PDA

View Full Version : Working with particle is painful slow



AmigaNewTek
03-01-2016, 10:43 AM
Hello everyone,

i'm trying to do a snow scene using the following tutorial: http://www.3dluvr.com/content/article/106/2

the settings talks about 100000.0 particle birthrate with 3240 frame for the animation.

Now, everything is slow till the computer hangs. Tried on another PC with the same results.

Any tips to make the particle/fx/wind operation more fast?

Maybe i'm missing something?

thank you very much

MonroePoteet
03-01-2016, 02:52 PM
I'd try changing the HV's to Sprites. I don't see in his tutorial changing this, so they're probably being rendered as Surfaces (the default) which can be pretty time-consuming.

mTp

prometheus
03-01-2016, 05:18 PM
Hello everyone,

i'm trying to do a snow scene using the following tutorial: http://www.3dluvr.com/content/article/106/2

the settings talks about 100000.0 particle birthrate with 3240 frame for the animation.

Now, everything is slow till the computer hangs. Tried on another PC with the same results.

Any tips to make the particle/fx/wind operation more fast?

Maybe i'm missing something?

thank you very much


use 64 bit lightwave version for heavy amount of particles, though 100 thousands isnīt slow on my machine, but it depends on..birthrate is one thing, another thing is what your particle limit is set for.
I notice a crawl when I reach around 3 millions.
depends on type of force and other dynamics you are using too.

so what does the scene particle amouont say? and what is slowing down? the simulation in open gl, or do you have vpr active?

AmigaNewTek
03-02-2016, 07:01 AM
Thank you for the replies

The PC hangs as soon as the scene is loaded. The screen doesn't update. BirthRate is 100000.0 particle limit is 100000

I would like to to try the suggested settings, but i can't access the interface.

AmigaNewTek
03-02-2016, 07:23 AM
After more than an hour i managed to edit the hypervoxel use sprite instead of surface, but results seems the same as before.
I changed the NVidia settings for opengl to optimze for performance. Nothing changed.

I woul like to try changing the display OGL setting from multitexture to GLSL, as soon as i get access to inteerface again.

AmigaNewTek
03-02-2016, 09:48 AM
I verified that changing the particle from surface to sprite the memory decreise from 720 MB to 160-200 MB (of course i don't get snowflake, but fog, instead). The system still very slow, tho.

Changing the geometry size of the particles to 3-5 mm i get snowflakes. Putting a size variation of 1% should do the trick for the moment

Any other suggestions?

prometheus
03-02-2016, 05:09 PM
100 000...that is something even my 32 bit machine can handle.

so the question is..do you work in 64 bit? and what machine specs do you have, to me it sounds you have not enough powerful computer, check internal ram.

MonroePoteet
03-03-2016, 07:55 AM
On my laptop (Intel i7-3610QM, 8GB memory), the test scene I set up for this thread has 100,000 particles and only takes about 3 seconds to load. Rendering a frame in the middle of the animation (with sprite HVs, motion blur, etc. similar to the tutorial setup) takes about 56 seconds. As Prometheus says, perhaps your system is underpowered (not enough physical memory or too slow a CPU), or there's something other than the particles / HVs slowing the scene down.

mTp

AmigaNewTek
03-04-2016, 06:56 AM
I have two machine:
Macbook 2009 with 4GB Ram. Simple dual core.
a six core amd with 8 GB ram.

Slow on both machine. Slighty better on the AMD system.

Both systems using Windows 10.

jwiede
03-04-2016, 10:43 AM
I have two machine:
Macbook 2009 with 4GB Ram. Simple dual core.
a six core amd with 8 GB ram.

Slow on both machine. Slighty better on the AMD system.

Both systems using Windows 10.

The memory amounts on your two system are fairly low for substantial LW work. Can you please report back what your free RAM is for each before you even load LW (look in Win10's Task Manager under Perf)? I suspect you'll discover the free memory is pretty minimal even before loading LW, but please let us know, as it'll help debug the situation.

Also, are you running any other apps at the same time as LW on those systems when working? If so, what else? Doing so will only drop your available RAM even further, leaving even less room for LW.

prometheus
03-04-2016, 12:32 PM
Just speaking from overall impressions and rumours perhaps, but AMD processors arenīt what I would ever choose for graphics work, maybe I am thinking, speaking without thinking :) but the impression I got, is that AMD isnīt competitive VS pentium...I would never get me a celeron either.

I suspect it is a combo of the cpu not being able to deal with it properly, as well as 8 gb of ram, it would help to have better hardware, then I must add that there may be other software that deals with large particle amount much better, modo might be even slower than lightwave, houdini probably way better.
Cant say anything about the mac performance, except that that amount of ram is just too low for this stuff, thatīs probably One reason the amd machine is faster, a pentium i7 with 12Gb would do much better.

As jwiede also mentions, shut down other processes not necessary, especially web browsers.

Michael

erikals
03-05-2016, 03:54 AM
pretty much flies on my machine...

4 year old machine, quadcore i2700k

AmigaNewTek
03-05-2016, 10:23 AM
The memory amounts on your two system are fairly low for substantial LW work. Can you please report back what your free RAM is for each before you even load LW (look in Win10's Task Manager under Perf)? I suspect you'll discover the free memory is pretty minimal even before loading LW, but please let us know, as it'll help debug the situation.

Also, are you running any other apps at the same time as LW on those systems when working? If so, what else? Doing so will only drop your available RAM even further, leaving even less room for LW.

AMD isn't really fast, but Windows works well with it.
Other rendering and lightwave proejcts made with it where fine.

I removed 40.000 particled and performance improved a little.

erikals
03-05-2016, 12:01 PM
did you test my scene?

prometheus
03-05-2016, 08:04 PM
AMD isn't really fast, but Windows works well with it.
Other rendering and lightwave proejcts made with it where fine.

I removed 40.000 particled and performance improved a little.

Hope I donīt come across as rude here but..

"windows works well with it" ? that has nothing to do how it copes with particles in lightwave.
same with other rendering and lightwave projects made with it ..and were fine.

I do not see why you make any relationship about the performance based on that ...and the fact that it seems your hardware needs more for this kind of tasks, You simply canīt expect a pancake when you throw an apple in the frying pan :D

sorry for that..just wanted make a point that its all unrelated really..itīs alright ..you can call me an obnoxius P...:)

jwiede
03-06-2016, 08:38 PM
AMD isn't really fast, but Windows works well with it.
Other rendering and lightwave proejcts made with it where fine.

I removed 40.000 particled and performance improved a little.

I'm not sure I see how your post is a "reply" to anything I asked, did you quote the wrong post?