Rather than 0.633 try 63.00.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ETQvBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA109&lpg=PA109&dq=cd/cm2+of+incandescent+light+bulb&source=bl&ots=3jDSW_Sh7j&sig=ACfU3U0phuBkNH82xBUypwT_fJZGDocEpg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjhrfOa8srpAhUHRBUIHVy1DaUQ6AEwC3oECB0QAQ#v=onepage&q=cd/cm2 of incandescent light bulb&f=false

I'm not sure where you get tthe 63.0 value from... well, clearly from the book you linked to, but there are a lot of pages there and I'm not sure what part tells me what I want to know. I'll spend some time with it though. Thanks.

I think your problem is that you are using the bulb size as reference, whereas it actually is the wire that radiates.

I don't think so. I'm calling the sphere a lightbulb, but the sphere is actually a thoretical/mathematical representation, so I could just as easily call it the filament. The math problem remains.

The point is that it is the filament within the lightbulb that produces the light, and the filament has a much smaller surface area than the glass bulb that surrounds it. By treating the surface of the bulb as the emissive surface, you're dividing by too big a number and ending up with too dark an image.

Personally, I just put the scene on Iray preview and increase the lumens on my lights (usually resized cube primitives with emissive surfaces) till it looks how I want it. Sure, my iray people must buy their lightbulbs from the places that supply lighthouses, but if it looks right, who cares?

But the luminosity was set for the sphere as a whole, not for a filament, so if there is a problem with the calculation I don't think this is it.

Rather than 0.633 try 63.00.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ETQvBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA109&lpg=PA109&dq=cd/cm2+of+incandescent+light+bulb&source=bl&ots=3jDSW_Sh7j&sig=ACfU3U0phuBkNH82xBUypwT_fJZGDocEpg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjhrfOa8srpAhUHRBUIHVy1DaUQ6AEwC3oECB0QAQ#v=onepage&q=cd/cm2 of incandescent light bulb&f=false

I'm not sure where you get tthe 63.0 value from... well, clearly from the book you linked to, but there are a lot of pages there and I'm not sure what part tells me what I want to know. I'll spend some time with it though. Thanks.

I think your problem is that you are using the bulb size as reference, whereas it actually is the wire that radiates.

I don't think so. I'm calling the sphere a lightbulb, but the sphere is actually a thoretical/mathematical representation, so I could just as easily call it the filament. The math problem remains.

The point is that it is the filament within the lightbulb that produces the light, and the filament has a much smaller surface area than the glass bulb that surrounds it. By treating the surface of the bulb as the emissive surface, you're dividing by too big a number and ending up with too dark an image.

Personally, I just put the scene on Iray preview and increase the lumens on my lights (usually resized cube primitives with emissive surfaces) till it looks how I want it. Sure, my iray people must buy their lightbulbs from the places that supply lighthouses, but if it looks right, who cares?

I'm not sure if i will explain this right but here goes :)

Tone Mapping at 30/4.00/200

The left hand image is the 8 cm sphere at 100 watts.

The middle image is cd/cm² at Luminance 8.12 This was the 650 lumen output of the filament in the book by 80, for no other reason that that was the 0.1x8x10 which was the sphere lowered to the size of the filament (although one is cm² and the other is cm) :)

The right hand image is a 1 cm sphere at cd/cm² at Luminance 650 which is the 65 cd from the book for the 0.1 cm²  filament multiplied by 10, 0.1x10=1 which makes the software think it is a 1 cm² filament :)

Nothing scientific just playing about with different scenarios :)

I'll probably try messing with those settings in my scene, though I don't think it will solve my math problem. Based on what you're showing me here, I think I can see the part of the book you were referring to. That example in the book seems to match the math I was doing, seamingly proving that I made no mistakes, but I'll give it a closer look.

Rather than 0.633 try 63.00.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ETQvBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA109&lpg=PA109&dq=cd/cm2+of+incandescent+light+bulb&source=bl&ots=3jDSW_Sh7j&sig=ACfU3U0phuBkNH82xBUypwT_fJZGDocEpg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjhrfOa8srpAhUHRBUIHVy1DaUQ6AEwC3oECB0QAQ#v=onepage&q=cd/cm2 of incandescent light bulb&f=false

I'm not sure where you get tthe 63.0 value from... well, clearly from the book you linked to, but there are a lot of pages there and I'm not sure what part tells me what I want to know. I'll spend some time with it though. Thanks.

I think your problem is that you are using the bulb size as reference, whereas it actually is the wire that radiates.

I don't think so. I'm calling the sphere a lightbulb, but the sphere is actually a thoretical/mathematical representation, so I could just as easily call it the filament. The math problem remains.

I'm not sure if i will explain this right but here goes :)

Tone Mapping at 30/4.00/200

The left hand image is the 8 cm sphere at 100 watts.

The middle image is cd/cm² at Luminance 8.12 This was the 650 lumen output of the filament in the book by 80, for no other reason that that was the 0.1x8x10 which was the sphere lowered to the size of the filament (although one is cm² and the other is cm) :)

The right hand image is a 1 cm sphere at cd/cm² at Luminance 650 which is the 65 cd from the book for the 0.1 cm²  filament multiplied by 10, 0.1x10=1 which makes the software think it is a 1 cm² filament :)

Nothing scientific just playing about with different scenarios :)

Click on image for full size.

Anche a me va tutto bene @Muscleman , stavamo parlando dell'implementazione di Filament :D

..si quello lo avevo capito, ma mi riferivo a Imago che da quando lo "conosco" si lamenta sempre che il suo DS è sempre rotto XD XD

Non è che il "mio" sia rotto... E' rotto per tutti!

Fatti una passeggiata nel forum del supporto tecnico, poi mi dici... Richard stesso non sa più che scuse invertarsi, gli ho chiesto se la timeline fosse stata sistemata e mi ha risposto "é stata fixata alcune build fa", peccato che due post dopo, ad un altro utente che gli ha fatto notare che la timeline fosse ancora inutilizzabile, rispondesse "Stanno ancora lavorandoci su".

Voglio sperare che fixino qualcosa alla prossima versione...

Per quello che ci faccio io funziona tutto XD che ti devo dire io ? XD

Idem xD

Imago non usa Daz Studio, ma Dis Strutto!

(Pardon my pun)

Anche a me va tutto bene @Muscleman , stavamo parlando dell'implementazione di Filament :D

..si quello lo avevo capito, ma mi riferivo a Imago che da quando lo "conosco" si lamenta sempre che il suo DS è sempre rotto XD XD

Non è che il "mio" sia rotto... E' rotto per tutti!

Fatti una passeggiata nel forum del supporto tecnico, poi mi dici... Richard stesso non sa più che scuse invertarsi, gli ho chiesto se la timeline fosse stata sistemata e mi ha risposto "é stata fixata alcune build fa", peccato che due post dopo, ad un altro utente che gli ha fatto notare che la timeline fosse ancora inutilizzabile, rispondesse "Stanno ancora lavorandoci su".

Voglio sperare che fixino qualcosa alla prossima versione...

Per quello che ci faccio io funziona tutto XD che ti devo dire io ? XD

Anche a me va tutto bene @Muscleman , stavamo parlando dell'implementazione di Filament :D

..si quello lo avevo capito, ma mi riferivo a Imago che da quando lo "conosco" si lamenta sempre che il suo DS è sempre rotto XD XD

Non è che il "mio" sia rotto... E' rotto per tutti!

Fatti una passeggiata nel forum del supporto tecnico, poi mi dici... Richard stesso non sa più che scuse invertarsi, gli ho chiesto se la timeline fosse stata sistemata e mi ha risposto "é stata fixata alcune build fa", peccato che due post dopo, ad un altro utente che gli ha fatto notare che la timeline fosse ancora inutilizzabile, rispondesse "Stanno ancora lavorandoci su".

Voglio sperare che fixino qualcosa alla prossima versione...

Anche a me va tutto bene @Muscleman , stavamo parlando dell'implementazione di Filament :D

..si quello lo avevo capito, ma mi riferivo a Imago che da quando lo "conosco" si lamenta sempre che il suo DS è sempre rotto XD XD

Anche a me va tutto bene @Muscleman , stavamo parlando dell'implementazione di Filament :D

Vabbeh... spero non te ne esca di nuovo con la storia degli "omaccioni travestiti", che è proprio quanto di più lontano ci sia dai miei fumetti e libri 

Ma io non ho detto "omaccioni travestiti", ho detto che quando applico una posa, invece di rimanere una ragazza si trasforma davanti ai miei occhi in un omone. 

Inizialmente pensavo fosse una mezza fake news, ma la Daz ha affermato pubblicamente di star aggiungendo Filament come draw-style.

Dov'è il post? Mi piacerebbe vedere se hanno davvero intenzione, nel 2143, di implementarlo e se sarà usato solo per l'interfaccia o anche come motore di render finale.

Vabbeh... spero non te ne esca di nuovo con la storia degli "omaccioni travestiti", che è proprio quanto di più lontano ci sia dai miei fumetti e libri 

In ogni caso ho continuato a dare un'occhiata in giro per il fatto del real-time.
Inizialmente pensavo fosse una mezza fake news, ma la Daz ha affermato pubblicamente di star aggiungendo Filament come draw-style.
Filament è ancora in sviluppo, ma non è niente male, e, soprattutto, è REAL-TIME!
Non ho ancora visto niente di notevole sulle persone, ma sugli oggetti/ambienti...tanto di cappello!
Guardate qua: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/google/filament/master/docs/images/samples/example_bistro1.jpg
Con una qualità del genere, non ci penso due volte a fare lo switch.
Inoltre affermano che i materiali Iray dovrebbero traslarsi abbastanza fedelmente.

Sembrava assurdo anche a me, ma poi ho visto a che livello sono arrivati i motori grafici in tempo reale e...caspiterina!!!
Praticamente Unreal Engine 5, in tempo reale, ha una resa addirittura superiore al nostro Iray.
Basti guardare a cosa hanno ottenuto coi capelli, altro che dForce, wow!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfxp-5a0OQk

 

But why are you thinking about Filament, or a new rendering engine?

Maybe they're just making Iray another 5% faster?

It would be huge to change render engine. Basically all materials would become instantly obsolete. Unless I'm missing something?

I would guess because of this in the Public Beta change log.

Oh wow!
So...are we talking about this next Daz 4.13 already?
I don't understand what that means! I guess the property translation of Iray materials means we don't need to rebuild the whole library?

But why are you thinking about Filament, or a new rendering engine?

The response by DAZ was to 2 comments wherein the central concept was Real-Time Rendering.  
If you've ever worked in or modded game production, and made changes to animations, physics, textures and so on, and then watched your character move around in Real-time with your changes...well the idea of IRAY even improving 100% or 200% isn't enough.

For many users, until we see 30fps min with physics, for probably many users, there will always the push and dream for next big step. 

IF Daz was referring to Filament...then am sadly much less excited about this hint.  
Was hoping for an official bridge to an existing render solution porting all the morph types, or something like that.
A synergy between DAZ & Company X.  

DAZ does real quality stuff, but quality takes time with bugs & evolutions that just naturally happen along the way.  
So implementing something that is reportedly designed in great-part for ligher-weight mobile Android systems, doesn't really make me feel warm & fuzzy about chances of Higher-Quality rendering with Filament...for many years to come anyway.  
Possibly it's scalable for more advanced systems?  Lack of any amount of showcase vids indicates earlier-stage development.  Unless I missed something?

Can see why DAZ would consider the Filament route.  
Until a game engine advances a market-place of products as high a quality as DAZ, feel we users are stuck with sticking with this or that environment. Or making the enormous amount of time to migrate assets.  
Am speaking from the the POV of all the morphs and PBR-Iray Mats/Shaders in DAZ.

At this rate I'm going to have buy two 3000Gen Titans in Q1-Q2 2021.   Cos can't wait that long.

But would  for Daz to surprise me!

I wouldn't mind being able to experiment with real-time animations. Nowadays it's something I don't even consider because it would take way too long with my hardware.

But even having something that would render with a high-quality GPU a picture we now need 1 hour for in 1 minute would be fabulous!

What I would love is a bridge between DAZ and UE 4/5 that converts all the beautiful Iray materials automagically into Unreal. 

Also, "Groom" there real-time hair looks incredible compared to our curve-based hair even in real time.

https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/tech-blog/an-early-look-at-next-generation-real-time-hair-and-fur

That is real-time?! Oh wow!!!!

That hair looks incredible, much much better than the ones we have in hours-long renders!

Not a UE shortcoming

Wow, and that was UE4!

Honestly, those characters look even better than Iray.

I don't understand the worries about quality-loss.

I would be very happy to have that kind of quality with a real-time engine in Daz. Oh wow, I could make a whole story in one day, instead of weeks/months!!!

But why are you thinking about Filament, or a new rendering engine?

The response by DAZ was to 2 comments wherein the central concept was Real-Time Rendering.  
If you've ever worked in or modded game production, and made changes to animations, physics, textures and so on, and then watched your character move around in Real-time with your changes...well the idea of IRAY even improving 100% or 200% isn't enough.

For many users, until we see 30fps min with physics, for probably many users, there will always the push and dream for next big step. 

IF Daz was referring to Filament...then am sadly much less excited about this hint.  
Was hoping for an official bridge to an existing render solution porting all the morph types, or something like that.
A synergy between DAZ & Company X.  

DAZ does real quality stuff, but quality takes time with bugs & evolutions that just naturally happen along the way.  
So implementing something that is reportedly designed in great-part for ligher-weight mobile Android systems, doesn't really make me feel warm & fuzzy about chances of Higher-Quality rendering with Filament...for many years to come anyway.  
Possibly it's scalable for more advanced systems?  Lack of any amount of showcase vids indicates earlier-stage development.  Unless I missed something?

Can see why DAZ would consider the Filament route.  
Until a game engine advances a market-place of products as high a quality as DAZ, feel we users are stuck with sticking with this or that environment. Or making the enormous amount of time to migrate assets.  
Am speaking from the the POV of all the morphs and PBR-Iray Mats/Shaders in DAZ.

At this rate I'm going to have buy two 3000Gen Titans in Q1-Q2 2021.   Cos can't wait that long.

But would  for Daz to surprise me!

But why are you thinking about Filament, or a new rendering engine?

Maybe they're just making Iray another 5% faster?

It would be huge to change render engine. Basically all materials would become instantly obsolete. Unless I'm missing something?

I would guess because of this in the Public Beta change log.

Ieri ho spulciato il forum e si parlava dell'introduzione di un nuovo motore grafico detto "Filament", che sarebbe meno fotorealistico di Iray, ma completamente OpenSource, ed estremamente più leggero e quindi veloce, magari sarà possibile farci animazioni fotorealistiche in tempi accettabili! Who knows...

Ancora risate, grazie Lenio!
Da quanto esistono le librerie Vulkan? Anche quelle sono incredibilmente performanti e completamente fruibili da chiunque. E intregrabili facilmente in qualsiasi sistema che già utilizza le OpenGL con tre o quattro righe di codice da quel che so...

Ma purtroppo siamo ancora inchiodati a OpenGL 2.3 (forse 2.4 a detta di Crios, che ha visto un popup nel suo sistema) mentre quello scassone di Poser utilizza le ultime, le OpenGL 4.4. Il che mi ferisce profondamente.

 

 

Ho la linea ADSL, che prima o poi, passa alla fibra. Non so calcolare velocita precisa, ma se scarico un video, di solito va a 1.6-1.8Mb al minuto, che per me, va bene.

Ho gia ordinato il Fritz Box (che costa 110euro, non 200), quindi vedo poi cosa fa. Se non c'e differenza, beh... pazienza. Non e la fine del mondo. Ho gia speso pui di $3000 su questo build,e continuo a trovare nuove cagate che posso aggiungere. LOL. Un altro in pui.....

2 Mb al minuto? (0.o) Magari al secondo? (>.<)

Una 20 Megabit, quindi... Ed effettivamente è strano che ci metta molto a negoziare una connessione. Come ti dicevo, per una ADSL va bene un modem qualunque... Hai provato con un altro apparecchio per vedere se fa qualche differenza?

Al secondo, puo darsi... non ho guardato bene i dettagli. Il vecchio router so collegava in 30 secondi. E questo nuovo cosidetto 'fibra' che e un bidone. E la fibra qua in montagna, non c'e ancora.

Wow, 3000$ di build è una favola!

Beh, ho speso soldi anche per tante caga cose cosmetiche, tipo case e tanti altri pezzi bianci, un monitor interno per mostrare le temperature, 300 euro solo di cavi CableMod bianco/nero.....

I'm attaching the comments that, I guess, have started this conversation.

But why are you thinking about Filament, or a new rendering engine?

Maybe they're just making Iray another 5% faster?

It would be huge to change render engine. Basically all materials would become instantly obsolete. Unless I'm missing something?

Ieri ho spulciato il forum e si parlava dell'introduzione di un nuovo motore grafico detto "Filament", che sarebbe meno fotorealistico di Iray, ma completamente OpenSource, ed estremamente più leggero e quindi veloce, magari sarà possibile farci animazioni fotorealistiche in tempi accettabili! Who knows...

Ancora risate, grazie Lenio!
Da quanto esistono le librerie Vulkan? Anche quelle sono incredibilmente performanti e completamente fruibili da chiunque. E intregrabili facilmente in qualsiasi sistema che già utilizza le OpenGL con tre o quattro righe di codice da quel che so...

Ma purtroppo siamo ancora inchiodati a OpenGL 2.3 (forse 2.4 a detta di Crios, che ha visto un popup nel suo sistema) mentre quello scassone di Poser utilizza le ultime, le OpenGL 4.4. Il che mi ferisce profondamente.

Ho la linea ADSL, che prima o poi, passa alla fibra. Non so calcolare velocita precisa, ma se scarico un video, di solito va a 1.6-1.8Mb al minuto, che per me, va bene.

Ho gia ordinato il Fritz Box (che costa 110euro, non 200), quindi vedo poi cosa fa. Se non c'e differenza, beh... pazienza. Non e la fine del mondo. Ho gia speso pui di $3000 su questo build,e continuo a trovare nuove cagate che posso aggiungere. LOL. Un altro in pui.....

2 Mb al minuto? (0.o) Magari al secondo? (>.<)

Una 20 Megabit, quindi... Ed effettivamente è strano che ci metta molto a negoziare una connessione. Come ti dicevo, per una ADSL va bene un modem qualunque... Hai provato con un altro apparecchio per vedere se fa qualche differenza?

Ho la linea ADSL, che prima o poi, passa alla fibra. Non so calcolare velocita precisa, ma se scarico un video, di solito va a 1.6-1.8Mb al minuto, che per me, va bene.

Ho gia ordinato il Fritz Box (che costa 110euro, non 200), quindi vedo poi cosa fa. Se non c'e differenza, beh... pazienza. Non e la fine del mondo. Ho gia speso pui di $3000 su questo build,e continuo a trovare nuove cagate che posso aggiungere. LOL. Un altro in pui.....

Wow, 3000$ di build è una favola! :D

Immagino avrai 2x 2080Ti e butterai fuori render come fossero locuste in Egitto?

La Beta è diventata più stabile a quanto pare.

Sto ancora ridendo...

La beta è rotta all'inverosimile... Non funziona nulla...  spero che la fixino, perchè altrimenti con DAZ Studio ho finito. Timeline, salvataggio delle scene, caricamento delle stesse, interfaccia... Tutto rotto! Ho quasi l'impressione che si stiano concentrando solo su IRay (rotto anche quello, tu Lenio sei uno dei pochi privilegiati che riescono a renderizzare un francobollo) e ignorino del tutto il resto.

Se non mi credi butta un occhio al thread.

Per l'interfaccia OpenGL ti basta selezionare un altro tipo di rendering dal menu in alto a destra nel workspace che non sia NVidia. Dipende molto dal processore interno alla GPU, per cui per avere un buona risposta devi abilitare "Presetazioni massime" nella scheda video.

No riguardo l'OpenGL chiedevo che versione sia integrata in Daz e, se non è la più recente, che benefit si avrebbero dal suo miglioramento.

Boh caro, a una prima occhiata questa volta mi pareva funzionare tutto, ma abbiamo workflow diversi!
Certo che hanno abbandonato 3Delight, ma quello da anni!

Ieri ho spulciato il forum e si parlava dell'introduzione di un nuovo motore grafico detto "Filament", che sarebbe meno fotorealistico di Iray, ma completamente OpenSource, ed estremamente più leggero e quindi veloce, magari sarà possibile farci animazioni fotorealistiche in tempi accettabili! Who knows...

So I went through the 8 GTC videos and... there wasn't any guidance about desktop GPUs to be found.  Did I miss something?

I tried to stress that this was a professional event, and that no gaming cards would be announced. But that there could be hints.

We didn't get a lot of hints. But yes, the new DGX is $200K. That sounds like a lot, but it is HALF the price of the last DGX, and offers so much more performance. Its insane. Now consider this, Nvidia just cut the price in half, I believe that bodes well for us in the consumer market. I am not saying Nvidia is going to cut the prices in half, LOL, but as I said already, the prices will certainly not be going up this generation. We might get lucky and see some small drops.

Also, after the keynote, Jensen gave us the information that Ampere will be used as the basis for their entire GPU line, meaning that YES, gamers will be getting Ampere. We can confirm this now. Obviously there are changes in going from whats in the DGX to a 3080ti, but the core arch is going to be the same. Watch out for any Quadro reveals, I was hoping we would get new Quadros, but that did not happen. The Quadros are largely equivalent to what gaming cards will be.

The Nvlink used in DGX is not anything at all like the Nvlink used in Quadro or gaming. So its not going be nearly as fast. But I would expect it to be faster than the Turing Nvlinks were.

 

 

If anyone is holding off a purchase waiting for ampere you could be in for a long wait. 

The crux of the rendering issue for me is twofold:

1. To be able to render a scene without it dropping to CPU due to exceeding the VRAM.

2.To be able to render a short (circa 100 frame) animation, with reasonable resolution, in a reasonable time. I don't call overnight a reasonable time - mainly because I often render a clip and find there are things that need tweaking.

I get the impression that Ampere will not provide me with more VRAM at a similar price point to my 1070 so I have to hope for other technology such as out-of-core. You and the other tech-heads can argue about whether that is possible or not but it is on my wishlist. Perhaps they can improve the denoiser but at the moment I don't use it because, even for animations, it spoils the look of the image (wet skin becomes polished plastic). Perhaps there is a better compression algorithm. I don't know enough (anything) about this technology so it is all a wishlist. 

So, other avenues are possibly available to address my two points. I might move my scene over to Blender and use Eevee to render an animation. The Diffeomorphic plugin is being discussed elsewhere on the forum but I've just learned that, while it is doing a fine job converting materials to render in Cycles, it doesn't cater for Eevee. That's a disappointment and a possible show-stopper because, as far as I am aware, Cycles is no quicker than IRay. Another alternative being discussed is Google Filament and this is, perhaps, the best hope for animation within DAZ Studio even before Ampere. Again, I know nothing of the technology beyond what I read on these pages.

 

Frankly I would be switching render engines for animation. Unless Iray gets a drastic change, you would be so much better off using something else for animation. Have you seen the Unreal 5 demo? This demo is exciting not just because it looks nice, but how they did it. Listen closely to this video.

Some of you may think I am crazy for even bringing up a video game engine and comparing it to Iray. But I've been telling you guys for years that game engines are rapidly progressing, and Unreal 5 represents a whole new level of design.

The biggest breakthrough: They can drop RAW super high poly geometry and 8K+ size textures into Unreal 5 and the engine is capable of smartly using them without blowing up the VRAM budget and killing performance. They do not have to optimize them for performance and VRAM! This one single change is such a huge breakthrough. It is going to change everything. And all of this was running on a PS5. The PS5 is going to be fast, but its not going to beat a 2080ti. Its more like a 2070 or 2070 Super in GPU power. Its going to have about 12GB of VRAM, so roughly the 2080ti in capacity. And here it is with Unreal 5 rendering billions of triangles and massive 8K textures that a super computer might choke on, all at 30 frame per second at about 1440p (there was some dynamic resolution scaling). That is 1800 frames per minute. Maybe a 2080ti could bump it up to 4K resolution. This is a modern game engine.

Oh, and because the geometry is so high, they do not even use normal maps. They are not needed anymore. That is how good the geometry is in this demo.

Does anybody here believe that Iray can do this? I don't think Iray could perform like this if you used one of the new $200K Amphere DGX boxes, LOL. Not even in interactive mode. Iray is rapidly becoming a dinosaur.

So instead of begging for more VRAM, why can't we have the render software handle this data more intelligently? This is what we should be asking for.

...I saw this yesterday and while I was extremely impressed with the "cinematic" quality of both the mesh generation and lighting engines, it all came down to the appearance of characters as it usually does with a game engine as I feel they fall short of matching the detail of the setting. She looked like a "game character" inserted into a highly photo real world.  A year or so ago ago I watched a demo of the Uniity engine and the scene (an interior setting in a room of a house) looked fantastic...until a character was inserted.  For some reason, the skin and hair textures in particular just seemed to be sub-par compared to the appearance of the surroundings.  Though I realise these engines can render quickly even with full GI while not placing such a drain on system resources as say Iray does, this one point has made me reluctant to work with them as much of my illustration work is character based.

So yeah, still putting those zlotys away for that Turing RTX Titan.

The key thing to remember is this is just a demo, and a quick one at that. Most of these assets were straight from the Quixel asset store that Epic now owns. So really, this demo advertised Quixel as much as it did UE5.

As such, the game character was sort of an after thought. Her fluid motions were another advertised part of the engine, but she is still just a quick mock up character. This demo is not going to be in any production or anything.

I believe we'll be seeing some pretty photoreal characters in this generation. We are getting close already. Take a look at Resident Evil Remake 2 and 3, in some cinematic scenes the characters really do look fantastic, and consider this is with now older PS4 level hardware.

Another thing to consider is that games are, well, games. They are running at a high frame, and they have to be prepared for all the random things that can happen under the player's control. But most of us here are not making games. Some of you just want to render animation, and that changes things a lot. You don't have to render at high frame rates, even 10 renders per second would be a blistering pace for animation. You can always adjust speed in post. You can turn on all the bells and whistles that a normal game cannot, so you can create much more realistic images.

Unreal 5 is coming in 2021. Its going to take some time for games to fully utilize it. So you probably will not see too many games using it until 2022 or later. But make no mistake, its coming. 

Anyway, we have some specs to look at. This is the full GA100 chip:

• 8 GPCs, 8 TPCs/GPC, 2 SMs/TPC, 16 SMs/GPC, 128 SMs per full GPU
• 64 FP32 CUDA Cores/SM, 8192 FP32 CUDA Cores per full GPU
• 4 third-generation Tensor Cores/SM, 512 third-generation Tensor Cores per full GPU

Now the gaming cards will not feature this massive chip. The top tier 3080ti (and Quadro) would be on a GA102 chip, not the GA100. But we do expect it to have a good 5000+ cores. The actual core counts can change literally day to day, and Nvidia could wait as late as a month before launch to decide on final specs. But we know the absolute ceiling. Personally I think the Titan Ampere is a wild card. They could make it like the Titan RTX which was GT102 just like the 2080ti. Or they could make a Titan V type of monster and use the GA100 for it (but remember the Titan V was $3000.)

Another point to take away here is that some rumors had pinpointed that Ampere would have 8192 cores. That means, the rumors were correct. That gives some credibility to the other rumors on performance discussed, like 4x faster ray tracing. I still think that's optimistic, but I would expect at least a doubling, or 3x increase there. The 4x could be under optimal conditions. And that is just ray tracing, not overall performance, don't confuse the two. But we know that ray tracing cores work really well for Iray. I believe this will make large complex scenes render pretty darn fast. The rumors had also suggested 10GB VRAM for the 3080, and 12ish for the 3080ti. I think the 3080ti might actually get a little more than that, just a little. We'll see.