DaJuice Posted May 12, 2004 Share Posted May 12, 2004 Hey ppl, a tree modeled after a sprite from the game Doom. Um, I think this is the right place to post it. Hope you like it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deecue Posted May 12, 2004 Share Posted May 12, 2004 very cool dajuice.. i think it's great when people share their houdini work.. i wish it was done more often.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike Posted May 12, 2004 Share Posted May 12, 2004 looks very nice ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LEO-oo- Posted May 12, 2004 Share Posted May 12, 2004 Cool! I like it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaJuice Posted May 13, 2004 Author Share Posted May 13, 2004 Thank you, here's a close up of a branch that just finished rendering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mcronin Posted May 13, 2004 Share Posted May 13, 2004 Good stuff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted May 13, 2004 Share Posted May 13, 2004 Very nice scary looking tree Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meshsmooth Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 How procedural is it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 It's a Lovecraftian creature - very nice indeed. What are your render times? Are you displacing? Lightdome or Ambient Occlusion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaJuice Posted May 14, 2004 Author Share Posted May 14, 2004 thanks! meshsmooth: it's not very procedural if you mean the modeling. It's just plain traditional poly-modeling. Actually if you want I can put up the whole network, but it's some 1260 SOPs. For the shader, only the spikes are jpgs, the rest is procedural and it's all contained in one surface, and one displace shader. Here's the wire of the model... Jason: render times were atrocious, like 15hrs for the first pic. I had to set the shading rate to 3 for it to look good. Well, it didn't look bad with the default shading rate, but you loose a lot of detail. Plus I was using Ambient Occlusion (too lazy to set up a few fill lights, doh!) and a big area light. The buckets behind the left-most root with the really soft shadow too like and 1-2 hours each (800mhz P3). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Gary Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 Nice Work DaJuice! 1260 OPs: Wow! That's a number i've never reached. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mario Marengo Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 Jason: render times were atrocious, like 15hrs for the first pic. I had to set the shading rate to 3 for it to look good. Hey DaJuice, Very nice job on the tree But... 15 hours ?!?!?!!!!!!!!! Good god man; that's insane! So; I'm really curious about a couple of things... 1. Roughly, how much faster does it render without the ambient occlusion and at a shading quality of 1? 2. Any guesses as to how much time-expense each one of those things adds on their own? 3. What exactly didn't look good at a shading quality of 1 that made you go to 3? 4. I'm pretty sure you haven't tested this given your render times, but is the shadow noisy when the cam moves (even at what I suspect is a very high sampling rate)? I'm asking because I'm quite certain that I'll never have the patience to wait that long to test something ... but since you've already done it, I'm curious. Cheers! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 would people be willing to make a group effort to make some tests? maybe if DaJuice was willing to send the file we could all fire off a render with a bunch of different settings and see what kind of optimizations we could come up with... thoughts?...commments? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mario Marengo Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 would people be willing to make a group effort to make some tests?maybe if DaJuice was willing to send the file we could all fire off a render with a bunch of different settings and see what kind of optimizations we could come up with... thoughts?...commments? That's a good idea. If DaJuice is willing, then I'm in! (though I wouldn't be able to really look into it for another two weeks or so) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 I had a feeling you were going to have high render-times. There are quite a few things you can do to speed up renders like these - and in the bruce-force raytracing style you used, probably the most important is Raytraced Level-Of-Detail. Raytracing in mantra is very very fast (faster than prmans). What's killing this render is the raytracing against a displacement shader. Here are some tips: If you can, avoid raytracing: *) Use a dome light, and shadowmaps. You'll end up with frame times like 7mins. If you really want to raytrace, *) Keep your Raytraced LOD very low. This will make the tessellated polys for raytracing against less dense, especially where there is a displacement shader involved. *) Keep your Shading Quality as low as is visually pleasing. (This is for primary rays, and if you have your Shading Quality up high, it'll send more secondary rays too. Maybe easily 9x as many as SQ set to 1.) *) Use the (very recently fixed) irradiance cache. This can give the overall effect of being able to have very fine primary ray shading (Shading Quality) while effectively sending fewer secondary rays into the scene, because many rays will rather look into the cache than intersect against the dense tessellated displacement geometry. *) If you can get away with it, rather raytrace against an alternate lower-resolution, non-displaced geometry. *) Bake your Ambient Occlusion once and for all using mantra -u, if you have good uv's. I think it'd be great for a few people to attempt to get the maximum speed out of it at a set camera at 640x480 and then post your findings. I'll try it too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenong Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 Yeah, please count me in on that group effort if DaJuice is willing. It will be fun to wait 15hrs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaJuice Posted May 14, 2004 Author Share Posted May 14, 2004 Hold on, I'll zip up the file and be back. I haven't tried any of the OTL business yet, hope that's not a biggy. Not sure what I'm gonna do about the jpgs for the spikes. They are 4096x4096 each so I'll probably just size 'em down to 1024x1024 with crappy compression. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 maybe someone will OTLify it for you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaJuice Posted May 14, 2004 Author Share Posted May 14, 2004 Ok, here you go. http://www.geocities.com/stehrani3d/3dfiles/Tree.zip (Right Click>Save Target) It is not a zip file. It's actually a rar file, I just had to rename it because geocities doesn't allow that extension. The compression was just a lot better with rar. Use WinRAR if you don't have it...WinRAR Mario: 1) A lot faster, maybe 3-5 hrs, but I'm not 100% sure. 2) Hard to say, each of those things seemed to be roughly the same as far as increasing render times. 3) There is a world of difference when rendering with a shading rate of 3 as oppsed to 1, at least with this particular shader. If you do a close up render of the bark at these settings you can see it very clearly, everything looks much more crisp at 3. 4) Actually, the sampling rate is at the default 16. I was also surprised bacause I expected more noise in the shadow. As for animation, this particular kind of noise is not too bad at all because it's so fine-grained (at least on a tv), I've rendered animations with worse and it looked ok. The really noticable noise comes from the irradiance caching stuff. Jason: Good info! I knew there was probably a slew of different things you could do to optimize the scene. Since I have no deadline here, I can just let it render with everything cranked up. Of course that will have to change if I try to put this into an animation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted May 15, 2004 Share Posted May 15, 2004 Hm, that link says "Not available". Any idea why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.