The 5 Renders you see bellow, "actually just test renders" witch I measured the power consumption of poser 13 when using the superfly giving an Idea on how much a render will cost on your budget even if they are not quiet final. 

So with an average computer ( Desktop )  i7-11700K equipped with 64 ram and a Dual RTX3060 the consumption of power was a little more then 3kwh. meaning that these 5 test renders cost about 1$ in a household. I do not even want to test how much it would be for a final render at higher size. 

The computer gives it all turning to full power mode ( Lift Off ) . Compared to older versions or other rendering apps ( DS not included ) it sure is a bummer, making this hobby to be really expensive for sure. I do not want to imagine a final render that is running overnight and at daytime to be prepared with some testing, with this sort of engine it would cause household costs of 3-4$ for just one render

Using the Firefly engine you would not even notice a change on your daily consumption, witch naturally makes you think twice if you are willing to spend this much for just one render. 

I have no Idea what is causing such a consumption peak ( Is it a programming error? )  that will end up on your bill, but for sure is a bummer .... also considering if the quality is really worth the amount you are using so I guess it was the last time I ran the superfly render in Poser this saves me allot that I can spend for better things.

So to get an Idea of this consumption Peak for 5 small Test renders with superfly you could watch Tv on a 65" 4K screen for about 30h the consumption of Poser 13 superfly is blowing every record on a budget !  People are often not aware of such impacts so it might give you a little something to think about.

I have no Idea what impact such a render would have on a Laptop running on batteries, how long would the battery last, could a laptop handle such a superfly render, would it just drain your battery ?  Honestly I was really surprised after the measurements that I actually did because of the Desktop liftoff when starting the superfly render engine.

Here the quotes of the 5 Renders causing that high consumption turning my desktop into a Shuttle just before lift off ......

vopehov506 posted at 7:51 PM Mon, 17 April 2023 - #4462513

Test no Postwork  with V4 Superfly P13

can you share your render settings? That will have an impact on render quality and time.

Here are my render settings. I set the pixel samples between 5 (really rough) and 70 (usually pretty smooth). If it is still noisy after 70 samples I will run de-noise at about 50%. Make sure your buckets are large as discussed elsewhere on this forum. I run and older RTX2060 Super. On P12 I could get away with a bucket of 256, In P13 I can do a bucket size of 512. Those 3060 cards should be able to handle even larger buckets meaning faster render times and less power consumed while rendering.

ghostship2 posted at 9:41 AM Tue, 18 April 2023 - #4462573

can you share your render settings? That will have an impact on render quality and time.

I guess that is what most do when using that Superfly changing the settings a little here a little there until getting a good suitable result :)

For those who see this without checking out other threads, some questions to the math were raised on the Poser 13 renders sticky thread. Feel free to click over there and check the discussion ( provided your electricity consumption  allows)...

Like I said in the render thread, the wiring in your house does not support that much power draw.

You could render for 10 hours strait on your system and still might not make it to 3KWH of consumption....

3KHW of power in 5 min is about a 25,000 watt draw....  

Well consumption was pretty clear, considering having a 800W power supply on the desktop  if it Runs high on 500w  for 6h you used up 3kwh for sure. I made a measurement just for the time working with superfly in total it was in the afternoon a little more then 4h then continued from 1 am to 4 am another 3h most of the time it was rendering for testing the setups 3 Kwh puff and 5 test renders that could be half way usable. so in total it was a little longer then 7h computer just for superfly. when using the computer with a little firefly and other works through 24H I usually get a max of 1 kwh consumption ! 

But it is up to any individual to decide weather it is worth or not, free for anyone how he is using the tools. Gaming can also cause peaks so not problem with that. For me it is sure not worth it as I got a cheaper alternative with firefly.

forgot to mention, in Europa on our place we have a energy cost of 37c a Kwh for others we are even cheap there are regions that have it higher then 50c a kwh ..... so for us 3kwh is 1$ for some others even more then 1.50$ that could hit one really hard considering to use such amounts every day and even more for rendering and getting the bill for it later on if you have a reasonable alternatives with poser firefly.

What did you measure the draw with that gave you a 500 watt power draw? And peaks do not equate to an average draw. Do you have the average draw as well?

My preview renders take mere seconds on a lesser card (2060), and rarely exceeds 300 watts total draw, then it drops back down to about 150w for my entire setup.. So my system would have to run full bore, for 10 hours strait to use 3khw. I have a 13th gen 20 thread processor, (same power draw as yours) 64gig, 10 terabytes of storage, thunderbolt card, use a 50" tv as primary monitor, etc, etc, etc. Which means your system should use way less power than mine. 

I could see using 3 kwh a day if all it did was render animations all day. But test renders should never use that much power as you have claimed in multiple threads.

If I go thru my APC history, it has never hit 700 watts at any point and has far more plugged into it than most people would. It is a 2500 watt unit.

The backup supply has an entire studio plugged into it. Pc, tv, monitors (both screen and studio speaker's),12 channel mixer, IO boxes, amps, monitors, synths, mpc, etc, etc, etc.

And the system has rendered while the studio was in use, and not hit 700 watts total......

You also have not mentioned how much a KWH costs where you live, which could make a huge difference in anyone's decision. Mine is 12 cents a khw....

So worse case scenario for me to 3kwh, is 36 cents......

36 cents a day, is not that much at all...... That's 11 bucks a month, max. Assuming it even draws that much, and it doesn't.........

It rarely hits 2kwh total in a 24 hour period, and I can look it up because the supply tracks power usage.....

And it is the studio usage that hits that from the amplifier power draws...

That is a very inexpensive hobby, no matter what the KWH costs where you live.....

Even if all you do is jam out and use more power than Poser possibly can rendering animations.....

Seems we cross posted on the KWH price....

Your power is crazy expensive, putting you at between $1 and $3, versus my 36 cents.....

Which is still cheaper than going anywhere else, to do anything else....

Whether the math in the first post adds up or not, still it is a good idea to use the options to work faster and reduce energy consumption as a bonus. In winter the system power consumption adds to your room heating. But of course summer is coming and the less heat the better. 

- reduce resolution while experimenting (I vaguely recall there were one-click options to render at 1/2 or 1/4 of dimensions, cannot find them in P13)

- use partial render for just the part you're working on.

- make computation expensive objects such as hair invisible when you are not working on something they have effect on.  

- When working on whole scene (lights, say) use progressive mode so you see right away when the result needs work and cancel the render. Usually there is need to let the render complete in that case. Initial results may be grainy but color/lightness can be seen quite early.  There are  'tiimed 10 seconds' options in render presets.

- switch off DOF and other expensive options while playing around. 

- check your scene lights. Before the days of IBL and environment lighting there were scenes with a huge number of lights to compensate. That does not go well with the way Superfly works. Technology moves forward.

- check your render settings on bucket size and such. See the advice above and in other threads.

shvrdavid posted at 2:45 PM Tue, 18 April 2023 - #4462606

What did you measure the draw with that gave you a 500 watt power draw? And peaks do not equate to an average draw. Do you have the average draw as well?

We have for the testing period a max average of 7 kwh a day  For all, meaning that mostly you need to get along with 5 kwh a day including workstations tv etc. Showers and washing cause a peak every 10 - 12 day's that is when you can use it . Dish are hand washed with water heated up in a pan. A nice experience and you realize where your money goes down the drain for the first time in your life :)  So naturally you notice a peak for rendering with superfly right away if it is raising the consumption by 3 to 8 instead of 5 for the normal day's. making you realize what costs are involved using superfly. 

These statistics will be made public every 3 month throughout the region so people get sensitized, but more sensitized get the ones who participate to the tests. so just a little project of many :)

The past 3 month without any notable restrictions in life the test reduced the consumption from about 2000 kwh to 600 kwh  so in theory 1400 kwh were just going down the drain. allot considering that you actually just let it run to have it running but have to pay for it . It is not a standby or a Led this project goes a little deeper. Naturally resulting to also see how much a render really cost's you . 

>>>> So naturally you notice a peak for rendering with superfly right away if it is raising the consumption by 3 to 8 instead of 5 for the normal day's. making you realize what costs are involved using superfly. 

If you take the time to learn SuperFly and update materials for older content, you can cut your render time down substantially by rendering with OptiX instead of CPU as you did, since your cards are capable of using it.  Yes, it takes time to learn something new. It took me 3 months to get the hang of DS and to create content for it. But I worked through it to learn. Now I can create content for both. But rendering in DS now takes ages when compared to Poser, and also makes my fans run continusualy during rendering, so there is that. 8-)

My UPS says I used 191 kWh over the last month. That's running two computers, router, cable modem, NAS, 34" monitor, phone charging, etc. I work from home so I'm on the computer all day long. At 3 kWh per render, that would be just 2 renders a day for the month to use all of that power, leaving nothing for the monitor, other computer, etc. I think this is off by at least an order of magnitude, maybe two. Part of that may be GPU rendering is more efficient vs CPU rendering, but I do leave the computer rendering for hours overnight (just not for single renders), so that GPU gets a good workout.

That does make me curious what my total Poser usage time and total rendering time has been. I don't think that gets tallied anywhere.

My backup says I used 109 kw last month. So right around 3.5kwh a day. Which is worlds away from 3kwh in a few renders over a few hours... 

With all the things I have hooked to it that sounds about right. That just over 13 bucks to run almost all of the electronics in the house for a month. Or 32 bucks at 30 cents a kwh... I also test Poser daily, and have beta tested it for years. System's don't pull 500 watts all day long, and the one in question should not peak at that either. It should not go over 300-350 max.

I have played around with my system in the last hour or so and the most I have seen power draw is just over 300 watts while rendering with 1024 size buckets in Optix..

And they are very similar systems, to a point.

If the op's system is using 500 watts, something is drastically wrong with if it is an 11th gen I7 system with a 3060.....

Or, the measurements and math are way off..... 

My backup retails for 2 grand, it is an SMT3000.... 

It is not just a simple kv meter plugged into a socket and the control center software (Powerchute Business), will track everything, down to the penny.... It is scary accurate...

I do give the op credit for tracking it, and the information provided about the insane cost of electricity there. 

But there is no way that 5 or 6 test renders use 3kwh as claimed. I seriously question the math used, and the meter that states the system pulls that much power.

The story seem to change as well, but I will chalk that up to a language barrier.....

Any render engine will result in higher power consumption,sadly that's the downside if you want to render with CPU or GPU,upgrading to newer GPU can result in lower consumption or lower power limit on GPU through the MSI Afterburner and agree 5 or 6 renders wouldn't pull 3kwh no way

I remember I have run 3xGPUs in one system and that sucker would pull 1500W from wall during the rendering if I unleashed whole potential 

Have look on Kill-A-Watt meter they're available online for good money and they're pretty accurate

Hope this helps

Thanks,Jura

Dont get me wrong it is not to say that Poser13 is any good, sure these 5 renders alone do not pull 3kwh, it is the whole workflow quick testing's allot of unusable scraps, about 7h of trying to find a good setting. It is not just hit the button and get the right render right away. It is to say that compared to firefly, superfly is a energy sucker like comparing the consumption of a Tank with a small Family Car. 

I ran last night this Animation with 307 Renders in less then 10 min size of each render is 556 x 816 on max settings for firefly my computer did not even turn on the fans. one shot with superfly took 15 min to get rid of most grain, render size was not much larger and turned on the whole power of the PC. Superfly is not really better then Firefly on the end result. So just Imagine you want to make such a animation with Superfly 307 render, this would take you forever and the computer would sure suck that power out of your line big time comparing with Firefly.

So this is the shot with the 307 renders in firefly that were merged to a animated gif.  in less then 10 min render time, I have not compared with prior poser if the Firefly runs faster but I guess it does a little, but not much. You tell me now how long would it take you to render these 307 shots in good quality with Superfly just to make a short animation. My guess is it would take about 100 hour's to render all these in superfly and sure not 10 min. Considering the High setting of firefly and a high setting on superfly to remove the grain especially if you want a clear shadow in the background. So I could say , See you in 4 Day's when you finished your animation in Superfly witch took me just 10 minutes with firefly :)

I clearly prefer Firefly for various reasons, but...

Using my Geforce GTX GPU, Superfly is A LOT faster when it comes to rendering hair!

(Using the Poser 13 default settings + Denoiser)

As opposed to my I7 CPU and Firefly.

Of course it depends how much hair is involved.

With hair being only a small part of the render, Firefly usually beats Superfly easily.

Of course a proper GTR card will probably get you much different results.

This was my test scene using the provided Poser 13 content:

Hair with any detail indeed can have huge negative effect on FF performance, and that's one of the points where SF stands out. 

For a render of a plain plastic doll the difference would probably be much smaller. It is not for nothing that plastic doll scenes are the traditional game. The question how much difference there is is best answer by him who poses it. Each tool has its application. If SF is not good at this let us know and it is good we still have FF on backup.

For my work, unless I need microfacet displacement, I do not even THINK of ever going back to FF.  

>>>> So this is the shot with the 307 renders in firefly that were merged to a animated gif.  in less then 10 min render time, I have not compared with prior poser if the Firefly runs faster but I guess it does a little, but not much. You tell me now how long would it take you to render these 307 shots in good quality with Superfly just to make a short animation. My guess is it would take about 100 hour's to render all these in superfly and sure not 10 min. Considering the High setting of firefly and a high setting on superfly to remove the grain especially if you want a clear shadow in the background. So I could say , See you in 4 Day's when you finished your animation in Superfly witch took me just 10 minutes with firefly :)

>>>> So this is the shot with the 307 renders in firefly that were merged to a animated gif.  in less then 10 min render time, I have not compared with prior poser if the Firefly runs faster but I guess it does a little, but not much. You tell me now how long would it take you to render these 307 shots in good quality with Superfly just to make a short animation. My guess is it would take about 100 hour's to render all these in superfly and sure not 10 min. Considering the High setting of firefly and a high setting on superfly to remove the grain especially if you want a clear shadow in the background. So I could say , See you in 4 Day's when you finished your animation in Superfly witch took me just 10 minutes with firefly :)

You can prove it to yourself quite easily, since you have the hardware to support OptiX rendering.  Just render the same scene using the SuperFly Optix High preset. This has been suggested to you several times.

The issue is, you don't want to bother, you just want to troll.

For an apples to apples comparison, you need to render the exact same scene in FireFly and SuperFly, using the exact same hardware. It has been explained to you that all you need to do is go to the Render Settings dialog, select the SuperFly tab, and choose the OptiX High preset. As shown here:

After you select that preset, go to the Movie Settings tab and render in SuperFly.

You will also need to set the render dimensions to match your preview window. 

Here an other test 98x2 frames 4min render time 850x1115 converted to a Gif ( Got to fix this Arm issue poking into the chest )

Ok I fixed the animation and rendered it again Firefly it took again 4 min for 98 frames. Now rendering the same with superfly ( I'll send you the bill ) I could reduce it to about 1-2 min a frame so will take a moment to get this render done ......

I initially started with a 300+ frame animation using La Femme and OptiX High was rendering about 15 frames PER MINUTE, or 4 seconds apiece.

Then I replaced La Femme with the default V4 model, using the same animation. Since I don't have many animated poses, I had to use a couple of Sydney G2 poses, which aren't all that great. That's why I am saying that YOU have to do the comparison yourself, because we will not be able to exactly reproduce your textures and animations and hardware. 

Anyway, using V4 as the model, I am getting roughly 22 frames PER MINUTE on Optix High render. Or, less than 3 seconds PER FRAME.This is using the same render dimensions as your first animated GIF.

So roughly 10-15 minutes for the whole thing.  Not the 100 hours you predicted.

Now YOU try it.

Here Frame 7 Firefly vs Superfly

so will now make the gif comparison in Time and see how long it will take until these 98 superfly are done

ok so this is the Fixed Animation Firefly 4 minutes, Superfly is still rendering ..... and computer started all fans ! Now just got to wait until Superfly has done it's job ....

Please post a screen cap of your SuperFly render settings.

Still running...... The main issue is if I want a sharp shadow on the background it sure would increase the render time big time , at least more then it is atm so hombre is coming out pretty grainy in superfly, 40 min now and got 50 frames Computer is on lift off .

:( Did not make any setting ! just let it run and when I saw the first frame thought ok could do it .... but will check when it's done 

It is like waiting at the Doc until it is your turn .... we are at 65 frames now at least my coffee is kept warm that stands on the Computer

Since you said your settings are taking 40 minutes to render 50 frames, your settings are taking 48 seconds per frame and you are still getting grainy renders. When I use the OptiX preset, my renders took less than 3 seconds per frame, with no graininess. 

This is why I would like to see what your render settings are, and whether or not you are using OptiX.

Nop Optix is off on this render "I think" did not turn it on was already to late.  CPU runs at 180 watts and Gpu well nop it's off !! guess I have a CPU render running. I hit that render button to fast. Will test after it is done to see if shadow is getting better on a quick frame. CPU is running this time at 50% not that bad like my first render tests

vopehov506 posted at 9:56 AM Wed, 19 April 2023 - #4462722

Nop Optix is off on this render "I think" did not turn it on was already to late.  CPU runs at 180 watts and Gpu well nop it's off !! guess I have a CPU render running. I hit that render button to fast. Will test after it is done to see if shadow is getting better on a quick frame. CPU is running this time at 50% not that bad like my first render tests

Seriously, try to use the OptiX high preset. Even if it is only one frame. There is no way that OptiX High will take 48 seconds to render one frame on a scene that simple. 

You have the hardware to run OptiX, which will speed up your SuperFly render time considerably. Even if you just render 10 frames you will get an idea of how much faster it will be than 48 seconds per frame that you are now getting. 

So at this point people have mentioned what needs to be done to speed up Superfly considerably. From hours to literally mere seconds on a render that size....

The op has flat out not shared the settings they use, then mentioned people are not sharing their settings, after they already mentioned ones to use.

The story has changed repeatedly. From using 3+KWH for 5 or 6 little test renders, costing a dollar a piece, to not using anywhere near that power to do 5 or 6 test renders. or even in a day.

If Firefly is faster and better for what your doing, just use Firefly. If it is cheaper for you to use it where electricity costs a fortune and you don't want to pay that, use Firefly...

Sorry for being blunt, people are trying to help and there is no attempt to go along and accept the help or even show settings people ask for to better understand the issue.

Then the mention of not making any settings pops up......

If the op did not make  or change any settings for Superfly as claimed, Superfly is running on the cpu because that is the default setting....... It isn't even running on the GPU...

This is going nowhere fast, and doing nothing more than wasting time of people willing to actually help someone that appears to refuse it.

End Thread.....

Ok it is done time taken for 98 frames 1h19min ! settings of Pixel samples was set on 3 I think, tried after on a test to increase to 20 but render time jumped to the ceiling, then turned on the GPU with optix  hit render .... Puff Poser 13 crashed :(  just turned off from one sec to the other ....

So here the Superfly animation set on 3 Pixel samples CPU ( Goes faster ) results are not bad at all but you need allot of time for sure. The more complex your scene the better the quality the longer it will take.  The positive side is that the aura rings are gone on the back when converting the renders to a Gif, now wonder why that is ! 

Go to the SuperFly tab in the Render Settings dialog..

Choose the Optix High render preset.

Just render a single frame.

How long does the render take?

If you choose Window > Log, the last five entries in the log will show timer information. 

I seem having an issue with the GPU in Poser not sure will have to see what is going on. might be my drivers. also had a blue screen the other day with Poser, so something is not working right on my side.

This render took 55 seconds in SuperFly, largely because of the amount of transmapped hair in the image.

Without the hair, the render took 12 seconds.

If the Game Ready drivers from NVidia don't work, try the Studio drivers. 

Since you don't seem to want to post render settings, I will. My GPU is one generation older than yours, and far slower than yours in Optix.........

Intel denoise is turned on in the post effects, and that matters if you want speed... It took 7 seconds to render an 1080 x 1800 frame. It will do 1800 x 3000 in less than 12 seconds, on a slower GPU than you have.... Transparencies will slow down any render, so results may vary depending on the hair you use and the shader used on the hair. I strongly suggest that you learn the Cycles shaders and materials. And also learn how to terminate to transparent on hair shaders if it runs out of bounces while rendering animations with hair that has lots of transparency layers....

Superfly in P13 is very fast.... Firefly cant hold a candle to it, and you will use for more KWatts rendering on the cpu.... My entire system did not exceed 320 watts on this render..... And again, it took 7 seconds a frame.....

Another thing I should mention is that lighting is crucial in Superfly. You are far better off with too much light than not enough. There are no Poser lights in the render above at all, it is entirely lighted with the hdri that is also the background. That lights everything in the scene without having to really do anything lighting to it at all.

Poser has a way of doing this in the new P13 content, which is different than how I do it, but there is a thread on here about how you work with the Poser way of doing it. 

https://www.renderosity.com/forums/threads/2978435/a-change-of-environment-the-easy-way

Since you don't seem to want to post render settings, I will. My GPU is one generation older than yours, and far slower than yours in Optix.........

Intel denoise is turned on in the post effects, and that matters if you want speed... It took 7 seconds to render an 1080 x 1800 frame. It will do 1800 x 3000 in less than 12 seconds, on a slower GPU than you have.... Transparencies will slow down any render, so results may vary depending on the hair you use and the shader used on the hair. I strongly suggest that you learn the Cycles shaders and materials. And also learn how to terminate to transparent on hair shaders if it runs out of bounces while rendering animations with hair that has lots of transparency layers....

Superfly in P13 is very fast.... Firefly cant hold a candle to it, and you will use for more KWatts rendering on the cpu.... My entire system did not exceed 320 watts on this render..... And again, it took 7 seconds a frame.....

Why are you rendering in CPu when you have a rtx 3060....

My render cost is zero. I have solar power in the house 8D

I don't understand the purpose of this thread other than trying desperately to badmouth Superfly with half-arsed excuses.

Will have a look at what is going on might just be that the stuff is rather old that I loaded for this animation. So the Firefly renders ended to be 4min vs 1h19 min Superfly consumption of the CPU was less then 100Watts on firefly and around 180Watts on superfly low setting. It is quiet a difference, and if you tell me that your render took about 55 sec then were there.

No. We are NOT there.The render that took 55 seconds was largely due to the multiple layers of hair transparency that took up a good part of the scene. The scene that you are trying to render doesn't have transparent hair layers as far as I can see. It is NOT an apples to apples comparison.  You are just looking for any reason you can to justify that SuperFly doesn't work.

And if you are not using your GPU card on your own scene, that isn't POSER'S fault.  You are using the CPU render time as an excuse for why Superfly renders are slower than Firefly.

Now all depends on the quality you wish having and also depending on the style of renders, for me superfly and Firefly do not make such a big quality difference they are just different.

And yet, you are comparing a high quality FireFly render to a low quality SuperFly render because you don't want to use your GPU rendering with Optix.

You can get as nice renders with Firefly as you can get with Superfly a matter of taste, to get best results both will end up into a Post-working app to really be final. For me Firefly is good enough it will save allot of time and be less heavy on the computer.

The main point of this thread is not that Poser uses to much juice.

It is that the OP is unwilling to listen to anyone that knows how to make Superfly use far less juice and get better results, than Firefly......

We should all step off the bridge now.....

shvrdavid posted at 11:33 AM Wed, 19 April 2023 - #4462750

Another thing I should mention is that lighting is crucial in Superfly. You are far better off with too much light than not enough. There are no Poser lights in the render above at all, it is entirely lighted with the hdri that is also the background. That lights everything in the scene without having to really do anything lighting to it at all.

Poser has a way of doing this in the new P13 content, which is different than how I do it, but there is a thread on here about how you work with the Poser way of doing it. 

https://www.renderosity.com/forums/threads/2978435/a-change-of-environment-the-easy-way

I am not offending Superfly, even took my time to make a animation with it as in here you find any excuses not doing it guess you are not capable. If you know better then me with superfly then there is no excuse not to be able to make a simple animation in Superfly, especially that poser13 has been uptated also on this part.

So who is trolling in here? at least I give it a shot and show the results I'm getting with the style I use, and yes it is heavy so you show me a animation with a good shadow work in Superfly that is done in  a short run .... else yes you stepp off the bridge and let the ones do it that are capable doing it.

I am using Superfly for the first time as to say and communicate my Impression, not by just pretending  as I try and show how I try with the renders I made using this engine. A Pretty shot of a cute pinup does not show the whole  

shvrdavid posted at 11:33 AM Wed, 19 April 2023 - #4462750

Another thing I should mention is that lighting is crucial in Superfly. You are far better off with too much light than not enough. There are no Poser lights in the render above at all, it is entirely lighted with the hdri that is also the background. That lights everything in the scene without having to really do anything lighting to it at all.

Poser has a way of doing this in the new P13 content, which is different than how I do it, but there is a thread on here about how you work with the Poser way of doing it. 

https://www.renderosity.com/forums/threads/2978435/a-change-of-environment-the-easy-way

ok your render might be looking good but with these entirely lighted with the hdri that is also the background, does it cast shadows on a wall, on the ground to make "siluettes" I noticed that many of these renders have no realistic shadows, mostly they also not show the model stand on a ground as there rather portraits. Real sceneries are rather rare. Often there starring faces or renders concentrating on glowing shiny eyes. Not all that shines is Gold! 

I am not offending Superfly, even took my time to make a animation with it as in here you find any excuses not doing it guess you are not capable. If you know better then me with superfly then there is no excuse not to be able to make a simple animation in Superfly, especially that poser13 has been uptated also on this part.

So who is trolling in here? at least I give it a shot and show the results I'm getting with the style I use, and yes it is heavy so you show me a animation with a good shadow work in Superfly that is done in  a short run .... else yes you stepp off the bridge and let the ones do it that are capable doing it.

I am using Superfly for the first time as to say and communicate my Impression, not by just pretending  as I try and show how I try with the renders I made using this engine. A Pretty shot of a cute pinup does not show the whole  

vopehov506 posted at 2:57 PM Wed, 19 April 2023 - #4462774

ok your render might be looking good but with these entirely lighted with the hdri that is also the background, does it cast shadows on a wall, on the ground to make "siluettes" I noticed that many of these renders have no realistic shadows, mostly they also not show the model stand on a ground as there rather portraits. Real sceneries are rather rare. Often there starring faces or renders concentrating on glowing shiny eyes. Not all that shines is Gold! 

I am not offending Superfly, even took my time to make a animation with it as in here you find any excuses not doing it guess you are not capable. If you know better then me with superfly then there is no excuse not to be able to make a simple animation in Superfly, especially that poser13 has been uptated also on this part.

So who is trolling in here? at least I give it a shot and show the results I'm getting with the style I use, and yes it is heavy so you show me a animation with a good shadow work in Superfly that is done in  a short run .... else yes you stepp off the bridge and let the ones do it that are capable doing it.

I am using Superfly for the first time as to say and communicate my Impression, not by just pretending  as I try and show how I try with the renders I made using this engine. A Pretty shot of a cute pinup does not show the whole  

Oh, wait that was even faster than my Pretty shot of a pinup... Way faster

Or because I choose to put the wall way back so the shadows are not crisp as yours, that doesn't count.....

That's 1.6 seconds a frame, no matter how you look at it.

Instead of actually asking for help, this is where you are now...

I am not even going to bother helping you anymore. Consider the bridge burned.....

Oh. let me guess, because I did not post the actual animation that doesn't count.

Let me fix that and post part of it.... Its huge....

Looking Good 

That grain noise is a little issue so it seems still to be there with optix?!  The shadow is not blurry due the distance of the wall. the closer the wall the sharper it should be, that is a simple light setting same in RL . Your render time is good doh, Did not have time to figure out where I got a problem with Optix. That grain reminds me on old times when after midnight they shut off the tv channels , then you also had grain on the screen :)  The first frames seem to do well then all of a sudden the grains jump in , must be a hiccup.

Got to get my graphic card running in poser so I can see if I can get that crisp off  even if it then takes 4 sec a render that  sure would be fast, 6min for 90 frames ! Cool ....

Might be good motivations for others when they see these animations. so actually "you do not help me" you help others, and motivate them. " You sure Remind me a little of Rodney McKay in Stargate Atlantis "