Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

3D-Pangel

C4D Viewport Performance - Can We Get The Truth Behind It?

Recommended Posts


  • Topic Author
  • I'm not sure why many people think that Direct X should be faster than Open GL. There are feature differences, but the speed of both directly depends on the hardware and the useage. Using Direct X instead or additionaly to Open GL would increase develeopment and testing effort by at least the factor of 2 since Direct X is not available on Os X, which half the MAXON customers uses. As for gaming features in the viewport, i would like to see any examples on this in Maya or Max that do not feature game scenarios. Scenes for games are usualy heavily optimized and adjusted to the capabilities of the graphics engine used. The nice marketing pictures imply that you can have that also. Yes you can, if you make the same effort and if you work within the same restrictions.

    To sum it up, Direct X and Gaming like display can't be used by everyone and certainly not in every situation, but they would increase the price of the product by a fair margin.

    Cheers

    Björn

     

    Bjorn,

     

    So has MAXON looked into DirectX both from a features and performance perspective and decided that it offers no advantage over OpenGL?  And by "look into it" I mean a real thorough review - up to and including cobbling a test version of C4D to make limited use of its shader model to see how the program performs?

     

    I ask because I get the sense that the real de-motivation from really trying to understand the benefits of DirectX is that it does not work with OsX and a reluctance to have different feature sets across both platforms.  If so, then you may want to also consider the future of Windows and MacPro PC sales - both are in decline but I would imagine that the Mac's are declining at a faster rate (in fact, didn't Apple already once try to discontinue their MacPro workstation line).  Listen to that Maya video and ask yourself "Gee - are these features that NONE of my users want to benefit from?"  Honestly, seeing the effects of displacement maps, SSS, translucency, etc. accurately created in real time in the viewport without the need to render would really make 50% of your users very happy....and why is that something not worth investing in?

     

    Change in the computer industry is only going to continue and I fear none of that change benefits people needing graphic workstations.  So MAXON needs to really think hard about how they are positioned to capture those market transitions.  At this point, I would leave nothing off the table and moving away from DirectX support, particularly as your competitors are moving in that direction, may weaken MAXON's ability to capture that market transition when it occurs.

     

    Time to think differently.

     

    Dave


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

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    Dave: We don't toss out option just because we believe something isn't working, we do the legwork and realy test it. However in case of Direct X / Open GL the advantage of Direct X would need to be very noticable to offset the disadvantages. It just doesn't.

    daneb: This is a fundamental problem. Some algorithms and functions just can't be multithreaded efficently. We are constantly trying to improve this of course. If you take a look at other software solutions you will find that they face over all the same problem. Many users might not have noticewd this, but MAXON is working very close with Intel and others on the issue of optimizing multithreading. Sepecialy intel with their processors with up to 10 cores makes heavy use of our experience in this area. I honestly doubt that there are many software companies that have an equivalent know how in this regard.

    Cheers

    Björn

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    modo doesn't do a Directx version pretty much for the same reason Maxon doesn't. i.e. a significant amount of their customers are running Mac's.

     

    The problem / issue as I understand from my time with C4D isn't OpenGL performance but rather C4D's core code that is very ancient. It probably pre-dates multiple cores. It's showing it's age by its inability to handle lots of objects. That said I think it has been tinkered with over the years but has largely remained unchanged. At some point in time Maxon will have to replace it.

     

    Re sales. I think most people doing 3D graphics are still using a PC / Mac. The decline in sales would be because of people buying tablets. iPads don't run Directx. I have no idea whether Android tablets can run Directx. Doesn't really matter as these devices currently don't have the grunt to be viable for heavy 3D graphics i.e. rendering. That no doubt will change as they get more powerful.

     

    Nigel / 3DKiwi

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    /

    Having C4D use all the cores for everything would be incredible.  Other people have converted their programs to use all the cores, so this "it's not possible" thing I'm also not buying.  DX11 uses all the cores.  Will it be a lot of work to figure out how to use all the cores?  Yes.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    /

    Having C4D use all the cores for everything would be incredible.  Other people have converted their programs to use all the cores, so this "it's not possible" thing I'm also not buying.  DX11 uses all the cores.

    I take the time to answer questions as good as it is possible for me. There are things i can't talk about, but what i talk about will always be to the very best of my knowledge. In return please have the curtesy to do a fact check before posting such sweeping claims.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    /

    Having C4D use all the cores for everything would be incredible.  Other people have converted their programs to use all the cores, so this "it's not possible" thing I'm also not buying.  DX11 uses all the cores.  Will it be a lot of work to figure out how to use all the cores?  Yes.

     

    Ditto what Srek says. DX11 isn't a 3D content producing application as C4D is so your analogy isn't valid.

     

    Anyone know of a 3D application where the Directx version is significantly quicker than the OpenGL version? I'm not talking about games, I'm talking about 3D apps e.g. 3D Max, Maya etc.

     

    3DKiwi

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    Thanks Brian, i expected that much from Maya, actually i wouldn't be surprised if max were to behave in a similar way. Autodesk has a much tighter focus on game development than MAXON.

    Cheers

    Björn

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    I recently upgraded from a 8 Core Mac Pro with a pretty basic Video cards in OSX to a 16 Core (32 thread) PC running a Quadro K5000 in Windows 7, the new machine renders like a champ., but, I was really hoping for a huge jump in viewport performance,  but in reality it was barely noticeable most of the time. in a moderately complex scene.. FPS may have doubled.. but going from 2.4fps to 4, doesnt feel like much.

     

    I really hope MAXON finds a way to improve it, I am always baffled when I think, If its this slow with a basic scene.. and simple animation, how do people do full length movies with or complicated animations, the lag much be very frustrating

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    I take the time to answer questions as good as it is possible for me. There are things i can't talk about, but what i talk about will always be to the very best of my knowledge. In return please have the curtesy to do a fact check before posting such sweeping claims.

    I don't think you understood me right.  You said you are working to improve the multi threading which means you know it's not as good as it can be.  I can give a couple of examples too.  Cloth for one does not use 100% of any core to calculate the simulation.  My guess would be c4d is processing like it would use a single core than it's being split in the processor to use more cores.  The rendering of hair would be another one that would be super easy to multi core.  Users can do this by using multiple hair objects.  Each hair object will then use one core.  Internally in the code it should be possible to take this even further to make it so each hair strand can use a different core.

    Was I wrong about DX11 using all cores?

    Please tell me where my facts were wrong.

     

    Edit:  As long as you are reading this post I might also suggest that the QMC core used should be switched to use the Intel Embree core.  It should make the QMC calculation multitudes faster.  Again though it will be a lot of work.  I would understand if it took till R18 for this to be put in it would be so much work.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    I don't know where you got your know how on multithreading, but it is definitly not "super easy" to "multicore" hair. It's actually one of the most difficult software engineering tasks to find viable multithreading solutions for this kind of problems. We are not talking about just grappling in the toolbox and hammering here and there, this is development at the current edge of software technology. This is work that isn't done in a couple of days, it takes quite a lot of time, especially if you have to keep it compatible to all the rest of the application, customers wouldn't appreciate super fast solutions they can't use in their everydays projects.

    Direct X 11 has rendering capabilities that are multithreaded, that doesn't mean that all the time all cores are used. Afaik it is mostly used on the GPU not the CPU and limited to the capabilites of the driver provided. Sorry, this is not an alternative outside of gaming.

    Yes embree could be faster in some situations, but i fear you are over estimating embree or underestimating current implementations in CINEMA 4D. Don't expect wonders of it.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    Ditto what Srek says. DX11 isn't a 3D content producing application as C4D is so your analogy isn't valid.

     

    Anyone know of a 3D application where the Directx version is significantly quicker than the OpenGL version? I'm not talking about games, I'm talking about 3D apps e.g. 3D Max, Maya etc.

     

    3DKiwi

    Tried Maya 2014 recently with multiple high polygon objects and single, oh, and just a little ambient occlusion, dof, 16x anti-aliasing, motion blur, displacement. Can you believe it was butter smooth? I can't either, lol, Cinema 4D thwarted my reality of what I thought was possible, but thats Autodesk for ya, always the pioneers with some bugs of course, but hey, it's no where near a bug of software as Modo. MAXON stays clean, I'll give em' that, but sooner or later we need an improvement in speed, after all Maya pretty much says it's possible and as scenes get more complex through the years, it will only get worse. Don't give me excuses MAXON, give me results! lol. Get "ON" the job and do it to the "MAX"

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Guest
    This topic is now closed to further replies.

    • Recently Browsing   0 members

      No registered users viewing this page.

    YOUTUBE CHANNEL:

    ABOUT US:

    C4D Cafe is the largest CINEMA 4D community. We provide facilities for discussion, showcasing and learning our favorite software :)
    ×
    ×
    • Create New...