Hello colleagues,
I would like to know which render do you prefer. I used cycles and internal render for a long time. Cycles produces more realistic results but it works very very slow. For example some times I wait 1 or several hours for just 1 picture. last week I tried v-ray. It works many times faster and produces very clear image, without any fireflies and the result is very realistic. The bad thing is it’s a demo version and cannot produce high resolution renders.
Why cycles is so slow? Will It be faster some day?
Don’t use the default bounces. Give it as little as possible, 0 (direct light) to 3. If you have glass or other transparent/translucent/refractive materials, you do need more transparency and transmission bounces though
Test with your HW, but might be a good idea to try low tile sizes with cpu rendering (32x32 for starters) and big tile sizes for gpu rendering (such as 256x256)
You can optimize sample amounts per sample type with branched path tracing
It’s possible to give different render layers different sample counts with samples override
use render border option when optimizing the settings. ctrl+B to draw, ctrl+alt+B to clear. shift+Z to toggle preview render in the viewport
use compositor to denoise and/or add effects instead of letting render engine do it on its own
Thank you!
I learned many new things from your post and finally I managed to speed up my rendering time. It is not as fast as v-ray but it is better than yesterday.
tolisoft in my mind the worst thing a new Volkswagen Jetta owner could do is turn around and drive a new Porsche. But, you did. lol I’m just kidding. And, they don’t have some magical code over there at Chaos Group. Just a barracks full of fulltime developers. Cycles will get faster just give it time. And, hopefully more intuitive to use. Since that seems to be a big selling point with V-ray. ‘…ease of use, …intuitive to use,… fast to use’ In the meantime I’m picking up tips from members like JA12 to speed up renders.
To your original question… I use mainly OpenGL render, though I do animations, not still pictures… if I really need raytracing, I use BI. But for most of the times, you can fake almost everything in OpenGL (plus you know what your render looks like before you even render it )
All originates from my PC not being able to render with cycles on GPU, but even if I could, I think I’d rarely use it… The biggest problem for me being that (at least from what I know) if you’re not willing to wait X hours for one image to render, everyone will immediately see that the picture was rendered in cycles after few seconds of looking at it, because of the noise, every time I see it I’m like : “oh jesus, was it really necessary? couldn’t you just use BI?”
We are able to get something looking pretty decent fast with lighting / texturing… the only downside is render times… sure we could use BI and get somewhat of hte same result… but it would require more time setting up the light system to fake indirect lighting.
As computers are cheap and artists time is expensive… it is better to spend the time letting the computer do its thing rather then the artist.
That is only true to some extent, render a frame from a real production, like Caminandes on GPU and compare to a decent Quad Core, the CPU will win. GPUs only shine in simpler scenes.
)
GPUs only shine in simpler scenes.