Shave 2 Rocks

[JIII]

good to know, what are the rendertimes like though?

[squidinc]

Originally posted by JIII
good to know, what are the rendertimes like though?

hehe, just thinking that myself, there was a thread a while ago that pulled shave to bits, it certainly put me off anyway

[cookepuss]

I'm not too concerned with render times. Yeah, it adds a bit, but I've got a relatively fast PC network setup with lots of RAM. :thumbsup:

[JIII]

shave and a render farm :)




jk but I don't think my little 500 mhz imac woud like it too much.

[Cactus Dan]

Howdy,

I updated from Shave 1 and I must say Shave 2 is a lot better on short fur than Shave 1.

http://home.earthlink.net/~cactusdanl/Pronghorn.jpg

The render time is a bit longer, but you can make adjustments in the hair material to optimize rendering.

Adios,
Cactus Dan

[bobtronic]

Wow, that pic of the deer looks amazing. Top work Cactus :thumbsup:

[prayas]

Render time is hell of a bit longer than with V1 of Shave. not to satisfied yet but i know that rendertimes always depend on what users do and what users set up. Mostly i got got longer rendertimes because of a very bad setup.

This is a thing i allready learned around this c4d forum. Just experienced that in using pyroCluster.

P..:

[cookepuss]

According to the manual, there are 3 big factors in rendering speed for Shave2. The first two factors are obvious, hair count & hair depth. The third factor is not so obvious. Tiling seems to be a double edged sword. In Shave1, everything was rendered out as the equivalent of one big tile. The downside was the RAM, which is why people would run out of memory quickly. Shave2 introduces tiling, which will render out the stuff in chunks thereby reducing RAM requirements. The catch here is that more tiles means less RAM, but slower render times.

Quick proof. Let's render the "Fur Monster" scene at various tile settings. For this experiment, I ran it on a single PC and didn't send anything off to the network. The test platform is a Pentium4 3.06GHz (HT enabled) and 1GB RAM. The output render is the default 640x480.

# of Tiles - Render Time

00:02:54
00:03:17
00:03:35
00:03:49
00:04:08

As you can see, more tiles definitely equals slower speed. I didn't check the RAM, but it'd make sense that fewer tiles equals a greater memory burden.

This would, in part, explain the speed difference between Shave1 & Shave2, especially if you figure Shave1 to use a 1 tile setup.

[Cactus Dan]

Howdy,

Hey thanks bobtronic. Actually it's a Pronghorn antelope. They are all over the back country in Wyoming.

I don't remember how long the render was in Shave 1 but in Shave 2 it took a little over 17 minutes to render in the editor. I'm using a 1GHz iMac with 1GB RAM.

Polygons - 10456
Hair Count - 12000
Hair Depth - 5
Segments - 50

Adios,
Cactus Dan

[flingster]

Cactus Dan : nice render bud...like it.

cookepuss: don't have shave 2 yet but was thinking of getting upgrade as it seems a bargain anyways...so the tiling thing is something i didn't know about and will bear in mind for the future. all the people who have shave1 seem positive about shave2...probably cos they are more realistic about the limitations of hair creation in the first place...dunno just a thought.
:thumbsup: thanks for the info.

[AdamT]

Cool antelope Dan! You could probably cut your render time a fair bit bit knocking the segments setting down by half or more. No reason for 50 segments on such short hairs.

[Cactus Dan]

Howdy,

Thanks Adam. It's an older model and I really don't know why I had the segments set to 50, but it makes sense to maybe change that to 10 or less.

Adios,
Cactus Dan

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.