classic with better AA and faster render time. The third "Persp_2" is a Persp cam with about equal AA quality and speed to the Classic.

On an i7-

LW96 renders:
-Class= 1m 28s
-Persp_2= 1m 28s.

LW10 renders:
-Class= 1m 53s
-Persp_2= 1m 33s.

Of course, the percentage of difference in render times becomes more considerable with heavier renders. The scene I am seeing the most drastic difference in is using HDRI lighting.

For the inevitable question of why I use the Classic camera, it is because I often find equal or better AA settings that render in the same or faster time as using Perspective, depending on the scene. The Classic cam also usually renders multiple moblur passes much faster. Multi passes are useful for squashing GI interpolation, and are necessary for HVs where photoreal blur doesnt work (a frustration with Turb4D is it wont work with Classic moblur.)

So, a slower Classic camera stinks.

I notice LW10 is taking a little longer to do anything, like loading scenes or switching on heavy subD, or editing dense polys in Modeler. What happened? And yet again, why am I the only one noticing?

gordonrobb
08-08-2011, 02:30 AM
I have had a feeling that things are slower, but haven't been able to compaire. It seems to me, it takes a long time ones the render is finished, to allow me to do anything also. You seeing that?

Sensei
08-08-2011, 08:04 AM
Are you using LW v9.6 32 bit, and LW v10.x 64 bit? Then you have answer.. 64 bit is almost always slower.

Mr Rid
08-08-2011, 03:58 PM
Am comparing x64 versions only, in Win7.

kopperdrake
08-08-2011, 06:39 PM
Just installed 9.6 and 10.1 on a new system so thought I'd run the scenes - this is what I got:

LW96 renders:
-Class= 1m 7s
-Persp_2= 55.4s.

LW10 renders:
-Class= 1m 26s
-Persp_2= 1m 12s.

Quite a lot of difference, but no idea why. I'm going to have a play with some of my own scenes to see how they compare as well.

kopperdrake
08-08-2011, 06:51 PM
Ok - background radiosity scene with character deformation and a refelective floor, LW10 is nigh on identical - 2m59s to LW9.6's 3m2s. No fancy node texturing here though. Could that be where the time hit is?

Mr Rid
08-08-2011, 07:19 PM
The simple skin scenes I've compared are definitely taking much longer in LW10's Classic cam. I compared a couple of other scenes that are both basically just GI and reflection, but this one is taking significantly longer in LW10 97259 while this one is not http://www.box.net/shared/static/kzvhcbepqx998vm25h0l.rar

nickdigital
08-08-2011, 08:41 PM
I notice LW10 is taking a little longer to do anything, like loading scenes or switching on heavy subD, or editing dense polys in Modeler. What happened? And yet again, why am I the only one noticing?

Just launching the program is a lot slower compared to 9.6.

Sensei
08-08-2011, 09:24 PM
LW v10.1 Layout starts here in 2 seconds when Hub is running. Without Hub, it's 4 seconds.

nickdigital
08-08-2011, 09:45 PM
LW v10.1 Layout starts here in 2 seconds when Hub is running. Without Hub, it's 4 seconds.

Is that consistent? We use the -p and -c flags with our configs and ext files referenced over our network. Our plug-ins are pulled in over the network as well.

9.6 launches instantly consistently. 10 and 10.1 ranges from launching instantly to 20+ seconds.

jasonwestmas
08-08-2011, 09:47 PM
LW rendering gets slower with each release. One can only hope that speed is being sacrificed for a better quality render. I usually get the biggest hits when I start dealing with reflections and softer looking lights. Area, Linear, Spherical.

So theoretically we may be able to turn down the settings a bit to speed things up and still get the quality of 96? I dunno, I'm not much for keeping track of minutes. I just turn things off and on and down till I get the speed and quality balance I need.

Matt
08-08-2011, 10:06 PM
Do you have Colour Space active?

Sensei
08-09-2011, 06:01 AM
Is that consistent? We use the -p and -c flags with our configs and ext files referenced over our network. Our plug-ins are pulled in over the network as well.

9.6 launches instantly consistently. 10 and 10.1 ranges from launching instantly to 20+ seconds.

Don't you have all files located on one network location, which is seen and available to all network machines? And they have just short-cut to it, instead of copy of LW on the all local disk.. ?
Watch network usage while running LightWave..

How about Auto Scanning plug-ins? Scanning every run network folders, is not a good idea. I bet it's slow. Especially if disk is not fast.

Are you using 100 Mbps network, or 1 Gbps?
What firewall tells about transfer speeds?

I have LW v10.x on local, fast 2 TB disk, without -c parameter.
I just run it, the first time in a day- ~5 seconds to fully ready. Second run 2 seconds.

nickdigital
08-09-2011, 08:30 AM
Don't you have all files located on one network location, which is seen and available to all network machines? And they have just short-cut to it, instead of copy of LW on the all local disk.. ?
Watch network usage while running LightWave..

How about Auto Scanning plug-ins? Scanning every run network folders, is not a good idea. I bet it's slow. Especially if disk is not fast.

Are you using 100 Mbps network, or 1 Gbps?
What firewall tells about transfer speeds?

I have LW v10.x on local, fast 2 TB disk, without -c parameter.
I just run it, the first time in a day- ~5 seconds to fully ready. Second run 2 seconds.

LW is installed locally on the workstations. The shortcut launches the local exe of LW and then uses -c to write/access their config from a network folder and the -p from a folder that contains the plug-ins that are housed on the network. We use -p so the animator workstations and render nodes use the same ext file. Would it be better to launch the Modeler or Layout exe from a network folder? Does LW need to actually be installed on someone's computer then?

Auto-scan is off.

We're on a 1gb network.

9.6 uses the same setup and launches instantly. This slowdown only appeared in the 10 series.

Sensei
08-09-2011, 08:47 AM
Does this slow down also happen when you have plugins and stuff copied to local disk, not network? Without using -c or -p..

I imagine that launching from network folder would be slower than locally installed.

Mine HDD has 64 MB cache, it makes quite a difference. Starting computer is blazing fast.

nickdigital
08-09-2011, 01:05 PM
Does this slow down also happen when you have plugins and stuff copied to local disk, not network? Without using -c or -p..

I imagine that launching from network folder would be slower than locally installed.


My guess is that 10 will launch quickly...I'll try this when I get in to my desk. But what changed between the 9 and 10 series to account for such drastic launch time differences?

Sensei
08-09-2011, 01:25 PM
The most noticeable difference in LW v10.x is using Qt library, because Core was using it. But I don't think so it's fault in your case, and don't know what is causing your problem.. So, I am guessing transfer files through network..

nickdigital
08-09-2011, 01:55 PM
Yeah, 10.1 launches quickly if I have Auto-Scan on and reference my 3rd party plug-ins from a local folder.

kopperdrake
08-10-2011, 02:00 PM
LW is installed locally on the workstations. The shortcut launches the local exe of LW and then uses -c to write/access their config from a network folder and the -p from a folder that contains the plug-ins that are housed on the network. We use -p so the animator workstations and render nodes use the same ext file. Would it be better to launch the Modeler or Layout exe from a network folder? Does LW need to actually be installed on someone's computer then?

Auto-scan is off.

We're on a 1gb network.

9.6 uses the same setup and launches instantly. This slowdown only appeared in the 10 series.

We have LW installed on the actual workstations, with some plugs (Maestro, LWCAD) left on a shared RAID drive so we could use the same libraries - across a 1Gb network. Having just installed LW10.1 on a new PC, with a SSD system drive, and moving those plugs to the same drive, LW takes 4 seconds on initial launch, and less than a second on 2nd launch - nigh on instant. *But*, Maestro is *far* more responsive being on the same drive, especially when auto-rigging a character.

Mr Rid
09-23-2011, 04:40 PM
Was comparing another Classic Camera scene using Enh-Hi AA and several normal-displaced objects, but without rays or GI.

LW10.1- norm disp calc in 9.8s. Total time- 39s = 29s render time
LW9.6- norm disp calc in 17.2s. Total time- 29s = 12s render time !?

LW10.1- enable DOF- 105s
LW9.6- enable DOF- 58s

after deleting normal displacement objects:
LW10.1- no DOF- 14.6s
LW9.6- no DOF- 7.2s

LW10.1- DOF- 45s
LW9.6- DOF- 19s

no DOF, enable GI and trace shadows, and LW10 speeds up:
LW10.1- 30.6s
LW9.6- 35.5s

Sensei
09-23-2011, 11:55 PM
Both 32 bit?

Because 64 bit executable is slower than 32 bit on the same machine..

Mr Rid
09-24-2011, 02:54 AM
Both x64, Win7, i7 960. LW96 set to 16 threads, LW10.1 set to 64 threads, and not using LCS. I've never understood why, but on a dual or quad core, LW renders faster with each step up in threads. It is odd where LW10 suddenly renders a bit faster with GI and rays enabled in this last scene, but not in another scene comparison with GI and rays. LW10 is also calculating the normal displacement twice as fast as 9.6, but then taking longer to render(?). I am not spending time trying to pin down specifics. But before final render, I am judging which version of LW to use to speed things up, which shouldnt be happening. Something seems to have become much less efficient about the Classic Camera in v10.

Sensei
09-24-2011, 04:32 AM
LW96 set to 16 threads, LW10.1 set to 64 threads,

???? What?!
Core i7 has 4 cores, 8 threads with Hyper-Threading..
So, you should use 8 or leave Automatic.
Using more threads than computer has installed cores is causing slow-down, EVERYWHERE.. Operating system has to switch more threads than it should.
If you want to use more CPU power download Render Optimizer plug-in from http://www.trueart.pl and set Priority to Highest, but with it you can't even move mouse while rendering, because LW renderer is taking everything..

Sensei
09-24-2011, 04:43 AM
Ah, classic camera- each thread has just once allocated area, if area is empty then thread quickly finishes it, but is not taking other area from other thread, which has more geometry, or more effects like reflection, refraction bounces, it just stops working (and in Process Manager you can see not doing anything core in such case). Newer cameras than classic, are working more efficiently, and taking areas from other threads, dynamically allocating what has to be rendered. Classic camera is legacy, leaved for backward compatibility.

Mr Rid
09-24-2011, 05:32 PM
???? What?!
Core i7 has 4 cores, 8 threads with Hyper-Threading..
So, you should use 8 or leave Automatic.
Using more threads than computer has installed cores is causing slow-down, EVERYWHERE..

All I know is the Classic camera renders faster as I increase the number of threads above the actual number of cores. This has been the case since I first compared on a dual core in LW7 and turned it up to 8 threads. Everyone I know has been using max threads ever since.

Using Ten24's Head scene, http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?t=116889&highlight=free+head on a hyperthreaded 4-core (low-res quick render)-

8 threads-
LW96-29.9
LW10- 36.9

16 threads-
LW96- 25.6
LW10- 29.7

64 threads-
LW10- 28.5

The difference between threads can be greater in different scenes, at higher res and multi passes, etc.



Ah, classic camera- each thread has just once allocated area, if area is empty then thread quickly finishes it, but is not taking other area from other thread, which has more geometry, ...

Not sure what you are saying, but yeah I see there is a difference between a frame filled with geometry versus geometry over a blank background. Using the BOX scene, http://forums.newtek.com//attachment.php?attachmentid=88106&d=1284531606 where the frame is filled with geometry, render time is same in LW96 and LW10 (low res quick render)-

8 threads- 17.5s

16 threads- 17s

64 threads- 16.4s

Nonetheless, I am getting significantly faster render times in LW96 for some scenes using the Classic camera.

Sensei
09-25-2011, 01:10 AM
Everyone I know has been using max threads ever since.


Everybody I know don't use Classic camera, but Perspective camera.. :)


Not sure what you are saying,...

You should see what I am saying after using 2 threads, opening Process Manager, then loading very heavy object and place it below half screen- first core will finish immediately rendering black space, second will be crunching heavy for long time..
Perspective camera doesn't work like that, but efficiently.

What render times do you have with Perspective camera, same scene, and threads like above?

Sensei
09-25-2011, 03:00 AM
I rendered this Head Scan scene (https://www.yousendit.com/directDownload?phi_action=app/directDownload&fl=SWhZekZncG9rWS9tcW02Y2lXNk9SMHVDeVNFRkF0Qm1kRmM 2aXU1dg&experience=bas), just turned off AA no more changes, on LW v10.0
and result is:
Classic camera 562 seconds, 8 threads (automatic)
Classic camera 421 seconds, 64 threads
Perspective camera 362 seconds, 8 threads (automatic)

This scene by default seems to be using Perspective camera. Are you sure you switched to Classic? And why in the first place, when Perspective seems faster..

Sensei
09-25-2011, 03:32 AM
Perspective camera 412 seconds, 8 threads (automatic) on LW v9.6
Classic camera 431 seconds, 8 threads (automatic) on LW v9.6
Classic camera 392 seconds, 16 threads on LW v9.6

Mr Rid
09-25-2011, 07:00 PM
I've wasted too much time on Perspective vs Classic test renders and discussion.
http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?t=112208&highlight=perspective&page=3
http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?t=85564&highlight=perspective&page=3

There is a widespread misconception that the Perspective camera generally renders faster. So far, in every scene that someone has produced as an example of how the Perspective camera renders faster, I have found that they are usually just unknowingly using lower quality AA. Most users have not taken time to understand how AA works differently in the two cameras (flipping between Classic and Perspective will not result in equal comparison), and are not comparing the AA (edges and noise) closely enough.

With equal AA quality, the Classic camera often renders faster or in the same time as the Perspective camera, depending. After extensive testing, the only areas I have found where the Perspective camera renders significantly faster is with reflection blur, vertically limited region, or with no AA. When rendering GI I find it more efficient to let multiple motion blur passes smerge flicker than to crank up GI accuracy or to cache GI. Classic moblur passes render much faster than Perspective, especially with HVs.

abdelkarim
09-26-2011, 02:15 AM
We know classic camera take long time. So we all used perspective camera :d or other but not classic :d to speedup classic i guess u know it sure. Poly subdvide and transparency ex.. I think newtek make this in lw 9 series and call it camera perspective.

Mitja
09-28-2011, 06:52 AM
Hope not to say something obviuos, but have you checked the angular tollerance? When loading old scenes this value tends to be very low.