PDA

View Full Version : LightWave 7 vs. LightWave 10.1



renderwerx
03-14-2012, 06:20 PM
On my PC LightWave 7.5c
the other PC LightWave 10.1 64 bit

give it your best shot

LightWave 7.5c render engine at 1 minute 28 seconds
scene optimized....
same scene only 27 seconds faster with LW 10.1

I think that's not bad for a 32 bit LW 7 :thumbsup:


1600 x 900 resolution

Samus
03-14-2012, 06:27 PM
27 seconds is huge .... almost half a minute, and Even more by the hours.
But i imagined it faster... One amazing thing to compare is Cloth fx Vs Motiondesigner...Motion designer win's in the solving the speed and self-collision.

Cheers

DigitalSorcery8
03-14-2012, 06:28 PM
I've not seen any render speed increase going from 32bit to 64bit. In fact some scenes can be SLOWER in 64bit. Now going from just plain LW7 to LW10.1 will make rendering quite a bit faster. Heck, rendering was far faster in LW9.6 than in LW7.

Samus
03-14-2012, 06:30 PM
Indeed but With 64 bit i can load 12 million polys CAD designed car in lightwave
and work...it itches but that same car in 32 bits cannot.

And that is impressive.

OnlineRender
03-14-2012, 06:48 PM
now do it with 11 and see what you get .... I agree with Samus 27 seconds is a sh!"T load of time , work that over week ...that time could be spent animating " freelancer or hobbyist "

Dexter2999
03-14-2012, 07:34 PM
On my PC LightWave 7.5c
the other PC LightWave 10.1 64 bit

give it your best shot

LightWave 7.5c render engine at 1 minute 28 seconds
scene optimized....
same scene only 27 seconds faster with LW 10.1


LW 7.5=88 seconds
LW 10.1 64bit=61 seconds

LW 10.1 is 30% faster.

DigitalSorcery8
03-14-2012, 11:23 PM
Indeed but With 64 bit i can load 12 million polys CAD designed car in lightwave
and work...it itches but that same car in 32 bits cannot.

And that is impressive.
But that's the REASON LW was ported to 64bit - so that it could handle more geometry and textures. Otherwise there would be no reason for going from 32bit to 64bit, except to keep up with OS's. Eventually all 32bit apps won't function on 64bit systems at all.


LW 7.5=88 seconds
LW 10.1 64bit=61 seconds

LW 10.1 is 30% faster.
LW7.5 2002
LW10.1 2011

I would expect more than a 30% increase over 9 years or so of tecnological advancement. Wouldn't you? :D

Dexter2999
03-14-2012, 11:32 PM
I would expect more than a 30% increase over 9 years or so of tecnological advancement. Wouldn't you? :D

Maybe if that is all they were working on.

But they also did work on:

Nodes
Python
VPR
Bullet integration
64 bit architecture
pass management

and the better part of three of those years was the CORE derailment

DigitalSorcery8
03-14-2012, 11:41 PM
Maybe if that is all they were working on.

But they also did work on:

Nodes
Python
VPR
Bullet integration
64 bit architecture
pass management

and the better part of three of those years was the CORE derailment

Python
VPR
Bullet integration

Were all in LW11 - not LW10.1. And were part of the CORE work.

Dexter2999
03-15-2012, 12:05 AM
The argument isn't 10.1 vs 11 but what they have been doing in the 9 years you mention.

And VPR was in 10

DigitalSorcery8
03-15-2012, 12:23 AM
The argument isn't 10.1 vs 11 but what they have been doing in the 9 years you mention.

And VPR was in 10

You're right. But not python or bullet. Ofc we had FPrime since... 2004? So Viper isn't a huge gain for 9.6 users with FPrime. A nice addition of course, but not ground-breaking tech now.

Actually your original reasoning of Newetk working on lots of tech at the same time doesn't really hold up. According to many users of LW11, rendering speeds are significantly increased over LW10.1 - and during LW11 development they were working on:

- flocking
- instancing
- Python
- Bullet ... and other things.

And yet they STILL managed to decrease render times by quite a bit. Right? ;)

toby
03-15-2012, 12:42 AM
I would expect more than a 30% increase over 9 years or so of tecnological advancement. Wouldn't you? :D
Yea and in 18 more years it will take 0 time to render!! :beerchug:

There's only so fast it will render. LW is not going drastically slower than the others, and at the point they are now it would take a year just to make it another 3% faster, and nothing else would get developed. So 30% *is* a lot faster.

DigitalSorcery8
03-15-2012, 01:21 AM
Yea and in 18 more years it will take 0 time to render!! :beerchug:

There's only so fast it will render. LW is not going drastically slower than the others, and at the point they are now it would take a year just to make it another 3% faster, and nothing else would get developed. So 30% *is* a lot faster.
I don't necessarily disagree... but the facts don't quite agree. If it took nine years (or thereabouts) to get to a 30% increase... and many people have said that LW11 is nearly twice as fast as LW10.1... that's allot less development time between LW 10.1 and LW11 than between LW7.5 and LW10.1. Correct?

Though I suspect that there was FAR less development of the renderer between 7.5 and 9 than there was all during the long 9.x cycle. LW9.6 ended up being quite a bit faster than 9.0.

toby
03-15-2012, 01:59 AM
It's not as simple as digging a longer ditch the more time you spend at it, or looking at the time passed and the speed improvement, and assume the next period of development will improve the speed the same amount. Render speed improvements consist of removing bottlenecks and making shortcuts, once you've done most of that, there's very little left to gain. So it depends on what they have left to do on the renderer, what part they decide to work on (raytracing, aa, gi, memory, etc.) and when they do it. LW9.3 (or thereabouts) for example is when they changed blurry reflections to only blur on the first bounce (I conclude from tests), speeding up the process dramatically, but then there's nothing left to do, it's only sped up slightly since then. I seriously doubt 11 is twice as fast as 10, unless 10 had some problems.

DigitalSorcery8
03-15-2012, 02:06 AM
I seriously doubt 11 is twice as fast as 10, unless 10 had some problems.
I honestly don't know since I don't have 10.1 or 11. I've just read about it here in various threads - the speed improvements are extensive.

biliousfrog
03-15-2012, 05:10 AM
Speed improvements are often not as cut and dry as suddenly being able to render scenes faster. Different scenes require different approaches to the rendering and Lightwave has changed extensively over the years meaning that old scenes will often render at the same speed or only marginally faster in newer versions of the software because the user isn't taking full advantage of the improved tools.

In the example given by Renderwerx I suspect that the render time in 10.1 could be improved simply by using a different camera. I can't recall exactly what LW7.x had but I'm fairly certain that it only had one camera type with standard AA passes and adaptive sampling. Since then we've had the perspective camera, improved AA, oversampling, reconstruction filters and sampling patterns. Simply opening a 7.5 scene into 10.1 and hitting render isn't going to give an accurate idea of what 10.1 can do, only what it can do when limited to 7.5's available settings.

I remember during the 9.x cycle when people were complaining that the renderer hadn't improved at all because they were using the same settings as before and the render was taking the same amount of time. Only after a lot of forum posts and, eventually, Except's great articles, did people realise that they could drastically reduce their render settings and render times without impacting the quality.

geo_n
03-15-2012, 08:12 AM
I seriously doubt 11 is twice as fast as 10, unless 10 had some problems.

Its still early days for lw 11 but my old scenes in lw 9.6 and 10.1 when rendered with unified sampling in lw 11 is nearly 40-50% faster. What NT did unifying sample settings for materials, lights, camera, etc really sped up the render engine a lot elimating wasted samples and saving us from manually limiting samples from each element in a scene.