Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
224 S 200 W, Suite #250
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.Daz 3D is part of
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
224 S 200 W, Suite #250
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
Did you try
Edit
Remove unused masters
Consolidate duplicate shaders
?
That will save VRAM and hopefully keep the scene in the graphics card VRAM for the highest render speed.
Also try some other scenes.
Not an Octane user, you will get better tips by others soon...
Of course I did. I tried other scenes too.
if you're saying that the time taken to render a frame is the same , no matter what card is used,. then there has to be something limiting that.
Have you tried changing the priority to High,. in the octane render prefs,. "Devices" tab
in theory that could limit the speed,.
Have you tried exporting the scene and rendering in Octane "stand alone". for a comparitive time test
f you're using OR4C 2,. have you tried the v3 beta
I've noticed that using ( Object Motion blur / Alembic ) can add a chunk of extra time to rendring,. since it seems to be exporting the ABC and then reading that for each frame,. which can (depending on your drive speed,. and processor flow through) add to the time taken between rendering frames.
something like that would also limit the time taken to complete an animation,. irrespecive of the GPU and per frame time.
Just thinking out loud in a quiet room :)
By my calculations you are achieving around 9 seconds per frame. It is going to take a finite time to load each frame (containing all the scene elements) into the graphics cards and my guess is that this is the limiting factor and that the actual processing of the scene is happening so quickly that there is little difference between the cards. You could try increasing the threshold or other scene settings so that each frame is taking around a minute or more on your GTX 970 only, and see if you can see a difference with that.
@3dage,
I redid the same small scene (4 seconds, alpha, one figure) with your suggestion to put the priority on HIGH. I've got slightly better results this time, but not significant. The GTX 970 took 1 hour 16 minutes; the GTX 980Ti took:1 hour 12 minutes; ans both cards together took 1 hour 2 minutes. It doesn't really correspond to what the Octane benchmark says, though.
I don't iuse the standalone version. I have enough headaches with the Carrara plugin. I don't use Object motion blur / Alembic either.
@PhilW
What do you mean, "encreasing the theshold"? How do I do that?
@argus, I am assuming that you have set the samples per pixel figure relatively low to get a fast render, and I was suggesting that you increase that - that will of course increase your overall render time. Or you could try increasing the render size. It looks to me that the overhead that you are getting per frame - loading all the scene elements before the render, and saving the frame after the render - is the dominant factor at the moment. By increasing the samples per pixel threshold, the image size or the scene complexity, you will push the balance towards the actual render time rather than the other overheads. I am guessing that you will never be able to get much below an hour to render this many frames.
I have a GTX 980Ti and a TitanX - if I render a frame of a scene I have with both it takes 1:05, and with only one card selected it takes 2:12.
What are your results if you compare a single frame's render time?
@PhilX
I was renderiong at 640X360. I'll try to render an animation at 1920X1080. You idea makes sense. Thanks.
@3DLust,
OK, I rendered a sinle frame at 1920X1080. The results were completely different. With my GTX 970, it took 1:14 seconds; with my GTX 980Ti, ti took 0:26 seconds; and with both cards together, it took 0:19 seconds. Now we're talking. It's only the animations that I have trouble with.
How many samples per frame are you using. ?
What are your render settings ?
for animation i'll normally set it between 100 and 200 samples,. depending on the subject and lighting,. (if it looks ok ) that's normally fine for an animation.
one figure,. (G2F) , clothed,(top, pants, boots, helmet, coat). animated, (lit by mesh lights) and rendered to png with alpha ,. at 100 samples,(direct lighting).
132 frames (5.5 seconrds) took 55.13 on my GTX 650 Ti
I normally use 300 pixels per frame. Now that I'm on the first draft of my movie, I usually render at 640X360 pixels. Direct lighting.
I made another test. Small animation at 1920X1080 (One clothed figure, alpha, 36 frames). I first activated my GTX 970; it gave me a time of 1 hour and 5 minutes. Then I added my GTX 980Ti and both together gave me a time of 30 minutes! So, as long as I don't render at 640X360, it looks like my problems are solved! It's peculiar, though. But I guess PhilW is right.
Seems to be the same problem as Luxuscore then, scene loading per image takes longer than rendering time.
You can also check this with GPU-Z, the sensor page shows a graph of "GPU Load", when rendering an animation, you will see that the graphics card(s) are spending a lot of time waiting between each frame.
https://www.techpowerup.com/gpuz/
It depends a lot on what sort of animation is in the scene too.
An ocean primitive results in a fair amount of compiling compared to figure morphs and bone animation and simple transforms of camera and scene objects without any other animation is almost an instant load.
I replaced the ocean with a plane in my Howie Farkes teagarden 360 VR render
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=--EpcPdy2kg
and it went from 10 secs per frame at 5 samples to almost instant, and it and my monitor use almost filled my card to capacity.
(the low samples being simply because it was a superHD sized spherical render in full sun so little if any fireflies and more time added virtually nothing more and just took much much longer to render even at 10 samples, this way I got over 3K frames in a day with lower temperatures my fan only kicking in now and then too)
this normal 1920 X1080HD one was even faster with full mesh Rhododendrons and maples
ok I did pad it out a tad using slomovideo
Kinda cool how it gives the spacial distortion effect with texture crawling. This could be the view of an alien visitor. Thanks for sharing.
Hi folks,
I took the plunge and got OR4C. Lovin it!!! No idea what I'm doing, but I'm having fun. I'm currently using octane_carrara_x64_2250089, but I'm eager to test drive octane_carrara_3.0.0.10. This is a free download for users of the current release version. I have it downloaded, but I'm not sure what to do next. Do I need to uninstall v2 first before installing v3?
I wonder how long you will be able to use beta of v3... maybe till monday or end of month? I personally would not bother right now with this beta version.
Hi ProPose :)
The v3. beta should replace the v2 when you install it,. but as Aspin mentioned, it's reaching the point of beta testing where it's ready for release.
it should work till the end of the month
I checked with Otoy and they told me that v3 will run alongside with v2, so I don't believe that v3 will overwrite v2. But at any rate, I'll wait till the end of the month. Thanks for your input.
HI ProPose
Yes,. if you have two installations of Carrara,. you can have OR4C v2 installed in one,. and OR4C v3 beta installed in the other carrara (some manual file moving is required)
if you only have one installation of carrara (which is normal) ,. installing the v3 beta will replace v2 ,.
you can't have both plugins installed on the same version of Carrara, at the same time. ..... is what i should have written
:)
They were probably talking about the standalone, which you can have both versions installed. The Carrara situation is as 2dage has said.
I have Carrara 8.1 and C8.5 installed on the same machine. I installed OR4Cv2 to C8.5. I'd like to try V3 beta on my C8.1 installation. You say "some manual file moving is required", can you give me a hint on whicch ones.
Anything in the Extensions/OctaneRender folder. I can't remember if the installer asks which program to install to (they usually do) so when you run the installer for V3 beta, you could specify 8.1 rather than 8.5, job done. Otherwise, rename the Extensions/OctaneRender folder under a temporary name, install to 8.5 as normal, copy the new OctaneRender folder to C8.1/Extensions and then change the temporary name back again.
Hi
You would install v2,. then go to the extensions folder,. and copy/paste the octane folder to your other Carrara install,
When you install v3 it'll look at where v2 (was originally installed) and want to install there,. you can choose a different install,. as Phil suggested,. that worked for me at one point,. but i've had issues with that recently.
Hope it helps :)
Version 3 is out!! StandAlone and the Carrara Plug-in. Downloaded and installed without a hitch. It's playtime again!
Playing with the Node Graph editor in Carrara. Is there any way to update the Render Viewport without having to close the Node Editor? Is there a button press that I'm missing or is that the way it's supoposed to work?
HI ProPose :)
as far as I can tell,. it needs to be applied before it updates in carrara,. the same as the realistic sky/sun settings,. somethings in Carrara don't update in realtime.
Thanks 3DAGE.