Jump to content




Photo

A Poor Ar3 Test Result


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
28 replies to this topic

#1 paulselhi

paulselhi

    "He should be hung" I think he is Your Majesty

  • Regular Member
  • 4,681 posts
  • C4D Version:15 Studio
  • Location: London England

Posted 08 September 2008 - 05:19 AM

I have been testing an object animation GI with AR 3 and got very bad results. The precalc times were about 30 hours on mu dual core 2.4 Ghz and i stopped rendering the final at 72 hours
There are big issues with TP and GI/Sky as well as problems with area and hard shadows. Here is the result i posted at cgtalk so anyone feeling brave can d/l the r11 scene

OK i stopped the render after about 72 hours..blimey this WAS only a test !!

http://www.black-and-white-to-color.com/stuff/blockar3.mov

There is definately an issue with TP though it seems to be intermittent, perhaps only at the start of the emission ? however look at the later frames. This is also compounded by an issue with the sun shadows. It seems that , in this scene at least, the hard and area sun shadows are unstable. I have done a test with a variety of lights ( infinite spot etc) and it seems that the problem is not just sky, soft shadows are OK but sun in sky does not have soft shadows. Perhaps a scene scale issue ?

The flicker on the floor is not due to bump as i have no bump !! so it must be an AA issue, however ncreasing the AA would lead to even more dire render times as would increasing the GI ( there are gi artifacts as well as shadow issues)

Overall i was pretty dissapointed considering the crazy pre calc times..it is a poor test result !!

Any way I am sure others could do better so here is the scene, note sub poly disp is off in the render options



http://www.black-and-white-to-color.com/st...allingblock.rar

#2 Aid

Aid

    Aids

  • Regular Member
  • 67 posts
  • C4D Version:12 (or older)
  • Location: United Kingdom Chesterfield Derbyshire

Posted 08 September 2008 - 06:27 AM

Hi
I have found creating NEW files in R11 works fine if I use old files from R10.5 and try and render in R11 have a lot of problems lighting / material and longer on rendering times + more - just my observations

#3 StCanas

StCanas

    This is not me...

  • Supporter's Club Silver
  • 4,493 posts
  • Location: England

Posted 08 September 2008 - 06:54 AM

Shame about the render because it's a fine animation! Is it like Vray? Vray turns out splendid object animation, but you have to know how to find the sweet spot to get it to do so.

Cheers
Karl

Edited by Lesia44, 08 September 2008 - 07:13 AM.


#4 dataflow

dataflow

    Cafe Master Blaster

  • Regular Member
  • 12,082 posts
  • C4D Version:16 Studio
  • Location: sydney

Posted 08 September 2008 - 07:52 AM

i think it might be a bug with the shadow. (not gi or any thing else)
i did a little playing around with your scene

1)turned off gi
2)lowered the AA to 1x1 both settings (except floor at 1x1 - 2x2)
then just scrolled to about frame 498 just before the shadow comes back on in your mov (i scrolled i didn't play the frames)

when i did that the shadow wasn't there
i went to about frame 510 (thats after shadow came back and flickered in your mov)
but the shadows still didn't come back

i had to scroll back and forward a few time to get the shadows to show up again

(all that was with no gi)

but i noticed in your mov that the shadows disappeared straight after the freeze TP ended

Edited by dataflow, 08 September 2008 - 07:56 AM.

Dataflow Donations C4D beta tester


#5 paulselhi

paulselhi

    "He should be hung" I think he is Your Majesty

  • Regular Member
  • 4,681 posts
  • C4D Version:15 Studio
  • Location: London England

Posted 08 September 2008 - 11:51 AM

I think the shadow issue may be the scene size, not sure but i am runnung a vray test ( brute force GI) it is much faster and a better render- the sce size is much larger, i am at fame 276 after 5 hours at a larger resolution 840 x 340

When this finishes i will try brute force and a larger scene scale in r 11

#6 paulselhi

paulselhi

    "He should be hung" I think he is Your Majesty

  • Regular Member
  • 4,681 posts
  • C4D Version:15 Studio
  • Location: London England

Posted 08 September 2008 - 12:04 PM

So the guantlet is down..can anyone render this scene with GI and no flicker (ar3 claims to be flicker free) as well as acceptable shadows and a flicker free ground object. From all the hype AR3 should do this with ease

#7 3DKiwi

3DKiwi

    Cafe Founder

  • Admin
  • 41,808 posts
  • C4D Version:16 Studio
  • Location: Feilding, New Zealand

Posted 08 September 2008 - 07:07 PM

I gather there are issues with TP and GI. All to do with pre passes and the particles not being in the exact some position each time the pre pass is done. Possible solutions could be to render using QMC mode or Sky Sampler mode. The situation would be helped if TP particles could be baked.

3DKiwi

www.3dkiwi.co.nz - My personal site    My Cinema 4D Vimeo channel


#8 Joshfilms

Joshfilms

    VFXdaily

  • Regular Member
  • 2,514 posts
  • C4D Version:15 Studio
  • Location: St. Louis, MO

Posted 08 September 2008 - 07:22 PM

If it is indeed a "bug" hopefully MAXON will put its new updater to good use :).

-VFX and Motion GFX Artist - http://www.vfxdaily.com/


#9 paulselhi

paulselhi

    "He should be hung" I think he is Your Majesty

  • Regular Member
  • 4,681 posts
  • C4D Version:15 Studio
  • Location: London England

Posted 09 September 2008 - 05:00 AM

I do not think it is a purely GI caching issue i think it is a shadow and particle geometry bug

Go to frame 193 render with gi and note there is no shadow, switch gi off..still no shadow, switch the TP emitter off..still no shadow but then trurn off the particle geometry and the shadow appears

So this is not a gi issue but a bug with, at least this scene. shadows and particle geometry in r11

even if i switch off sky and add an infinite light it is the same- particle geometry is interfering with shadows

even using a mograph cloner object for the particles interfers with the shadows

Edited by paulselhi, 09 September 2008 - 05:06 AM.


#10 paulselhi

paulselhi

    "He should be hung" I think he is Your Majesty

  • Regular Member
  • 4,681 posts
  • C4D Version:15 Studio
  • Location: London England

Posted 10 September 2008 - 03:18 PM

Here is a render using R10 showing that shadows work fine in R10. The render took 20 hours using stochiastic mode aka brute force ( 50 hours faster then R11 and it's object animation mode and much better)

I think the GI is quite good, still got some texture crawl on the floor and it seems that this is more obvious when you are looking across the floor at eye level, from above the crawl is not so obvious. I will try with higher AA

If MAXON ever get around to looking at the hard shadows issue with R11 i would like to see how fast BF is with R11


http://www.black-and-white-to-color.com/stuff/r10sto.mov

#11 3D-Pangel

3D-Pangel

    Custodian of the (now defunct) 3D World Database

  • Supporter's Club Silver
  • 1,429 posts
  • C4D Version:16 Studio
  • Location: USA

Posted 10 September 2008 - 04:36 PM

Paul,

Have you submitted your scene to MAXON tech support? This is all very disturbing news. If it was a pure TP and AR3 integration issue, I could live with that. But as it relates to particle geometry being on or off and appears with MoGraph as well as TP, it seems like something is fundementally wrong.

Please keep us posted as this is critical to my upgrade decision (which is now on hold).

3D-Pangel

Sorry...but I simply do not have enough faith to be an atheist.


#12 paulselhi

paulselhi

    "He should be hung" I think he is Your Majesty

  • Regular Member
  • 4,681 posts
  • C4D Version:15 Studio
  • Location: London England

Posted 10 September 2008 - 06:03 PM

ok i will pass it on to MAXON. Note it seems that if you bake the tp with a mograph cloner then the shadows work but 1. you should not HAVE to have MG to get TP to work and 2, i am not that keen on waiting all that time for a MG cache of several hundred frames with all the memory overhead it has

Edited by paulselhi, 10 September 2008 - 06:31 PM.


#13 Horganovski

Horganovski

    Toon in:Power on:Ease out

  • Moderators
  • 9,919 posts
  • C4D Version:15 Studio
  • Location: Ireland

Posted 10 September 2008 - 06:05 PM

I usually find if you are getting crawling on a ground texture that's image-based, switching the sampling from MIP to SAT cures it.


i am not that keen on waiting all that time for a MG cache of several hundred frames


But you don't mind waiting 72 hours for a render ?! [img]http://www.c4dcafe.com/ipb/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif[/img]


Cheers,
Brian

#14 paulselhi

paulselhi

    "He should be hung" I think he is Your Majesty

  • Regular Member
  • 4,681 posts
  • C4D Version:15 Studio
  • Location: London England

Posted 10 September 2008 - 06:26 PM

Yes i do that is why i redid it in r10.5 and got a render in 20 hours for 800 frames

SAT only helps to ease the crawl you have to either use blur ( which can ruin textures) or have very high AA settings which brings renders to a crawl, Vray does not suffer from this as much ( if at all) but then again vray eats away at memory for a scene like this

Edited by paulselhi, 10 September 2008 - 06:28 PM.


#15 Horganovski

Horganovski

    Toon in:Power on:Ease out

  • Moderators
  • 9,919 posts
  • C4D Version:15 Studio
  • Location: Ireland

Posted 10 September 2008 - 06:38 PM

I should have said, but my point was really, that surely Caching anything you can is a good practice anyway, in case you need to stop a render part way through and then resume it, or for net rendering.

Also, can Vray or anything else render your scene faster without flickering? Maybe you need to invest in a copy of Renderman..plus a team of people to set it up [img]http://www.c4dcafe.com/ipb/public/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif[/img]

Cheers,
Brian

#16 mrkucz

mrkucz
  • Regular Member
  • 1,133 posts
  • Location: Swanton, Ohio

Posted 10 September 2008 - 10:04 PM

Has anyone rendered it with Final render yet.
From the form around the net say that FR is faster then Vray or AR3, and easier to set up.
Using it now for a month and have to admit
such a huge difference in quality and speed it has to offer cinema users.
haven't tryed on any animations yet.

Edited by mrkucz, 10 September 2008 - 10:11 PM.


#17 sjcrompo

sjcrompo

    Cafe Master Blaster

  • Moderators
  • 6,158 posts
  • Location: UK Stockport Cheshire

Posted 10 September 2008 - 11:02 PM

This is great info Paul.

Thanks for posting your efforts.

Steve
Interactive DVD now available from www.dvdlearningmagic.co.uk

#18 paulselhi

paulselhi

    "He should be hung" I think he is Your Majesty

  • Regular Member
  • 4,681 posts
  • C4D Version:15 Studio
  • Location: London England

Posted 11 September 2008 - 01:19 AM

I should have said, but my point was really, that surely Caching anything you can is a good practice anyway, in case you need to stop a render part way through and then resume it, or for net rendering.


Does Mograph come free with Thinking Particles ?


Also, can Vray or anything else render your scene faster without flickering? Maybe you need to invest in a copy of Renderman..plus a team of people to set it up [img]http://www.c4dcafe.com/ipb/public/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif[/img]

Cheers,
Brian


running a test now

#19 StCanas

StCanas

    This is not me...

  • Supporter's Club Silver
  • 4,493 posts
  • Location: England

Posted 11 September 2008 - 01:34 AM

Jeeze! They can send men to the moon, you'd think they'd be able to make a render engine that doesn't flicker...


Cheers
Karl

#20 James Leaburn

James Leaburn

    Yeh cannae shuv yer granny aff the bus.

  • Moderators
  • 4,283 posts
  • C4D Version:15 Studio
  • Location: Dundee, Scotland, UK

Posted 11 September 2008 - 02:12 AM

Actually the flickering in the shadows cast by the flag that they planted on the moon was one of the reason the whole fake moon landing conspirecy rumours started. [img]http://www.c4dcafe.com/ipb/public/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif[/img]
If in doubt, scream and shout.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users