PDA

View Full Version : lw fiber effects crash with instances in scene



matts152
08-17-2015, 10:07 AM
This bug has all ready been reported. Not fixed in 2015.3

If you have fiber effects in a scene with LOTS of instances as well.... like pebbles on a beach, LW will crash as soon as you hit f9. PLEASE fix this. makes both instancing and fiber fx useless in scenes im trying to use them on. NOT splitting crap up into layers either, so tired of this work around crap... cant this stuff just work for once. Sorry for frustration, this bug has been reallllllyyyy annoying me.

hdace
08-17-2015, 11:07 AM
I've had many crashes because of this too. But that's not all. In certain situations (maybe slightly fewer instances?) there may be a hang instead of a crash. And failing that too there can just be extreme slowness.

NewTek very kindly gave us instances so we could make forests, etc. Every previous thread I've read on this subject blames the user for having too many instances. How the heck are we meant to make forests if we don't use a lot of instances? The result is you can't have a guy or gal with cool hair in a scene with a forest. Thanks NewTek. Now I get it.

matts152
08-17-2015, 12:11 PM
exactly hdace!!!!. if you turn your instances WAY down, it will load, sometimes after like 3 minuets it will render...... In my scene i have 1 million pebbles..... that should NOT be a big deal. When fiber effects is off it loads and renders in the blink of an eye.... turn on fur, and bam... nothing.... its a serious bug with something for sure.

Greenlaw
08-17-2015, 01:02 PM
I'm wondering, how is FiberFX being used for in the scene?

If it's for grass, it would be much more efficent to use instanced geometry for grass instead, and depending on the diversity and details of your grass patches, it could look more realistic too.

If FiberFX is being used for hair or fur on a character, it's more efficient to break out the character in its own pass for compositing.

Just a couple of thoughts/suggestions.

G.

Greenlaw
08-17-2015, 01:07 PM
BTW, back when I was creating a lot of landscapes using HD_Instance, I would use clip mapped cards for grass and plants in the midground to background region. This rendered much faster and didn't require much memory. If there wasn't a lot of camera motion, I might even break out the renders into a multi-planed matte painting, which would eliminate any 'chatter' the might result from anti-aliasing so much tiny geometry.

For foreground grass, I might have used actual geometry or Sasquatch if I thought it would hold up. Nowadays, I would probably use a different level of detail with Instances for near grass.

In these cases, if I needed blowing wind across grassy plains, I found I could cheat this very credibly by running displacement through masked areas in compositing. I used this dumb trick on a couple of high-end car commercials and the E3 cinematic for Fable: The Journey a few years ago.

Just a couple more ideas that worked for me.

G.

matts152
08-17-2015, 01:51 PM
thanks for the input G. I know I could probably come up with a compositing fix, thing is im just so tired of having to do that lol. The scene im having issues with is really not intensive, a video game renderer could handle it. Im trying to do things as much in camera as I can, using octane render now, and its easier to just get it in camera, plus octane doesnt have the best compositing options yet. When im doing my tests though im using LW renderer, so i know its not octane :):)

hdace
08-17-2015, 01:57 PM
Agreed. Also using both LW & Octane but it's definitely being caused by LW.

Greenlaw: It's a question of what constitutes efficiency. Having to use compositing is by definition inefficient. We just want a tool that works as advertised and avoid the darn compositing whenever possible.

Greenlaw
08-17-2015, 02:02 PM
I know I could probably come up with a compositing fix, thing is im just so tired of having to do that lol.
Funny you should say that because I've never had to patience to render everything in-camera. :D

Using Octane however, I understand. Curious to see what the problem is exactly...can you post a frame?

G.

Greenlaw
08-17-2015, 02:11 PM
Greenlaw: It's a question of what constitutes efficiency. Having to use compositing is by definition inefficient.

I have disagree that preplanning and rendering for compositing is inefficient. There are countless reasons why nearly all commercial studio productions break out their animation renders for compositing. For me personally, rendering completely in-camera just takes way too much time, and the result is an image that offers very little control for editing in post.

These days, I'm primarily working in 2D cartoon animation and I still break out all my layers for compositing. IMO, it's just so much easier to work this way, especially when under a tight schedule.

G.

hdace
08-17-2015, 02:29 PM
You're easily one of the smartest guys on this forum and arguing with you is clearly pointless. 99% of the time I agree with you and just lurk. It's true that I'm a heretic. I know most people composite like crazy. For some reason I always get much nicer results by avoiding it. It's also true that I have more time than others. So I test and test and make sure all the shadows and reflections are just right. For me compositing is always very time consuming because of the raytracing that DIDN'T happen because the separate elements were not there to be bounced off of (if you gather my meaning).

Greenlaw
08-18-2015, 10:43 AM
You're easily one of the smartest guys on this forum and arguing with you is clearly pointless.
I've gotten pretty good at faking it anyway. :D

Mostly, I've been lucky to work with artists who are a hundred times smarter than I am. I've also benefited greatly from the advice of experienced users in this forum, and sharing tips is just my way of paying back to the the community.

Anyway...regarding rendering completely 'in-camera', there is certainly nothing wrong with that and there are valid reasons for insisting on that approach. It all depends on what your goal is, the tools at hand, and how much time you can afford to achieve that goal.

The suggestions I post in these forums are based on what's worked well for me on past commercial jobs and personal projects, but I know that some projects pose unique challenges where 'one-size fits all' solutions might not fit properly. (Boy, do I know about those projects!) Ultimately the right approach is the one that works best for your own project and situation.

G.

jwiede
08-18-2015, 09:28 PM
IIf FiberFX is being used for hair or fur on a character, it's more efficient to break out the character in its own pass for compositing.

Problem is, I can think of cases where the characters themselves used high numbers of instances for elements of their clothing/costumes. It's a cheap way to keep the character poly count low, when heavily adorned (esp. if the adornments can detach).

LW must reliably be able to do both in the same scene, period. There's just no reasonable excuse for not supporting both at once. If LW3DG allows that situation to persist, then when it costs them customers (and it will), they will have nobody to blame but themselves.

It would certainly help if LW provided substantially more detailed breakdowns of how memory is being used during rendering, broken down at per-instance-pool / per-hair-instance, etc. level of detail. Esp. in cases where it runs into memory problems, having such a report on memory usage could greatly assist debugging the scene, and even after allocations start failing, outputting such a report should be feasible (basically, grab the output buffers, etc. needed to output that report during startup, it won't be much). I know myself and others have asked for this in the past, guess it's time to put in yet another request for it.

jwiede
08-18-2015, 09:40 PM
(*sigh* Double post removed.)

matts152
08-19-2015, 06:42 AM
Agreed. Also using both LW & Octane but it's definitely being caused by LW.

Greenlaw: It's a question of what constitutes efficiency. Having to use compositing is by definition inefficient. We just want a tool that works as advertised and avoid the darn compositing whenever possible.

I can not post a frame because the issue is crashing. The render window will not even come up, lightwave just sits there not responding. This is a confirmed bug by multiple users, including the developer for octane render. He even submitted the bug himself. LW group even knows whats causing the crash, they just havent apparently gotten to it yet. This is what frustrates me.

matts152
08-19-2015, 06:50 AM
On rendering everything in camera. Greenlaw, I agree, I used to do way more compositing in the past. But Octane is a different beast. It benefits from keeping things in camera. When your bouncing light all over the place, you need everything in camera to get the results Octane can achieve. If you split things out, you still have to calculate the other stuff in the scene for reflections and light bounces. That wastes render time. With a decent Octane Render setup, you can have final frame times on complex scenes as low as 1 minuet a frame. Thats insane! It would take me more time to break things out for layers in compositing, then it would to just re-render the scene. I also like letting the computers do the work, as appose to me spending extra time rendering out different elements. Granted my deadlines are more relaxed then most, but this Octane Render stuff really is changing things. If it hasn't hit your studio yet, it will. The speed and quality is just too insane to ignore.

hdace
08-19-2015, 09:20 AM
If LW3DG allows that situation to persist, then when it costs them customers (and it will), they will have nobody to blame but themselves.

It would certainly help if LW provided substantially more detailed breakdowns of how memory is being used during rendering, broken down at per-instance-pool / per-hair-instance, etc. level of detail.

Absolutely. Fingers crossed for 2016.

As for matts152, you're just going to have to find a workaround that probably involves compositing. I know, it sucks.

Greenlaw
08-19-2015, 09:53 AM
I have Octane plus the LW plugin in my home studio but I don't use it because my computer is too underpowered for it. Someday I'd like to upgrade the workstation but since we already have a small render farm here, there really hasn't been an urgent need for it. Octane would be cool to have to but without the option to break out elements for compositing would make me nuts.

I think this is just a matter of preference though.

Last year I worked at a studio where a couple of artists had Octane on their boxes--they were evaluating whether the studio should switch to it. One of them really liked it because he felt he could get closer to photoreal quicker and used it on a number of shots, but the other artist didn't feel he was seeing any greater speed performance than he got from a regular GI render with just a few nodes on the render farm, but more importantly he was losing the ability to work with the shot for compositing vfx. From his perspective, Octane was actually costing him time and flexibility he couldn't afford to lose, so he abandoned it. Both artists had valid reasons for sticking with Octane or for dropping it, but both agreed that place to use it depended on the technical needs of the shots, and that Octane wasn't necessarily going to be the best solution for all rendering situations.

IMO, while it would be nice to have a single animation/rendering solution for everything, that's just isn't realistic when you work in commercial TV and film productions. This is especially true when you're hired as a generalist because you just never know what crazy task is going to be thrown at you from day to day. I like having a lot of options available, especially after rendering, and rendering for compositing is one way to get many, many options.

I think someday I would like the option to use Octane in production but I think the production would have to be specifically designed around its strengths. With Octane's current limitations, like the artist mentioned above, I think Octane would wind up costing me time I can't spare even if I had the appropriate hardware in the home studio.

I'm still keeping an eye on its development though so maybe someday... :)

G.