So I have a final rendering going on right now that uses radiosity only for
lighting. With a count of 200, it takes about 3 days on my computer, but theres
still plenty of radiosity artifact. So I've increased the count to 800, and now
the portions of the scene that have rendered no longer have radiosity artifact.
But now certain lines take a really long time. I've split up each line to be
rendered by different cores and computers. It's been about a week now, and some
cores are stuck on one line.

So, what's your threshold for re-rendering?

Post a reply to this message

jhu wrote:

> I've split up each line to be rendered by different cores and computers.

I wonder if that actually increases the total time needed for radiosity?

> So, what's your threshold for re-rendering?

I'm very impatient, but then, I also don't produce great images ;)

Post a reply to this message

Christian Froeschlin <chr### [at] chrfrde> wrote:
> jhu wrote:
>
> > I've split up each line to be rendered by different cores and computers.
>
> I wonder if that actually increases the total time needed for radiosity?

I think it does, but since I'm using 3.6.1, the overall time taken to render is
less. Also, because it's taking so long, if anything happens, I still have some
progress saved (more than if I hadn't split up the render), like when my
computer's PSU died a few weeks ago from probably too much rendering.

Post a reply to this message

> Christian Froeschlin<chr### [at] chrfrde>  wrote:
>> jhu wrote:
>>
>>> I've split up each line to be rendered by different cores and computers.
>>
>> I wonder if that actually increases the total time needed for radiosity?
>
> I think it does, but since I'm using 3.6.1, the overall time taken to render is
> less. Also, because it's taking so long, if anything happens, I still have some
> progress saved (more than if I hadn't split up the render), like when my
> computer's PSU died a few weeks ago from probably too much rendering.
>
>

You should REALY update to version 3.7. I've totaly stoped using version 
3.6.1 about 2 years ago...

Radiosity tend to be somewhat faster, even on only one core. You can use 
all of your cores using only one instance as oposed to needing as many 
instance as you have cores with 3.6.1. To use 4 cores with 3.6, you need 
4 instance of POV-Ray, 4 instance of the source files and have 4 
instance of the parsed scene. This greatly reduce the amount of RAM 
needed and can save you from using the page file = MUCH faster!
POV-Ray is only loaded once, as is the scene file.
Also, aa is greatly improved and faster.

With 3.6 and using radiosity, you always get discontinuities when you 
reconstruct your partial renders to get the complete image. It's also 
the case when you resume a render with +c. It's no longer the case with 3.7.



Alain

Post a reply to this message

Alain <aze### [at] qwertyorg> wrote:

> > Christian Froeschlin<chr### [at] chrfrde>  wrote:
> >> jhu wrote:
> >>
> >>> I've split up each line to be rendered by different cores and computers.
> >>
> >> I wonder if that actually increases the total time needed for radiosity?
> >
> > I think it does, but since I'm using 3.6.1, the overall time taken to render is
> > less. Also, because it's taking so long, if anything happens, I still have some
> > progress saved (more than if I hadn't split up the render), like when my
> > computer's PSU died a few weeks ago from probably too much rendering.
> >
> >
>
> You should REALY update to version 3.7. I've totaly stoped using version
> 3.6.1 about 2 years ago...
>
> Radiosity tend to be somewhat faster, even on only one core. You can use
> all of your cores using only one instance as oposed to needing as many
> instance as you have cores with 3.6.1. To use 4 cores with 3.6, you need
> 4 instance of POV-Ray, 4 instance of the source files and have 4
> instance of the parsed scene. This greatly reduce the amount of RAM
> needed and can save you from using the page file = MUCH faster!
> POV-Ray is only loaded once, as is the scene file.
> Also, aa is greatly improved and faster.
>
> With 3.6 and using radiosity, you always get discontinuities when you
> reconstruct your partial renders to get the complete image. It's also
> the case when you resume a render with +c. It's no longer the case with 3.7.
>
>
>
> Alain

I have 16 GB of RAM so that's not an issue. Discontinuities are also not an
issue when partial images are stitched together. Also, when is 3.7 coming out of
beta?

Post a reply to this message

Le 07/08/2011 20:16, jhu nous fit lire :
> Also, when is 3.7 coming out of
> beta?

it's out of beta... now release canditate (3).

Well not yet finished, I presume.

Post a reply to this message

Am 06.08.2011 23:52, schrieb jhu:
> Christian Froeschlin<chr### [at] chrfrde>  wrote:
>> jhu wrote:
>>
>>> I've split up each line to be rendered by different cores and computers.
>>
>> I wonder if that actually increases the total time needed for radiosity?
>
> I think it does, but since I'm using 3.6.1, the overall time taken to render is
> less. Also, because it's taking so long, if anything happens, I still have some
> progress saved (more than if I hadn't split up the render), like when my
> computer's PSU died a few weeks ago from probably too much rendering.

(1) Some of the nastiest & hardest-to-eliminate radiosity artifacts seen 
with 3.6.x (and earlier) were due to serious flaws in the radiosity 
algorithm that have been eliminated in 3.7.

(2) How's memory usage? With exceptionally high-quality radiosity 
settings you can easily max out your system's physical RAM limit, 
leading to swapping and essentially stalling the render. If you split up 
such a workload across multiple cores by running multiple instances of 
3.6x, you're also multiplying RAM usage accordingly, which makes 
physical RAM limit an even bigger problem. With 3.7, multiple rendering 
threads running on different cores share a single radiosity data cache, 
keeping the memory footprint more or less close to what a single thread 
would use.

Bottom line: Use 3.7.

Post a reply to this message

If you are ever tempted to leave a laptop running with a render in the trunk of
your car while you are driving, the rendering time may be too long.

Post a reply to this message