Plant vs. rendering time - AccuRender nXt2024-03-28T17:19:42Zhttp://accurender.ning.com/forum/topics/plant-vs-rendering-time?commentId=6293855%3AComment%3A108600&x=1&feed=yes&xn_auth=noRoof shingles, made from asph…tag:accurender.ning.com,2014-11-06:6293855:Comment:1086002014-11-06T16:40:21.975ZFrancois Plourdehttp://accurender.ning.com/profile/FrancoisPlourde
<p>Roof shingles, made from asphalt. It's probably why it's usually dark colour.</p>
<p>Roof shingles, made from asphalt. It's probably why it's usually dark colour.</p> Here are the two trees made f…tag:accurender.ning.com,2014-11-06:6293855:Comment:1086602014-11-06T13:29:49.231ZGarret Diduckhttp://accurender.ning.com/profile/GarretDiduck
<p>Here are the two trees made from your original. I'm by no means an expert at making plants. The main goal was to cut out branches and leaves on the light weight version and the opposite for the heavy version.</p>
<p></p>
<p>EDIT: Again the ng won't let me upload files. Here's a link to the two in my <a href="https://app.box.com/s/tl2w9wxhtv2f3x6yail3" target="_blank">BOX</a> account.</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p>Here are the two trees made from your original. I'm by no means an expert at making plants. The main goal was to cut out branches and leaves on the light weight version and the opposite for the heavy version.</p>
<p></p>
<p>EDIT: Again the ng won't let me upload files. Here's a link to the two in my <a href="https://app.box.com/s/tl2w9wxhtv2f3x6yail3" target="_blank">BOX</a> account.</p>
<p></p>
<p></p> Garret, could I get the "lite…tag:accurender.ning.com,2014-11-06:6293855:Comment:1085842014-11-06T09:12:33.153ZMaciejhttp://accurender.ning.com/profile/Maciej
<p>Garret, could I get the "lite" and "heavy" plants to spot the defferences?</p>
<p>Garret, could I get the "lite" and "heavy" plants to spot the defferences?</p> You're thinking about the com…tag:accurender.ning.com,2014-11-05:6293855:Comment:1086552014-11-05T22:10:44.575ZGarret Diduckhttp://accurender.ning.com/profile/GarretDiduck
<p>You're thinking about the complexity of the plants vs. render times is correct. The more complex the plant, the more apparent faces there are to render. This increases the rendering time. </p>
<p>Here is a quick test to prove the theory. I took your original plant you posted and made a light and heavy version of the plant. Notice the total number apparent faces in each and the number of passes. The total render time was about 5 minutes each.…</p>
<p></p>
<p>You're thinking about the complexity of the plants vs. render times is correct. The more complex the plant, the more apparent faces there are to render. This increases the rendering time. </p>
<p>Here is a quick test to prove the theory. I took your original plant you posted and made a light and heavy version of the plant. Notice the total number apparent faces in each and the number of passes. The total render time was about 5 minutes each.</p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/55262255?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="721" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/55262255?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024" width="721" class="align-full"/></a></p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/55262181?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="721" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/55262181?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024" width="721" class="align-full"/></a></p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/55262260?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="721" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/55262260?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024" width="721" class="align-full"/></a></p> That's possible. But as I see…tag:accurender.ning.com,2014-11-05:6293855:Comment:1085792014-11-05T21:02:17.796ZMaciejhttp://accurender.ning.com/profile/Maciej
<p>That's possible. But as I see your terrain is flat - mine was quiet complicated - just the model was bigger 3,6 MB.</p>
<p>Besides, the point is I must have done something wrong with my trees - nXt plants are not so complicated. Which makes me belive there must be a rule of thumb and relation between the "structure" of a tree and rendering time.</p>
<p>Moreover, I guess my machine is not so fast as yours is... :)</p>
<p>That's possible. But as I see your terrain is flat - mine was quiet complicated - just the model was bigger 3,6 MB.</p>
<p>Besides, the point is I must have done something wrong with my trees - nXt plants are not so complicated. Which makes me belive there must be a rule of thumb and relation between the "structure" of a tree and rendering time.</p>
<p>Moreover, I guess my machine is not so fast as yours is... :)</p> Fantastic work Francoise! Abs…tag:accurender.ning.com,2014-11-05:6293855:Comment:1087172014-11-05T20:41:42.102ZGeorge Ioannidishttp://accurender.ning.com/profile/GeorgeIoannidis
<p>Fantastic work Francoise! Absolutely fantastic. One of the best bird's eye perspectives here!</p>
<p>What is that pitch black material on the roofs if I may ask? Some kind of Canadian tiles absorbing all the light? ;)</p>
<p>Fantastic work Francoise! Absolutely fantastic. One of the best bird's eye perspectives here!</p>
<p>What is that pitch black material on the roofs if I may ask? Some kind of Canadian tiles absorbing all the light? ;)</p> As a comparison, here's one I…tag:accurender.ning.com,2014-11-05:6293855:Comment:1086492014-11-05T20:34:27.867ZFrancois Plourdehttp://accurender.ning.com/profile/FrancoisPlourde
<p>As a comparison, here's one I've done last year at 4000x2400 resolution using 635 trees and plants (from the acurender nxt tree library)+ a few RPC shrubs. Time for 1st pass: 15m:27s (standard engine). I also tried at your resolution 1920x 1080 : 3m:43s for first pass. I think it might be a memory issue as Roy was thinking.</p>
<p>As a comparison, here's one I've done last year at 4000x2400 resolution using 635 trees and plants (from the acurender nxt tree library)+ a few RPC shrubs. Time for 1st pass: 15m:27s (standard engine). I also tried at your resolution 1920x 1080 : 3m:43s for first pass. I think it might be a memory issue as Roy was thinking.</p> Wow, Norton... :) Keep calm.…tag:accurender.ning.com,2014-11-05:6293855:Comment:1085762014-11-05T17:02:20.811ZMaciejhttp://accurender.ning.com/profile/Maciej
<p>Wow, Norton... :) Keep calm.. I am an amateur. The better machine the more power for render - that is obvious. And this is what I was trying to say, no more and no less. :)</p>
<p>Regards.</p>
<p>Wow, Norton... :) Keep calm.. I am an amateur. The better machine the more power for render - that is obvious. And this is what I was trying to say, no more and no less. :)</p>
<p>Regards.</p> hey..!! if you are going to c…tag:accurender.ning.com,2014-11-04:6293855:Comment:1086482014-11-04T20:28:36.429Znorton torreshttp://accurender.ning.com/profile/nortontorres
<p>hey..!! if you are going to compete, to get a better race so if you said that is obvious so prepare yourself for that show... good luck..</p>
<p>hey..!! if you are going to compete, to get a better race so if you said that is obvious so prepare yourself for that show... good luck..</p> Norton, that's obvious. The…tag:accurender.ning.com,2014-11-03:6293855:Comment:1084772014-11-03T08:51:30.373ZMaciejhttp://accurender.ning.com/profile/Maciej
<p>Norton, that's obvious. The point is to get maximal efficiency using THIS machine as it is. :)</p>
<p>Of course, there is no upper limit to upgrade the machine...</p>
<p></p>
<p>Norton, that's obvious. The point is to get maximal efficiency using THIS machine as it is. :)</p>
<p>Of course, there is no upper limit to upgrade the machine...</p>
<p></p>