Finally dawned on me why my renders are so slow...

Sven Dullah

Psyckosama said:

Sven Dullah said:

fastbike1 said:

@Sven Dullah "I see this as a preconception, with all due respect. It's simply a matter of using the right shaders and lighting."

I see that you may not understand the concept of Physically Based Rendering. Iray light bounces, creates shadows (whether you want them or not, creates reflections (again whether you want them or not).

Look at the Iray documentation for Nvidia. You don't have to like Iray, but don't give me any BS about "preconceptions" concerning a factual statement.

As my reply was removed for some reason, I'll have a new go at it.

i don't dislike IRay, I just prefer to do PBR rendering in 3DL, as it renders on CPU, and (among other reasons) it's biased, which opens up a load of possibilities that IRay doesn't have. (Turning off shadows, reflections as needed, using motion blur to name a few)

3DL has a pathtracer, had it long before IRay was introduced. You can tap into this pathtracer with scripting. With the proper shaders and pathtraced lights you have pretty much the same options as in IRay. Rendertimes are generally more than 4 times faster than IRay on CPU. So, as you see, your "factual" statement is questionable

Have instructions for this? I would not be at all against swtiching over if it can get better and easier to understand results.

Sure, here some links:

aweshading-kit-10-for-daz-studio         /awe-surface-shader-a-new-physically-plausible-shader-for-daz-studio-and-3delight/p1

• awe Shading Kit User Guide

• awe Surface user Guide

wowie's free stuff

You can go for the commercial pack, which is DIM compatible and will install everything you need including some generic material presets (metals, glass, dialectics, skin etc) and conversion scripts for Gen4 and the Genesis line figures and IRay Uber to awe script. Or manually install the stuff you need from wowie's free stuff. The free shader is currently more up to date than the commercial version, as wowie is working hard to release a major update. For more info, post in wowie's thread in the freebies section or in the 3DL laboratory thread: https://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/55128/3delight-laboratory-thread-tips-questions-experiments#latest

kenshaw011267

Psyckosama said:

Sven Dullah said:

fastbike1 said:

@Sven Dullah "I see this as a preconception, with all due respect. It's simply a matter of using the right shaders and lighting."

I see that you may not understand the concept of Physically Based Rendering. Iray light bounces, creates shadows (whether you want them or not, creates reflections (again whether you want them or not).

Look at the Iray documentation for Nvidia. You don't have to like Iray, but don't give me any BS about "preconceptions" concerning a factual statement.

As my reply was removed for some reason, I'll have a new go at it.

i don't dislike IRay, I just prefer to do PBR rendering in 3DL, as it renders on CPU, and (among other reasons) it's biased, which opens up a load of possibilities that IRay doesn't have. (Turning off shadows, reflections as needed, using motion blur to name a few)

3DL has a pathtracer, had it long before IRay was introduced. You can tap into this pathtracer with scripting. With the proper shaders and pathtraced lights you have pretty much the same options as in IRay. Rendertimes are generally more than 4 times faster than IRay on CPU. So, as you see, your "factual" statement is questionable

Have instructions for this? I would not be at all against swtiching over if it can get better and easier to understand results.

You should be aware that there is a bit of "misdirection" in that claim. If you don't have an Nvidia GPU then yes, 3DL will render the scene faster, assuming every object has 3DL mats, but if there is any sort of recent Nvidia GPU a scene will render much faster using the GPU and the results will be photorealistic without all the fiddling required to achieve that in the current 3DL version in DS.

Sven Dullah

kenshaw011267 said:

Psyckosama said:

Sven Dullah said:

fastbike1 said:

@Sven Dullah "I see this as a preconception, with all due respect. It's simply a matter of using the right shaders and lighting."

I see that you may not understand the concept of Physically Based Rendering. Iray light bounces, creates shadows (whether you want them or not, creates reflections (again whether you want them or not).

Look at the Iray documentation for Nvidia. You don't have to like Iray, but don't give me any BS about "preconceptions" concerning a factual statement.

As my reply was removed for some reason, I'll have a new go at it.

i don't dislike IRay, I just prefer to do PBR rendering in 3DL, as it renders on CPU, and (among other reasons) it's biased, which opens up a load of possibilities that IRay doesn't have. (Turning off shadows, reflections as needed, using motion blur to name a few)

3DL has a pathtracer, had it long before IRay was introduced. You can tap into this pathtracer with scripting. With the proper shaders and pathtraced lights you have pretty much the same options as in IRay. Rendertimes are generally more than 4 times faster than IRay on CPU. So, as you see, your "factual" statement is questionable

Have instructions for this? I would not be at all against swtiching over if it can get better and easier to understand results.

You should be aware that there is a bit of "misdirection" in that claim. If you don't have an Nvidia GPU then yes, 3DL will render the scene faster, assuming every object has 3DL mats, but if there is any sort of recent Nvidia GPU a scene will render much faster using the GPU and the results will be photorealistic without all the fiddling required to achieve that in the current 3DL version in DS.

Yup, as I said, this goes for CPU rendering. AWE can't compete speedwise with GPU rendering yet. And the "fiddling" is the curse 3DL users have to live under now that pretty much everything is set up for IRay. So you're right, if time is all that matters, you need to evaluate if it's worth the effort of having to convert the materials instead of choosing a preset, click and go. In all fairness I still think scripted 3DL pathtracing has the upper hand when it comes to rendering for example low light indoor scenes without grain, even compared to GPU rendering.

scorpio

double post

scorpio

Sven Dullah said:

fastbike1 said:

 

 

Sven Dullah said:

kenshaw011267 said:

Psyckosama said:

Sven Dullah said:

fastbike1 said:

@Sven Dullah "I see this as a preconception, with all due respect. It's simply a matter of using the right shaders and lighting."

I see that you may not understand the concept of Physically Based Rendering. Iray light bounces, creates shadows (whether you want them or not, creates reflections (again whether you want them or not).

Look at the Iray documentation for Nvidia. You don't have to like Iray, but don't give me any BS about "preconceptions" concerning a factual statement.

As my reply was removed for some reason, I'll have a new go at it.

i don't dislike IRay, I just prefer to do PBR rendering in 3DL, as it renders on CPU, and (among other reasons) it's biased, which opens up a load of possibilities that IRay doesn't have. (Turning off shadows, reflections as needed, using motion blur to name a few)

3DL has a pathtracer, had it long before IRay was introduced. You can tap into this pathtracer with scripting. With the proper shaders and pathtraced lights you have pretty much the same options as in IRay. Rendertimes are generally more than 4 times faster than IRay on CPU. So, as you see, your "factual" statement is questionable

Have instructions for this? I would not be at all against swtiching over if it can get better and easier to understand results.

You should be aware that there is a bit of "misdirection" in that claim. If you don't have an Nvidia GPU then yes, 3DL will render the scene faster, assuming every object has 3DL mats, but if there is any sort of recent Nvidia GPU a scene will render much faster using the GPU and the results will be photorealistic without all the fiddling required to achieve that in the current 3DL version in DS.

Yup, as I said, this goes for CPU rendering. AWE can't compete speedwise with GPU rendering yet. And the "fiddling" is the curse 3DL users have to live under now that pretty much everything is set up for IRay. So you're right, if time is all that matters, you need to evaluate if it's worth the effort of having to convert the materials instead of choosing a preset, click and go. In all fairness I still think scripted 3DL pathtracing has the upper hand when it comes to rendering for example low light indoor scenes without grain, even compared to GPU rendering.

DS user had to deal with the same curse way back when everything was for Poser. Some of us got quite profecient with 3dl without shaders such as awesurface once upon a time there were no lights or Shaders let alone shader presets for 3dl it was all Poser, so its nothing new.

As for speed watch out for hair, use bald figures or very short hair 3dl chokes on hair especially if you want it to look good, all the fiddling and tweaking etc adds to time taken may not be rendering but setting up a scene, I found it takes on the whole a lot longer overall create a render from scratch with 3dl than with iray even when you only render on cpu.

Sven Dullah

scorpio said:

Sven Dullah said:

fastbike1 said:

 

 

Sven Dullah said:

kenshaw011267 said:

Psyckosama said:

Sven Dullah said:

fastbike1 said:

@Sven Dullah "I see this as a preconception, with all due respect. It's simply a matter of using the right shaders and lighting."

I see that you may not understand the concept of Physically Based Rendering. Iray light bounces, creates shadows (whether you want them or not, creates reflections (again whether you want them or not).

Look at the Iray documentation for Nvidia. You don't have to like Iray, but don't give me any BS about "preconceptions" concerning a factual statement.

As my reply was removed for some reason, I'll have a new go at it.

i don't dislike IRay, I just prefer to do PBR rendering in 3DL, as it renders on CPU, and (among other reasons) it's biased, which opens up a load of possibilities that IRay doesn't have. (Turning off shadows, reflections as needed, using motion blur to name a few)

3DL has a pathtracer, had it long before IRay was introduced. You can tap into this pathtracer with scripting. With the proper shaders and pathtraced lights you have pretty much the same options as in IRay. Rendertimes are generally more than 4 times faster than IRay on CPU. So, as you see, your "factual" statement is questionable

Have instructions for this? I would not be at all against swtiching over if it can get better and easier to understand results.

You should be aware that there is a bit of "misdirection" in that claim. If you don't have an Nvidia GPU then yes, 3DL will render the scene faster, assuming every object has 3DL mats, but if there is any sort of recent Nvidia GPU a scene will render much faster using the GPU and the results will be photorealistic without all the fiddling required to achieve that in the current 3DL version in DS.

Yup, as I said, this goes for CPU rendering. AWE can't compete speedwise with GPU rendering yet. And the "fiddling" is the curse 3DL users have to live under now that pretty much everything is set up for IRay. So you're right, if time is all that matters, you need to evaluate if it's worth the effort of having to convert the materials instead of choosing a preset, click and go. In all fairness I still think scripted 3DL pathtracing has the upper hand when it comes to rendering for example low light indoor scenes without grain, even compared to GPU rendering.

DS user had to deal with the same curse way back when everything was for Poser. Some of us got quite profecient with 3dl without shaders such as awesurface once upon a time there were no lights or Shaders let alone shader presets for 3dl it was all Poser, so its nothing new.

As for speed watch out for hair, use bald figures or very short hair 3dl chokes on hair especially if you want it to look good, all the fiddling and tweaking etc adds to time taken may not be rendering but setting up a scene, I found it takes on the whole a lot longer overall create a render from scratch with 3dl than with iray even when you only render on cpu.

I'm certainly not limiting myself to rendering bald figures. But yeah long complex hair and UberEnvironment2 was a bad combination;)

Btw, wowie is about to release AWE Hair, a hairshader optimized for transmapped hair. I had the chance to play with the preview and it looks very promising. Although not primarily meant for Garibaldi/SBH/fibermesh hair I have tested that too, and it works very well IMO.

WendyLuvsCatz

Sven Dullah said:

scorpio said:

Sven Dullah said:

fastbike1 said:

 

 

Sven Dullah said:

kenshaw011267 said:

Psyckosama said:

Sven Dullah said:

fastbike1 said:

@Sven Dullah "I see this as a preconception, with all due respect. It's simply a matter of using the right shaders and lighting."

I see that you may not understand the concept of Physically Based Rendering. Iray light bounces, creates shadows (whether you want them or not, creates reflections (again whether you want them or not).

Look at the Iray documentation for Nvidia. You don't have to like Iray, but don't give me any BS about "preconceptions" concerning a factual statement.

As my reply was removed for some reason, I'll have a new go at it.

i don't dislike IRay, I just prefer to do PBR rendering in 3DL, as it renders on CPU, and (among other reasons) it's biased, which opens up a load of possibilities that IRay doesn't have. (Turning off shadows, reflections as needed, using motion blur to name a few)

3DL has a pathtracer, had it long before IRay was introduced. You can tap into this pathtracer with scripting. With the proper shaders and pathtraced lights you have pretty much the same options as in IRay. Rendertimes are generally more than 4 times faster than IRay on CPU. So, as you see, your "factual" statement is questionable

Have instructions for this? I would not be at all against swtiching over if it can get better and easier to understand results.

You should be aware that there is a bit of "misdirection" in that claim. If you don't have an Nvidia GPU then yes, 3DL will render the scene faster, assuming every object has 3DL mats, but if there is any sort of recent Nvidia GPU a scene will render much faster using the GPU and the results will be photorealistic without all the fiddling required to achieve that in the current 3DL version in DS.

Yup, as I said, this goes for CPU rendering. AWE can't compete speedwise with GPU rendering yet. And the "fiddling" is the curse 3DL users have to live under now that pretty much everything is set up for IRay. So you're right, if time is all that matters, you need to evaluate if it's worth the effort of having to convert the materials instead of choosing a preset, click and go. In all fairness I still think scripted 3DL pathtracing has the upper hand when it comes to rendering for example low light indoor scenes without grain, even compared to GPU rendering.

DS user had to deal with the same curse way back when everything was for Poser. Some of us got quite profecient with 3dl without shaders such as awesurface once upon a time there were no lights or Shaders let alone shader presets for 3dl it was all Poser, so its nothing new.

As for speed watch out for hair, use bald figures or very short hair 3dl chokes on hair especially if you want it to look good, all the fiddling and tweaking etc adds to time taken may not be rendering but setting up a scene, I found it takes on the whole a lot longer overall create a render from scratch with 3dl than with iray even when you only render on cpu.

I'm certainly not limiting myself to rendering bald figures. But yeah long complex hair and UberEnvironment2 was a bad combination;)

Btw, wowie is about to release AWE Hair, a hairshader optimized for transmapped hair. I had the chance to play with the preview and it looks very promising. Although not primarily meant for Garibaldi/SBH/fibermesh hair I have tested that too, and it works very well IMO.

Why cloaks with hoods seemed so popular in much 3D art I guesss 

Sven Dullah

SadKitty_Carrara said:

Sven Dullah said:

scorpio said:

Sven Dullah said:

fastbike1 said:

 

 

Sven Dullah said:

kenshaw011267 said:

Psyckosama said:

Sven Dullah said:

fastbike1 said:

@Sven Dullah "I see this as a preconception, with all due respect. It's simply a matter of using the right shaders and lighting."

I see that you may not understand the concept of Physically Based Rendering. Iray light bounces, creates shadows (whether you want them or not, creates reflections (again whether you want them or not).

Look at the Iray documentation for Nvidia. You don't have to like Iray, but don't give me any BS about "preconceptions" concerning a factual statement.

As my reply was removed for some reason, I'll have a new go at it.

i don't dislike IRay, I just prefer to do PBR rendering in 3DL, as it renders on CPU, and (among other reasons) it's biased, which opens up a load of possibilities that IRay doesn't have. (Turning off shadows, reflections as needed, using motion blur to name a few)

3DL has a pathtracer, had it long before IRay was introduced. You can tap into this pathtracer with scripting. With the proper shaders and pathtraced lights you have pretty much the same options as in IRay. Rendertimes are generally more than 4 times faster than IRay on CPU. So, as you see, your "factual" statement is questionable

Have instructions for this? I would not be at all against swtiching over if it can get better and easier to understand results.

You should be aware that there is a bit of "misdirection" in that claim. If you don't have an Nvidia GPU then yes, 3DL will render the scene faster, assuming every object has 3DL mats, but if there is any sort of recent Nvidia GPU a scene will render much faster using the GPU and the results will be photorealistic without all the fiddling required to achieve that in the current 3DL version in DS.

Yup, as I said, this goes for CPU rendering. AWE can't compete speedwise with GPU rendering yet. And the "fiddling" is the curse 3DL users have to live under now that pretty much everything is set up for IRay. So you're right, if time is all that matters, you need to evaluate if it's worth the effort of having to convert the materials instead of choosing a preset, click and go. In all fairness I still think scripted 3DL pathtracing has the upper hand when it comes to rendering for example low light indoor scenes without grain, even compared to GPU rendering.

DS user had to deal with the same curse way back when everything was for Poser. Some of us got quite profecient with 3dl without shaders such as awesurface once upon a time there were no lights or Shaders let alone shader presets for 3dl it was all Poser, so its nothing new.

As for speed watch out for hair, use bald figures or very short hair 3dl chokes on hair especially if you want it to look good, all the fiddling and tweaking etc adds to time taken may not be rendering but setting up a scene, I found it takes on the whole a lot longer overall create a render from scratch with 3dl than with iray even when you only render on cpu.

I'm certainly not limiting myself to rendering bald figures. But yeah long complex hair and UberEnvironment2 was a bad combination;)

Btw, wowie is about to release AWE Hair, a hairshader optimized for transmapped hair. I had the chance to play with the preview and it looks very promising. Although not primarily meant for Garibaldi/SBH/fibermesh hair I have tested that too, and it works very well IMO.

Why cloaks with hoods seemed so popular in much 3D art I guesss 

Hahaha, you're probably right!

kyoto kid

Sven Dullah said:

scorpio said:

Sven Dullah said:

fastbike1 said:

 

 

Sven Dullah said:

kenshaw011267 said:

Psyckosama said:

Sven Dullah said:

fastbike1 said:

@Sven Dullah "I see this as a preconception, with all due respect. It's simply a matter of using the right shaders and lighting."

I see that you may not understand the concept of Physically Based Rendering. Iray light bounces, creates shadows (whether you want them or not, creates reflections (again whether you want them or not).

Look at the Iray documentation for Nvidia. You don't have to like Iray, but don't give me any BS about "preconceptions" concerning a factual statement.

As my reply was removed for some reason, I'll have a new go at it.

i don't dislike IRay, I just prefer to do PBR rendering in 3DL, as it renders on CPU, and (among other reasons) it's biased, which opens up a load of possibilities that IRay doesn't have. (Turning off shadows, reflections as needed, using motion blur to name a few)

3DL has a pathtracer, had it long before IRay was introduced. You can tap into this pathtracer with scripting. With the proper shaders and pathtraced lights you have pretty much the same options as in IRay. Rendertimes are generally more than 4 times faster than IRay on CPU. So, as you see, your "factual" statement is questionable

Have instructions for this? I would not be at all against swtiching over if it can get better and easier to understand results.

You should be aware that there is a bit of "misdirection" in that claim. If you don't have an Nvidia GPU then yes, 3DL will render the scene faster, assuming every object has 3DL mats, but if there is any sort of recent Nvidia GPU a scene will render much faster using the GPU and the results will be photorealistic without all the fiddling required to achieve that in the current 3DL version in DS.

Yup, as I said, this goes for CPU rendering. AWE can't compete speedwise with GPU rendering yet. And the "fiddling" is the curse 3DL users have to live under now that pretty much everything is set up for IRay. So you're right, if time is all that matters, you need to evaluate if it's worth the effort of having to convert the materials instead of choosing a preset, click and go. In all fairness I still think scripted 3DL pathtracing has the upper hand when it comes to rendering for example low light indoor scenes without grain, even compared to GPU rendering.

DS user had to deal with the same curse way back when everything was for Poser. Some of us got quite profecient with 3dl without shaders such as awesurface once upon a time there were no lights or Shaders let alone shader presets for 3dl it was all Poser, so its nothing new.

As for speed watch out for hair, use bald figures or very short hair 3dl chokes on hair especially if you want it to look good, all the fiddling and tweaking etc adds to time taken may not be rendering but setting up a scene, I found it takes on the whole a lot longer overall create a render from scratch with 3dl than with iray even when you only render on cpu.

I'm certainly not limiting myself to rendering bald figures. But yeah long complex hair and UberEnvironment2 was a bad combination;)

Btw, wowie is about to release AWE Hair, a hairshader optimized for transmapped hair. I had the chance to play with the preview and it looks very promising. Although not primarily meant for Garibaldi/SBH/fibermesh hair I have tested that too, and it works very well IMO.

...indeed, that was part of why that 5 frame motion blur took so long as I was using two instances of Mairy's Bolina Hair for my Merida character.

The tradeoff between the two render engines is Iray requires a decent (read expensive) GPU to hold the scene in VRAM while 3DL requires a fair amount of patience and work to get close to realistic quality (my test scene with the girls at the bus stop, [which was lost in the hard drive meltdown just after I purchased the AweShader system], was getting very, very close).  Yes Iray will render on the CPU but render times will be in the same ballpark as using UE with 3DL. 

I still find working with the basic 3DL lighting system to be fairly intuitive as I worked in theatrical lighting where brightness was graded on a 0 - 100 scale, whereas working with Iray is more like a combination of photography having to figure out ISO, "shutter speed,"  aperture settings, and tone mapping along with lighting science in having to work with lumens and light temperature.   Changing light colours in 3DL is pretty much like swapping out gels.

I use lighting presets more in Iray as I find all the adjusting and tweaking tends to feel overwhelming at times while emissives (mesh lights) increase the rend load sort of like UE (which I use sparingly) does in 3DL.

Now that RL has settled down for me, I will be trying out Octane as well through the pay subscription track. I've used Reality/Luxrender so I have a basic knowledge of the materials conversion process.  If I can get a solid grasp on it, it will likely become my primary photo real engine.