PDA

View Full Version : 2018 render speed



gar26lw
01-06-2018, 02:13 AM
wondering what i am missing? comparing times and rendering with just a hdr image in background, to get a handle on the new renderer.

modo render defaults - 17 secs

http://forums.newtek.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=139215

2018 matching modo defaults - 2 mins 47secs

http://forums.newtek.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=139212

2018 heavily optimised with noise filter - 46 seconds but note the jaggies.

http://forums.newtek.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=139213

now if i switch to interpolated gi instead of brute force, i get 3mins 33 seconds!
its also way lighter for some reason.

http://forums.newtek.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=139216

now, something ive noted is that switching off pbr glossy reflections doesnt matter much to times
i get the same times in 2015 with blurry reflections.
i cant find any way to control shading samples in 2018. adjusting this in 2015 will speed up times.
i am missing the diffuse slot in the principal shader. its handy to dial down a surface with leaving cols unchanged.

if you want to test out this, get the mesh here

https://dbql2bd8kqpp.cloudfront.net/network6/storage/7/attachments/10859-rolling-teapot.zip

samurai_x
01-06-2018, 02:20 AM
You can't really compare a bidirection pathtracer on cpu vs a general purpose renderer like modo.
Pathtracers are naturally slower unless its gpu powered like indigo, etc.

hypersuperduper
01-06-2018, 02:36 AM
Certainly it is reasonable to compare renderers, right? I mean it’s the results that count.

gar26lw
01-06-2018, 02:52 AM
http://home.lagoa.com/2014/04/ray-tracing-vs-path-tracing-in-plain-english/

@hyper- yeah. i just want a fast preview speed and shorter render times. 17 sec compared to 2 mins 47 secs is pretty wild.

is it reasonable to think that the gpu will be leveraged at some point?

samurai_x
01-06-2018, 02:55 AM
Certainly it is reasonable to compare renderers, right? I mean it’s the results that count.

That's what bad employers/clients say. :D

gar26lw
01-06-2018, 02:59 AM
That's what bad employers/clients say. :D

you’re not really adding anything to this conversation

hypersuperduper
01-06-2018, 03:07 AM
What is the benefit of lightwave2018’s renderer, And how do you set it up for quick renders like the Modo render? At this stage I think most of us assume we are doing something wrong when the results don’t match our expectations. It is a new renderer after all. What we want to know is WHAT are we doing wrong.

samurai_x
01-06-2018, 03:09 AM
you’re not really adding anything to this conversation

Haha.
But you didn't really add any detail to your renders, initially. You've edited it now.
To get a fair comparison. Turn off IC in modo so its montecarlo mode. Then try to get the noise out and see what render time you get.
Do the same with lw 2018 without using any denoiser.

samurai_x
01-06-2018, 03:15 AM
What is the benefit of lightwave2018’s renderer, And how do you set it up for quick renders like the Modo render? At this stage I think most of us assume we are doing something wrong when the results don’t match our expectations. It is a new renderer after all. What we want to know is WHAT are we doing wrong.

Lightwave 2018 is probably like Arnold renderer. Slow and noisy but probably can handle huge data sets now.
https://answers.arnoldrenderer.com/questions/2550/is-arnold-considered-a-path-tracer-or-ray-tracer.html

Its a different beast to renderers like vray, redshift that have many cheats to make them really fast.

hypersuperduper
01-06-2018, 03:23 AM
Lightwave 2018 is probably like Arnold renderer. Slow and noisy but probably can handle huge data sets now.
https://answers.arnoldrenderer.com/questions/2550/is-arnold-considered-a-path-tracer-or-ray-tracer.html

Its a different beast to renderers like vray, redshift that have many cheats to make them really fast.
So the solution to trying to get quick clean renders for simple scenes is.... what? Use another renderer?

The problem is that a lot of people use lw for simple scenes and animations and are struggling to make the new renderer work well within that scenario.

MichaelT
01-06-2018, 03:39 AM
I tried it, and for me this took 2.1 seconds:

http://forums.newtek.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=139218
139218

With Subdivision on this took 3.4 seconds:

http://forums.newtek.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=139219
139219

And finally.. with subdivision + double sided on 4.1 seconds:

http://forums.newtek.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=139220
139220

And a close up of the one above, took 7 seconds:

http://forums.newtek.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=139221
139221

The best would probably be if you had your actual scene available for us, to see how things are set up.

gar26lw
01-06-2018, 03:55 AM
Haha.
But you didn't really add any detail to your renders, initially. You've edited it now.
To get a fair comparison. Turn off IC in modo so its montecarlo mode. Then try to get the noise out and see what render time you get.
Do the same with lw 2018 without using any denoiser.

thanks. ive found plain aa seems to be fastest. adaptive slower, noise reduction better just off unless really needed, no more shading samples, must dictated by reflection and refraction samples. ray recursion will dictate bounces if lower than gi bounce level.

gar26lw
01-06-2018, 03:59 AM
I tried it, and for me this took 2.1 seconds:


With Subdivision on this took 3.4 seconds:

And finally.. with subdivision + double sided on 4.1

And a close up of the one above, took 7

The best would probably be if you had your actual scene available for us, to see how things are set up.

yeah, ill post the scene, gimme a sec...

ok, see attached, get hdr from here http://www.hdrlabs.com/sibl/archive/ ditch river.

Asticles
01-06-2018, 03:59 AM
In this sort of scene works better the environment light, but remember disable sample background in gi settings.
In that case add samples directly to the light.

samurai_x
01-06-2018, 04:10 AM
So the solution to trying to get quick clean renders for simple scenes is.... what? Use another renderer?

The problem is that a lot of people use lw for simple scenes and animations and are struggling to make the new renderer work well within that scenario.

My point was if modo and lightwave 2018 renderer was compared, make it function as close as possible, monte carlo mode in modo.

Irradiance caching tricks in general purpose renderers will beat pathtracers whether on cpu or gpu. That's a given. Redshift kicks octane's ***.
Pathtracers are slow but "looks good" without much tweaking, but slow because the renderer cheats less.
Solutions is to get more cpu or gpu for pathtracers. :D

MichaelT
01-06-2018, 04:17 AM
Let's not get into a A vs B renderer argument. Those never ends well :)

MichaelT
01-06-2018, 04:24 AM
yeah, ill post the scene, gimme a sec...

ok, see attached, get hdr from here http://www.hdrlabs.com/sibl/archive/ ditch river.

Thanks, but you missed the scene file.. which is the one we really need :)

gar26lw
01-06-2018, 04:34 AM
My point was if modo and lightwave 2018 renderer was compared, make it function as close as possible, monte carlo mode in modo.

Irradiance caching tricks in general purpose renderers will beat pathtracers whether on cpu or gpu. That's a given. Redshift kicks octane's ***.
Pathtracers are slow but "looks good" without much tweaking, but slow because the renderer cheats less.
Solutions is to get more cpu or gpu for pathtracers. :D

there isnt much difference with irradiance cache off. in fact, it was a little faster. 12 secs i think.

here is modo scene with noise removal by jacking refection samples. now you can set reflection samples to 1 in the main render settings then push them up on per surface basis. im not sure if 2018 allows for that? will look.
anyway, rendertime of 1 min 1sec.
http://forums.newtek.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=139223&d=1515238563

139223

- - - Updated - - -


Thanks, but you missed the scene file.. which is the one we really need :)

its there, do you see it below that link? copied the link off it

http://forums.newtek.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=139222&d=1515237451

MichaelT
01-06-2018, 04:51 AM
..
its there, do you see it below that link? copied the link off it

http://forums.newtek.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=139222&d=1515237451

Ooops.. you're right.. I did miss it.. :)

MichaelT
01-06-2018, 05:17 AM
I did a test of my own.. first off. You said your scene took 1 minute to render (give or take) but for me the same scene took 23 seconds.

And from that I must say that to make things faster for you, might be a bit tricky from my end. That said. I did a little bit of experimenting, and you can try this.. and see if it helps:

I got it down to 9.9 seconds on my machine. I hope this means it should land in the 20s on yours, but I'm guessing of course:

http://forums.newtek.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=139224
139224

rustythe1
01-06-2018, 05:37 AM
in the words of yoda, "you have to unlearn what you have learned" I'm finally getting my head around the renderer and you cant compare it to other renders like modo from a settings point of view, from what i have been discovering people seem to be approaching things incorrectly, I'm working on a viz scene which ill upload at some point (it copies a scene over in the show us your renders thread where a simple viz scene took about 15mins on a threadripper i think, ive already got cleaner results in less than 5 on my i7),
some small things iv noticed in the mean time, people are pumping up things like reflection samples in gi, but unless your using metal, there is no reflection, the spec reflection on things like wooden floors is just spec direct, so viewing your buffers is a great way to find what settings will improve, and what settings will actually have no improvement.
there is a little section in the help that illustrates this https://docs.lightwave3d.com/display/LW2018/Removing+Noise+workflow
also seen people setting things like the "tile size" render settings to maximum, in my tests that actually increases render time, quite a bit (something like 10 seconds more jumping from 32 to 64) on some scenes.
Light samples seem to be the greatest noise makers,
anyway, what i am getting at is there is no "best settings" for globally setting up renders in this new engine, its going to be a scene to scene thing, but if you work at it and forget the settings you used to use in 2015 you can get it fast!

rustythe1
01-06-2018, 05:46 AM
one thing to take note, lots of people are applying the noise filter to final render, but in the buffers you can just apply it to specific buffers, so if there is only one buffer that is noisy, you can add it to that one and not lose the detail in things like procedural textures and image maps

gar26lw
01-06-2018, 05:52 AM
cheers, what did you change and what’s the specs on your machine?

edit, oh yeah, i see you put on interpolated. any ideas why interpolated is appearing lighter than brute force?

33.9 secs here.

best i got was 35 secs brute force with noise filter. noise is only on one buffer.

http://forums.newtek.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=139226&d=1515243875

139226

hrgiger
01-06-2018, 06:17 AM
Now add the rounded edge shader or micropoly displacement and compare again.

UnCommonGrafx
01-06-2018, 06:19 AM
I get that that's a snark but don't understand about what...

What's to learn, I guess, is my question...?

MichaelT
01-06-2018, 06:35 AM
I wonder why you're not enabling double sided for the polygons? You don't need interpolation.. but it is good to speed things up a bit. It does have its drawbacks of course. As for it becoming brighter, it is probably due to the overall general sampling. As for my specs: i7 6900K (16 threads) 128Gb ram, GTX 1080 (not that it really matters in this case however)

- - - Updated - - -

gar26lw
01-06-2018, 06:44 AM
right well makes sense, i7 and 8 here.

should i be enabling double sided?

MichaelT
01-06-2018, 06:52 AM
right well makes sense, i7 and 8 here.

should i be enabling double sided?

Yes, because you can thee through the model in places. Also.. if you add reflection etc.. you could end up seeing pieces of images from places you shouldn't. Because rays can't "see" the other side of the polygon. You don't always need it, but in this case you do.

MichaelT
01-06-2018, 07:06 AM
Now add the rounded edge shader or micropoly displacement and compare again.

Why?

hrgiger
01-06-2018, 07:15 AM
Why?

Its a joke. LW doesn't have them.

MichaelT
01-06-2018, 07:19 AM
Its a joke. LW doesn't have them.

I actually knew that.. but my question is still why? I don't even use that in modo. I always (without exception) create the edges I need.
In regards to micropolygons.. its not a problem in LW. Wasn't in 2015 either.. are you thinking of some special case or?? I honestly don't know.

rustythe1
01-06-2018, 07:32 AM
cheers, what did you change and what’s the specs on your machine?

edit, oh yeah, i see you put on interpolated. any ideas why interpolated is appearing lighter than brute force?

33.9 secs here.

best i got was 35 secs brute force with noise filter. noise is only on one buffer.

http://forums.newtek.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=139226&d=1515243875

139226

I think its to do with the amount of Brute force rays, if just rendering brute force the scene becomes lighter and lighter the more rays you add, on the scene i was working on i had to set it to over 1000 rays to equal what interpolated did, but it could be different for every scene

hrgiger
01-06-2018, 07:39 AM
Well then I would say you're missing out or you don't do any type of game assets. Rounded edge shader is essential and baking that detail into your normal maps is fabulous. But its also useful where you do a lot of Booleans or use MOP Boolean where rounding is not always ideal in certain situations. I'm currently using it on a high poly model which uses a lot of Booleans. It is also nice because you can use intersecting geometry without connecting them and still get a rounded edge between them. (see pic below, a lot of those parts are just intersecting.

139227

MichaelT
01-06-2018, 08:07 AM
Well then I would say you're missing out or you don't do any type of game assets. Rounded edge shader is essential and baking that detail into your normal maps is fabulous. But its also useful where you do a lot of Booleans or use MOP Boolean where rounding is not always ideal in certain situations. I'm currently using it on a high poly model which uses a lot of Booleans. It is also nice because you can use intersecting geometry without connecting them and still get a rounded edge between them. (see pic below, a lot of those parts are just intersecting.

139227

Hmm, I see what you mean. It is certainly a time saver. I don't know how well a shader is caught by baking it into a normal map for instance though.

hypersuperduper
01-06-2018, 08:29 AM
Well then I would say you're missing out or you don't do any type of game assets. Rounded edge shader is essential and baking that detail into your normal maps is fabulous. But its also useful where you do a lot of Booleans or use MOP Boolean where rounding is not always ideal in certain situations. I'm currently using it on a high poly model which uses a lot of Booleans. It is also nice because you can use intersecting geometry without connecting them and still get a rounded edge between them. (see pic below, a lot of those parts are just intersecting.

139227

thats pretty cool.

erikals
01-06-2018, 08:34 AM
Rounded edge shader is essential
agree.

but can we keep this on topic?

pmwhite
01-06-2018, 08:55 AM
Thank you for all these tips, Really useful

hrgiger
01-06-2018, 09:16 AM
agree.

but can we keep this on topic?

Well I don't feel discussing the merits of different renders off topic. Speed is not only measured in terms of how fast an application's code handles rendering of images, but also how scene efficiency affects rendering times. Having a rounded edge shader can easily save you thousands of polygons which will affect rendering times.

And MichaelT- The rounded edge shader is captured easily in normal map bakes and again will save you a ton of geometry, especially for real time assets. In Substance, You will get edge highlighting all from the normal map without having to add the geometry normally necessary to create it.

MichaelT
01-06-2018, 09:23 AM
Well I don't feel discussing the merits of different renders off topic. Speed is not only measured in terms of how fast an application's code handles rendering of images, but also how scene efficiency affects rendering times. Having a rounded edge shader can easily save you thousands of polygons which will affect rendering times.

And MichaelT- The rounded edge shader is captured easily in normal map bakes and again will save you a ton of geometry, especially for real time assets. In Substance, You will get edge highlighting all from the normal map without having to add the geometry normally necessary to create it.

Thanks.. I'll check it out. I think I looked at it once.. but can't remember why I decided not to use it. In any case.. I'll have a look at it.

Now I remember.. the shader overlaps. But that is all I will say about it. It is a good tool though:

139229

ianr
01-06-2018, 09:41 AM
LW 2018 WRINKLES (TIPS). (from lighwiki resource findings)


2) RENDER TIMES INCREASE..... Search in LW2018.0-64.CFG for DefaultSegmentMemory

The CFG always lives on the C-drive Remember ? It needs a little update....(hopefully fixed in next point-patch)

The LW2018.0-64.CFG must be changed manually! (Lightwave and Hub must be closed for that! REMEMBER)

open in Word Pad > search for DefaultSegmentMemory. You will see only set @ 1GB as default.

Alter/increase GB to 50% of your System Ram.

Save the file!!!

Close Word Pad ..>>Restart LW2018

Thanks to : Ingo Rotfuchs (it seems they left the button off from the panel Grrrr!!!!)

( try it Sam'O'rai)

MichaelT
01-06-2018, 10:17 AM
Unless I'm mistaken, SegmentMemory is for when you don't have enough memory. I'm not entirely sure they even use that any more? Someone from LWG who knows?