PDA

View Full Version : Battle of renderers; FurryBall vs the world



Hail
01-28-2013, 11:03 AM
Interesting comparison of renderers here http://furryball.aaa-studio.cz/aboutFurryBall/compare.html
I wonder where lw and kray would fall in all of these

lardbros
01-28-2013, 11:31 AM
I can't convert the scene file they have... is it maya binary? Anyone offer their assistance in converting it to FBX? :D

Surrealist.
01-28-2013, 12:18 PM
Here.

I don't know how to tile UVs in LW like you can in Maya. If you don't know either, the floor texture is tiled 7 Times and you can do that in PS. Or maybe it is something you can do with nodes.

stiff paper
01-28-2013, 02:48 PM
They're looking for somebody to write a LightWave plugin:

http://www.aaa-studio.cz/furryballforum/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=4010

lardbros
01-28-2013, 03:52 PM
Here.

I don't know how to tile UVs in LW like you can in Maya. If you don't know either, the floor texture is tiled 7 Times and you can do that in PS. Or maybe it is something you can do with nodes.

Oh awesome.... thanks!!! :D Will try this out and set something up. Think it'll be the fur that'll kill LW, but will give it a go!

EDIT
------

Sorry, thought you'd converted this to an FBX... can anyone do it as a favour pleeeease?

Surrealist.
01-29-2013, 01:02 AM
yeah it is FBX.... what did I send the wrong file by mistake? Let me check.

for the love of *&&^%^*&^%$#

Sorry!

Here.

Ztreem
01-29-2013, 01:49 AM
Here.

I don't know how to tile UVs in LW like you can in Maya. If you don't know either, the floor texture is tiled 7 Times and you can do that in PS. Or maybe it is something you can do with nodes.

If you use the image node you have the option to tile an UV texture.

erikals
01-29-2013, 02:22 AM
Looks good.

btw >
Please write us, if you want to cooperate with us for plug-in:
Xxxxxxx, Xxxxxxx, Lightwave, Xxxxxxx, Xxxxxxx... or any other software.

Surrealist.
01-29-2013, 02:26 AM
If you use the image node you have the option to tile an UV texture.

Great, thanks. I figured there was a way with nodes.

50one
01-29-2013, 02:29 AM
Oh gawd! Another renderer that promises to be the revolution.

Thomas Leitner
01-29-2013, 02:59 AM
Without accurate details of the surfaces and the lights and GI settings itīs hard too compare with LWs renderer.
BTW there is no realistic rendering in their gallery.

ciao
Thomas

lardbros
01-29-2013, 03:46 AM
yeah it is FBX.... what did I send the wrong file by mistake? Let me check.

for the love of *&&^%^*&^%$#

Sorry!

Here.

Haha... no problems... an easy mistake!!

Thanks for doing that for us... very much appreciated!! :D

Surrealist.
01-29-2013, 04:24 AM
@ Lardbros... no prob, you're welcome. Happy to help.


Without accurate details of the surfaces and the lights and GI settings itīs hard too compare with LWs renderer.
BTW there is no realistic rendering in their gallery.

ciao
Thomas

I find most of the stuff there to be a tad hard to look at. That may have little to do with the render engine though. I think it is a little overpriced for the market frankly so they are going to have to show some stunning stuff. Maybe it is possible. I may give the trial a shot and have a see.

Surrealist.
01-29-2013, 05:00 AM
Oh interesting. Just saw this on the FAQ.


Tesla? Does FurryBall run on that?
Tesla is a CUDA/OpenCL accelerator and we do not use those. We use DirectX 11.
We do not know whether the new Tesla cards work as standard graphics cards.

Apparently they are not using CUDA or OpenCL.

And they say the Furry Ball GI is "Simulated" whatever that means. IBL but no caustics.

http://furryball.aaa-studio.cz/aboutFurryBall/compare.html

torturebori007
01-29-2013, 07:46 AM
This is a exciting battle to wait and see what our Lightwave can do...if anything at least beat Maya....Please!!!!!!!!

Can't wait for results

dwburman
01-29-2013, 10:45 AM
Here.

I don't know how to tile UVs in LW like you can in Maya. If you don't know either, the floor texture is tiled 7 Times and you can do that in PS. Or maybe it is something you can do with nodes.

I think you could also scale the UV map up in modeler until the texture tiles 7 times, but that's screwing with the model which is probably a bad idea for a benchmark scene. It's easier to just change the tile number in the image node.

dwburman
01-29-2013, 10:45 AM
Here.

I don't know how to tile UVs in LW like you can in Maya. If you don't know either, the floor texture is tiled 7 Times and you can do that in PS. Or maybe it is something you can do with nodes.

I think you could also scale the UV map up in modeler until the texture tiles 7 times, but that's screwing with the model which is probably a bad idea for a benchmark scene. It's easier to just change the tile number in the image node.

Surrealist.
01-29-2013, 11:43 AM
Yeah I think so.

lardbros
01-29-2013, 01:48 PM
This is weird... I can't even load an FBX into Layout... it says unrecognised file format??? What's going on with my LightWave??

I've opened it up in 3dsMax and resaved as an older format just in case, and it won't load it! I rescanned all my plugins, still nothing!?!? How strange... any ideas?

Surrealist.
01-29-2013, 02:05 PM
Not sure. I checked it before I sent it to see if it would load. And it did for me.

lardbros
01-29-2013, 03:29 PM
How odd... I can't figure this out at all!?!?

dwburman
01-29-2013, 04:56 PM
Yup, scaling the UV map works. :)

http://youtu.be/gYxIoqXkix0

http://youtu.be/gYxIoqXkix0

XswampyX
01-29-2013, 06:24 PM
Here's my version. Feel free to sort out the FFX and the red surface to make it closer to the reference image. Any speed ups as well.

http://i465.photobucket.com/albums/rr16/xXswampyXx/Compare_zpsce75df54.jpg

OFF
01-30-2013, 01:03 AM
Origin scene = 2m28s
I added a blurred reflection on the floor/wall surface.
The result become = 26m20s

Thomas Leitner
01-30-2013, 01:19 AM
Origin scene = 2m28s
I added a blurred reflection on the floor/wall surface.
The result become = 26m20s

Hi,
I donīt think that the floor has blurred reflection, but the red buddha needs one.
And in order to compare you have to render in FULL HD (1920x1080)!

ciao
Thomas

OFF
01-30-2013, 02:23 AM
O'k, 1920x1080 = 3m54s
110797

erikals
01-30-2013, 02:42 AM
thing though, they might be (probably?) flicker/splotch free renders. (except for the motion blur)

if so, render time has to be increased quite heavily in Lightwave...

Surrealist.
01-30-2013, 03:58 AM
Also there is DOF on the camera. Shows up well in the Renderman exp which blazes through this benchmark. I wounder how 3Delight would do? Oh I see the file name is "delight" so that is what they used. Very interesting.


Also there seems to be more reflection on the Buddha.

110798

lardbros
01-30-2013, 06:41 AM
Here's my version. Feel free to sort out the FFX and the red surface to make it closer to the reference image. Any speed ups as well.

http://i465.photobucket.com/albums/rr16/xXswampyXx/Compare_zpsce75df54.jpg

Thanks Swampy... I tried loading the FBX but my LW won't import it at the moment :( Hope it's not because of my Win8... I've been mostly unhappy with it so far, and a few plugins aren't working as they should. :(


Anyway... will give this scene a go tonight :D

zapper1998
01-30-2013, 10:34 AM
cool will play with it

:)

XswampyX
01-30-2013, 03:09 PM
So here's version 2.

Now with DOF and non-interpolated GI. I've also adjusted the FFX to make it more like the reference image and made the red surface more reflective.

http://i465.photobucket.com/albums/rr16/xXswampyXx/Compare_Dof_zps06d99aee.jpg

Rendered @ 1/4 size = 5 mins. :)

erikals
01-30-2013, 04:06 PM
tested a bit, not 100% there yet though... 36min render time at 1080p
i7 QuadCore 3.7GHz

motion blur can be improved (fixed) by using the Gerardo DP motion blur trick >
http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?71751-Extra-Buffer-nodes&p=1268096&viewfull=1#post1268096

bit too dense FiberFX in this example, less dense should probably decrease render time.
no Dof though in this example, that should increase render time.


Lightwave test - Faux Tonemapping >
http://youtu.be/3zRqKdVeWmE

erikals
01-30-2013, 04:24 PM
XswampyX, looks very good :]

will test it :]

XswampyX
01-30-2013, 04:55 PM
Thanks Erikals. :)

Here's a quick update with an incidence colour gradient set up on the Buddhas. (Still 5 mins)

http://i465.photobucket.com/albums/rr16/xXswampyXx/Compare_V3_Red_Shader_zps44c1789c.jpg

Surrealist.
01-30-2013, 05:30 PM
Nice one. Good time too. What kind of time do you get with 1080?

erikals
01-30-2013, 05:48 PM
tweaked your scene, just small tweaks...

MoBlur 6
Color Gradient (as you said) :]
Light Size 40m 1m
FiberFX, bit thicker fibers, inner color darker

looks pretty good... \:]

the render time surpriced me, only 10 min at 1080p
i7 QuadCore 3.7GHz

XswampyX
01-30-2013, 05:48 PM
About 12mins 8 seconds as most of the image is the background/ground plane, it doesn't take much longer. Not 4 x longer anyway. :D

Arrrggghh it's 45 mins past the hour. Time for the forum to .....


..... Lock up.

XswampyX
01-30-2013, 05:51 PM
the render time surpriced me, only 10 min at 1080p
i7 QuadCore 3.7GHz

Show off! :)

Nice render!

OFF
01-30-2013, 08:25 PM
Funny, I also was engaged yesterday gradient on the reflection ))
On the version of scene by erical's i got 3m45s
110853
I slightly modified displacement on the sphere:
110852

erikals
01-30-2013, 09:09 PM
i found it was difficult (impossible) to reduce the noise in the black areas without increasing the samples (render time) a lot.

so reduced the noise in post, worked out alright, considering the 10min render time.
(the process can be automated)

i've yet to try the Gerardo DP trick though, to cut down render time for Motion Blur >
http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?71751-Extra-Buffer-nodes&p=1268096&viewfull=1#post1268096

would be interesting to also give Denoiser a try again >
http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?102616-DPont-s-Denoiser-Node-anyone-tried-it

JonW
01-30-2013, 09:12 PM
tweaked your scene, just small tweaks...

MoBlur 6
Color Gradient (as you said) :]
Light Size 40m 1m
FiberFX, bit thicker fibers, inner color darker

looks pretty good... \:]

the render time surpriced me, only 10 min at 1080p
i7 QuadCore 3.7GHz

On my ancient 5580 box it's 5:28. I'm happy with that, but a new box would be nice!

erikals
01-30-2013, 09:17 PM
dang, what processor is that?...

edit: ah, Xeon W5580...

JonW
01-30-2013, 10:06 PM
dang, what processor is that?...

edit: ah, Xeon W5580...

Yes, 2 of them as they are x5xxx CPUs.

4 real cores each so they are really ancient! Some nice new 6 or 8 core CPUs would be the go!

erikals
01-31-2013, 03:00 AM
7+1min render

sat the motion blur to 4 on the main render (7min)
re-rendered the sphere with more samples (1min)

reduced noise in shadow areas in post. (.zip)

pretty good :]

erikals
01-31-2013, 03:31 AM
ok, was able to clean up the sphere further by using a better, more logical method.
same render time. (8min total +post work)

dsol
01-31-2013, 04:12 AM
If you're using photo-real motion blur, try using just a single MB pass but a ton of adaptive passes (64 is usually enough to remove any noise from renders). I find it a lot faster and more efficient as the renderer is only focusing effort rendering samples where they're needed.

EDIT: vector motion blur applied as an image processing effect isn't needed so much these days since the introduction of the new LW sampling/rendering engine in 9.2 (particularly since unified sampling was introduced in 11). It can be a lot faster in certain cases - and look smoother (no sampling artifacts/grain as it's just a post effect) - but it doesn't work well with transparency or reflections.

JCG
01-31-2013, 04:17 AM
This is not an entry of my own, I just made a couple of quick changes to Mr. XswampyX 's entry (I hope you don't mind)
I'm not sure what the rules are, so I don't know if this change is even allowed. I just switched the checkerboard on the blue ball from 3D to 2D UV'ed and also lightened up the green ball a bit.
I think that's all I did... It just seemed that the reference displacement was a bit more squarish.
I think the render time stayed pretty much the same.

erikals
01-31-2013, 05:09 AM
thanks Dsol, i might give it a go later...

latest test render >

8min render + 2min sphere re-rendered (limited region, background unseen by cam)
car paint
faux tonemapping
noise reduction in post

Thomas Leitner
01-31-2013, 05:12 AM
Hi,
Here's my version. I used the original position and rotation of the lights from the fbx file and the original DOF distance (but I donīt know the f-stop!).

I added a png with a checkerboard (since I needed blurred edges for a smooth displacement).
I used DP lights (flood).
And modified XswampyXīs FFX settings (thanks), since I never achieved anything other than crashes with FFX.
Donīt know what material the red buddha should be (feel free to improve it).

If you want to try the scene, be awear that you need DP lights!!!

ciao
Thomas

p.s.: It took 13m 53s on an old mac pro 8 core (xeon E5462 2.8GHz). So itīs hard to compare.

Surrealist.
01-31-2013, 07:12 AM
One thing to keep in mind those render tests they have done can be modified by the fact that the CPU they are using to render the CPU aps like Mental Ray are done on an i5 not an i7. So on an i7 those CPU render times would be faster. Which still makes FurryBall extremely fast, but it can be a little misleading without at least a render on the fastest available CPU box, or at least a decent 4 or 6 core CPU to compare with a GPU. I have an I7 laptop but it is not the fastest clock. So maybe I'll whip up a render in MR just to see the difference.

XswampyX
01-31-2013, 05:05 PM
Hi,
Here's my version. I used the original position and rotation of the lights from the fbx file and the original DOF distance (but I donīt know the f-stop!).

I added a png with a checkerboard (since I needed blurred edges for a smooth displacement).
I used DP lights (flood).
And modified XswampyXīs FFX settings (thanks), since I never achieved anything other than crashes with FFX.
Donīt know what material the red buddha should be (feel free to improve it).

If you want to try the scene, be awear that you need DP lights!!!

ciao
Thomas

p.s.: It took 13m 53s on an old mac pro 8 core (xeon E5462 2.8GHz). So itīs hard to compare.

That looks pretty good. :thumbsup: Who needs Fuzzyballz. :D

Surrealist.
01-31-2013, 06:35 PM
lol!

Well, that renderer may be limited in features, but i kicks A over anything else as far as time with the features it does support. I mean they are kicking that thing out in 23 secs on a GPU!

Even if you guys get an average of 5 mins on the fastest CPU that's still around 20 times faster. And when you look at what it would cost for 20 CPU's that is a very significant difference. Studios using this renderer are talking about cranking out shots on the artist's workstations and no render farms.

Granted I am well aware that I have not actually seen much quality come out of their gallery. That may be nothing to do with anything but the content. I'll find out soon enough with the demo. But these guys are Doing something completely different than the other render solutions out there. Will be interesting to see where they take this.

Anyway still good to see the old LightWave workhorse show up and give the other renderers a run for the money.

Stuff is looking real good.

erikals
02-01-2013, 04:52 AM
true :] hard to beat 23 seconds :]

but, the nice surprise here is that LightWave is holding up pretty well to the other engines.
an average of 10 minutes is very good.

now, that is, for this specific "exterior" scene of course.

Surrealist.
02-01-2013, 05:02 AM
Yeah. In the gallery there are some interiors rendering at about 2 mins. Which is still outstanding. But that is 10X slower than the ext shot. And they don't even really look that good. So I am still not sure what is up with that. I think they are rendering with Spotlights and Shadow Maps which is not so attractive.

JonW
02-01-2013, 05:21 AM
Doing an architectural model, actually a few detailed models in the scene, running at about 6 GB, LW renders 5616x3744 files in 30 to 60 minutes on my old W5580 box.

Thomas Leitner
02-01-2013, 05:54 AM
Hi,
because I had to test something in LW 11.5:
here a new version with better(?) FFX.
New rendertime on the same mac pro: 5m 2s.

ciao
Thomas

new scene file is LW 11.5, you need the content (objects and images) from my last post and DP lights.

erikals
02-01-2013, 08:56 AM
Nice!

how were you able to push render time down?

Hail
02-01-2013, 08:57 AM
Hi,
because I had to test something in LW 11.5:
here a new version with better(?) FFX.
New rendertime on the same mac pro: 5m 2s.

ciao
Thomas

new scene file is LW 11.5, you need the content (objects and images) from my last post and DP lights.

Did they do some work on the renderer in 11.5?

Thomas Leitner
02-01-2013, 09:13 AM
Nice!

how were you able to push render time down?

Hi,
One thing I did was lowering the Shading and Light Samples to 1 and let the camera Maximum Samples (32) to the work.
Maybe NT optimized FFX, I donīt know.

ciao
Thomas

erikals
02-01-2013, 09:26 AM
hmm, must test this... :] thanks!

Thomas Leitner
02-02-2013, 03:55 AM
Did they do some work on the renderer in 11.5?
Hi,
I made some more tests and it donīt seems so (for this particular rendering).
The speed improvement comes only from lowering the shading settings (it works the same in LW 11.3).
Also FFX donīt render faster.

ciao
Thomas

Thomas Leitner
02-02-2013, 05:31 AM
Hi again,
To get soft shadows and reflections you need at least 2 samples for light and shaders (my fault).
Also changed fiber length to better match the size of original.
So new rendertime on the same old mac pro: 6m 7s.

ciao
Thomas

new scene file is LW 11.5, you need the content (objects and images) from my older post and DP lights.

erikals
02-02-2013, 05:31 AM
ah! :]

thanks for testing though, still, i think it's pretty good at 5 minutos :]

pixym
02-02-2013, 07:27 AM
HI nice tests :)
Could you please post a simple package of your last test?

Thomas Leitner
02-02-2013, 08:33 AM
HI nice tests :)
Could you please post a simple package of your last test?
Hi,
because of forum limit a file could only be 5 MB. Download both and open "Compare_V006_lws.part1.rar".

ciao

pixym
02-02-2013, 09:05 AM
Thanks