Arttu Voutilainen wrote:
> 
> I just tried: 3.6: 1min 27s vs 3.7b29: 5s

That has to be eased down, the production version wasn't nearly that fast.

> Both used the same scene and same ini. Radiosity was not used, nor focal
> blur, nor media. I guess the difference comes from bounding boxes or
> something like that, as IIRC it is caused mostly by grass.

OK, my guess about radiosity difference weren't the answer. Try
disabling the grass, so we'll see? :)

> -- Arttu Voutilainen

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

Eero Ahonen wrote:
> Arttu Voutilainen wrote:
>> I just tried: 3.6: 1min 27s vs 3.7b29: 5s
> 
> That has to be eased down, the production version wasn't nearly that fast.
> 

Yeah, for production it was like 240 hours with 3.6 for half of the
scene, and 2-3 days for 3.7 for the whole scene (but in a much lower
resolution)..

>> Both used the same scene and same ini. Radiosity was not used, nor focal
>> blur, nor media. I guess the difference comes from bounding boxes or
>> something like that, as IIRC it is caused mostly by grass.
> 
> OK, my guess about radiosity difference weren't the answer. Try
> disabling the grass, so we'll see? :)
> 

Without grass it comes down to 3.6: 6s vs 3.7: 5s. Those times are the
ones povray itself told me, so that might cause the difference (IIRC 3.7
 counts used time somehow differently to 3.6?)


>> -- Arttu Voutilainen
> 
> -Aero

-- Arttu Voutilainen

Post a reply to this message

Eero Ahonen wrote:
> Arttu Voutilainen wrote:
>> I just tried: 3.6: 1min 27s vs 3.7b29: 5s
> 
> That has to be eased down, the production version wasn't nearly that fast.
> 
>> Both used the same scene and same ini. Radiosity was not used, nor focal
>> blur, nor media. I guess the difference comes from bounding boxes or
>> something like that, as IIRC it is caused mostly by grass.
> 
> OK, my guess about radiosity difference weren't the answer. Try
> disabling the grass, so we'll see? :)
> 

I tried also with grass disabled and radiosity enabled, and got 3.6: 21s
vs 3.7: 8s.


>> -- Arttu Voutilainen
> 
> -Aero

Post a reply to this message

Eero Ahonen <aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid> wrote:
> > "ten times faster" sounds a bit unlikely to me however. How much time are we
> > talking about?
>
What I meant was, are we talking about seconds vs. tens of seconds, or more like
hours vs. tens of hours?

> I also have one possible explanation: IIRC the image uses radiosity and
> AFAIK the radiosity implementations differ between 3.6 and 3.7, being
> able to create huge differences between render times. Feel free to
> correct me if I'm wrong.

You're not wrong, but I wouldn't attribute too much of a speedup to those
difference. I can only imagine a considerable gain from those if you're using a
high count combined with a high recursion limit.

Post a reply to this message

Arttu Voutilainen <blizzara.REM0VE7H!S### [at] zbxtSP4MM3Rnet> wrote:

>
> I just tried: 3.6: 1min 27s vs 3.7b29: 5s

> Both used the same scene and same ini. Radiosity was not used, nor focal
> blur, nor media. I guess the difference comes from bounding boxes or
> something like that, as IIRC it is caused mostly by grass.
>

Speaking strictly of v3.6.1: I've lately noticed that some of my own complex
scenes render *much* faster when setting Bounding=off. I never thought of
trying that trick, and just stumbled onto it. But it does show some kind of
problem/deficiency with auto-bounding. Clipka mentioned in a recent post that
bounding in 3.7 has been re-worked; so perhaps that's one of the reasons for
the speedup.

Ken W.

Post a reply to this message

Forgot to mention what a gorgeous image this is! The subdued lighting really
sells it.  I can't even begin to imagine how much time and thought you put into
this. Your efforts are appreciated!

KW

Post a reply to this message

"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
> Clipka mentioned in a recent post that bounding in 3.7 has been re-worked;

Never did. So that was either someone else, or a misunderstanding.

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Eero Ahonen <aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid> wrote:
>>> "ten times faster" sounds a bit unlikely to me however. How much time are we
>>> talking about?
> What I meant was, are we talking about seconds vs. tens of seconds, or more like
> hours vs. tens of hours?

Well, seconds vs. tens of seconds if I cut everything but the grass out
of the scene and use low resolution, and days vs. tens of days if I
enable trees, radiosity, focal blur, media and bigger resolution.

-- Arttu Voutilainen

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> "Kenneth" <kdw### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
>> Clipka mentioned in a recent post that bounding in 3.7 has been re-worked;
> 
> Never did. So that was either someone else, or a misunderstanding.

  I remember *someone* *somewhere* mentioning a reworking of the
bounding system for 3.7. It might have been Chris or Thorsten
themselves. It might even be mentioned in the beta release notes somewhere.

Post a reply to this message

"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> "Kenneth" <kdw### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
> > Clipka mentioned in a recent post that bounding in 3.7 has been re-worked;
>
> Never did. So that was either someone else, or a misunderstanding.

Hm... well, maybe did after all, I guess... in conjunction with area lights.

Post a reply to this message