Mon, Jan 13, 10:59 AM CST

Renderosity Forums / Vue



Welcome to the Vue Forum

Forum Moderators: wheatpenny, TheBryster

Vue F.A.Q (Last Updated: 2024 Dec 30 8:14 pm)



Subject: 25 anti-aliasing test results (201K image)


sittingblue ( ) posted Mon, 01 July 2002 at 6:10 PM · edited Sun, 12 January 2025 at 7:49 PM

file_14637.jpg

I decided to test anti-aliasing settings in Vue 4 today. This setting is available under User-settings in the Render Options dialog.

The above picture is the result of 25 test renders, using different Standard anti-aliasing settings. The rows are arranged by the 'Quality threshold' (top to bottom: Fast to Best) and the columns are arranged by '...subrays per pixel' (left to right: 2, 6, 12, 18, 25).

The image is lit by one distant white light with 30 degrees softness and no ambient light.

One reason I got into User Settings was because the softness was gritty when I was using Final render quality. I believe my default Final settings were 9 rays and around 40% quality.

In conclusion, if one wishes to trade time for quality, Vue can produce high-quality results.

Charles

Charles


bluevenus ( ) posted Mon, 01 July 2002 at 6:19 PM

Oh wow, thanks :) That's good to know


audity ( ) posted Mon, 01 July 2002 at 7:54 PM

Hi Charles,

Thanks for these examples (very technical, as always !).

Indeed, the final "quality" (9 subrays) is not good enough. In fact all the settings below 12 subrays and a 75% quality threshold are, in my opinion, "preview" quality.

But I don't agree about the fact that "VUE can produce high-quality results".
Look carefuly at the best quality / 25 subrays per pixels image : the soft shadows are still noisy and there is still "edge pixelisation" (you can clearly notice it on the legs of the dog). Sorry but I don't call this "high-quality". In fact the results that you get with VUE's highest anti-aliasing setting are identical to the lowest settings of some other 3D softwares...

Anyway, I don't understand the preset quality settings... the "final" quality is surely not a "final" quality ! The ultra is neither "ultra".

Preset quality settings could be like this :

preview : no super-sampling / no anti-aliasing
good : 8 subrays - 50 % threshold
final : 12 subrays - 100 % threshold
broadcast : 18 subrays - 100 % threshold
ultra : 24 subrays - 100 % threshold

:) Eric


NightVoice ( ) posted Mon, 01 July 2002 at 9:41 PM

I always render my completed scenes in ultra quality. Is that not the setting for 25subrays 100% threshold? If not I guess I will start using the user settings menu. :)

I wouldn't mind to be able to go even higher if the option was there. Maybe in V5 we will see higher level options.

Oh and I always took the final mode to just show what it looks like with even more options enabled just as preview is more options than sketch. I never use final unless I want to see some AA version. I think all my pictures I have put in my gallery have been at the ultra quality.


NightVoice ( ) posted Mon, 01 July 2002 at 9:42 PM

Oh and thanks for doing these tests! It is nice to see how it looks on all the levels! :)


tradivoro ( ) posted Mon, 01 July 2002 at 10:33 PM

I agree with Eric.. Since no matter how high you go in Vue, I was never happy with the final renders, most of the time I just do a final at a large size and then shrink it down... It does a nice job that is not perfect, but then again, if after 10-12 hours I'm still not happy, I'm not going to go crazy with it either... :) But thanks a lot for these results Sittingblue, there are really very informational... Actually, this is the kind of stuff we should be getting from E-on, but we are getting from good people such as yourself.. :)


YL ( ) posted Tue, 02 July 2002 at 10:14 AM

Very interesting test, Charles, very good idea, and thanks to share with us ! I'm sure Vue can do the same very good quality as others code : main problem is the comparison on time rendering, since I saw many images (with radiosity or global immumination technique) with rendering time less than 1h. Anybody here has the possibility to compare different codes for the same simple render ? It could be very useful... One important question for me is how to compare "ultra mode which is much better than final, but could be of better quality compared to "user settings" with 25 subrays and best settings. I'm sure these two modes are very different (I only have Vue2.1), but I have not made tests to compare them. "Ultra" is sufficient in quality for most of renders. I also hope this discussion will continue (as well as new tests will be performed), cause the problem of rendering quality versus rendering time is not so clear ! :=) Yves


Bop ( ) posted Tue, 02 July 2002 at 10:55 AM

Thanks SittingBlue ! This test is, I think really usefull for all Vue users, and I'll keep your rendering chart. I notice that a render with Best Quality Threshold but with only 2 rays of antialiasing has approximatively the same result than a 75% quality threshold with 25 rays antialiasing. In fact, it looks like improving Quality Threshold makes better result than improving number of rays... Now the question is what makes the rendering time grow the most : Threshold Quality or Ray for Antialiasing ? A question now comes to my mind : did you took a look at the rendering time for these pictures ? What's the range of time between the first picture (fastest/2 rays) and the last one (best/25 rays) ?


NightVoice ( ) posted Tue, 02 July 2002 at 1:16 PM

file_14638.jpg

I hope you don't mind but I did a test of my own(trying to use the same settings too). As you can see, of a picture that small size and little complexity, going from ultra setting to a maxed user settings goes from 5mins to 1hr40mins. That is a huge leap! :)

However, if you look at sittingblue's example, at the best quality and 12 subrays looks almost as good as 25subrays. Now I am sorry, but I didn't have time to run a full test, but my same scene but at 12 subrays I let it render for 5 mins and the estimate was around 55 mins. I don't know how accurate that is, but at that same point the 25 subray estimate was well over an 1h15m.

Just thought I would share my timing with everybody. :)


audity ( ) posted Tue, 02 July 2002 at 2:19 PM

Using more rays per pixel is not necessary. 8 rays per pixel is enough. The important setting in VUE is the quality threshold. As you can see in Charles' examples, there is no noticeable differences between 12 rays and 25 rays with a 100% "best" quality threshold.
I'm even sceptical about "25" rays per pixels... even high-end 3D rendering engines don't go further than 16 rays.

Martin (aka Cheers) also noticed that "standard" antialiasing produce, in most cases, better result than "superior" anti-aliasing. Don't ask me why !

Yves : "I'm sure Vue can do the same very good quality as others code". Well I don't think so. Look at Nightvoice's example : the "ultra" quality image is awfull and with the highest user setting there is still aliasing on the edge of the object and the soft shadows are noisy.
103 minutes of rendering for a so poor quality is a joke !

I don't know how fast is the processor used by Nightvoice but a scene as simple as this one should be rendered in a few minutes even on a 1 GHz processor.

With Cinema4D XL 7, I could produce a perfect render of this horse in 45 seconds (on a 1GHz PIII).

Of course comparing the $200 VUE4 with the $1700 Cinema4DXL7 is not fair. But there are many low cost 3D softwares with a better rendering engine than VUE : Truespace 6 ($600) and Carrara Studio 2 ($400) for example. They can both produce perfect renders. They have a higher price tag but don't forget that they include a complete modeler and many others features not yet available in VUE.

In fact VUE 4 has one of the worse rendering engine available. I can't produce soft shadows, it doesn't remove aliasing correctly, and it's outrageously slow. That's why I'm not interested in the POSER animation import plug-in or any other upcoming features. Before anything else, VUE needs a new rendering engine.

It's strange that only a few users of VUE complain about that !

Eric


YL ( ) posted Tue, 02 July 2002 at 2:21 PM

WHAT ??? Ultra setting is the left image ? are you sure ? I never saw bad grainy shadow with ultra mode(but with Vue 2.1) ! May be due to Vue 4, or to a change in the render quality between different versions. I would like to do te same test with Vue 2.1 . Thanks Nightvoice ! Keep tuned :=) Yves


YL ( ) posted Tue, 02 July 2002 at 4:09 PM

file_14639.jpg

So, "ultra" setting is a very good mode in Vue 2.1 : this is shown on the picture below (ultra 21m32s on the left, final 0m48s on the right). Conclusion : quality has been changed between Vue 2.1 and Vue 4 for ultra mode. "user setting" is in progress, will take more than 1h , so not enough time to show the results. ;=) > (Eric) Audity : you say exactly the same as me, concerning the rendering time. lol. I was surprised to see some very good pictures made in a few minutes in other softwares, which could take a long time to render with Vue (2.1). But I'm just curious to know the reason, it's not a complaint cause Vue 2.1 is free.


NightVoice ( ) posted Tue, 02 July 2002 at 4:23 PM

file_14640.jpg

Sorry for another big picture. :)

Anyway, looking at this we can see that lowering the subrays to 8 only has a minor reduction in visual quality (only a few things like the disk on the side of the horses head) which imho can be fixed in photoshop in 30 seconds. :) But for 42mins less time it is well worth doing.

As we can see it is the quality threshold that will make or break your quality and not the subrays. In all honesty, I can't see why anybody would EVER use subrays all that much higher, but never 25. :)

Oh and just to let you know, I am indeed using a 1ghz machine. I don't use openGL mode because I found in the past that it doesn't render quicker and screen refresh is slower. Also those shots are actual render size, not shrunk down. Imagine the render speed of a fancy scene with many objects, volumetric lighting and a reflection or two that is twice as big. :)

I know people have concerns about what to expect from the price you pay, so I am not saying to raise the price, but they shouldn't be expected to have an equal render for so cheap. However, perhaps they need to release a Vue Pro version that has the advanced renderings some are looking for. If it was faster and better, I would seriously consider paying a lot more for that version. :)

YL, yep, definately was ultra mode. Ofcourse shadows were set to 30% as the original test so that is why it looks so bad. :)


Cheers ( ) posted Tue, 02 July 2002 at 5:04 PM

If you look at earlier versions of Vue, you will see that in Ultra mode both Standard and Superior settings within the Antialiasing options are selected; in version 4 you will find just Superior selected. It looks as if soft shadow and blur quality was sacrificed by not having both antialiasing modes used under the Ultra setting in Vue 4, for an increase in render speed. I presume that the antialiasing code for the render engine was further re-written to increase speed under the User setting as well. I do love Vue, but the changes to the render engine where a massive dissapointment for me, in Vue 4. For anything that does not require volumetric or caustic effects I would prefer to go back to Vue 3, as that renderer is miles better. As Eric says though, if you have also got access to a different 3D package, then the odds are high that you will get better results from that render engine anyway. Cheers

 

Website: The 3D Scene - Returning Soon!

Twitter: Follow @the3dscene

YouTube Channel

--------------- A life?! Cool!! Where do I download one of those?---------------


Bop ( ) posted Tue, 02 July 2002 at 6:10 PM

How many time did I read the statement : "Why not changing for another 3D app that have better render and faster engine..." ? Somes even argue : "Another 3D package have a modeller included"... Many answers are : "Can you find a 3D package that is so cheap ?". I answer "Yes !". And it's true, I agree with that people that can find X or Y package for not so many more bucks than Vue. But, did you try to create hills and mounts and valleys with these apps ? Did you try to change in less than 10 seconds the global light or atmosphere settings of your scene for fitting what you want ? Did you try to create your own procedural textures ? Did you try to create six trees all different from each other ? etc... Yes, Vue is not a perfect program. Many 3D applications are far better than this one and, effectively, for sometime not so many extra bucks. But remember how many time you spent to have a good control of what you do. Remember how many time you were searching one feature in a sub-sub-sub menu lost in the middle of thousand other sub-menus. etc... Personaly, I prefer spending a little more time in rendering time than in trying to understand the interface of the application I got on my screen or spending all my time my nose in the manual searching a feature. And, a last comment, Looking at the Vue's gallery or at the post of some new user's sending us their first try at vue, I think that some of us are really able to have some great pictures from a so "crappy render engine". And one last thing (hey, it looks like the previous one was not the last !), I think that the e-on staff knows their job ? I'll maybe passing for a puritan guy, but I was shocked from the way some answered the Lynn's announcement about importing Poser's animation in Vue. I suppose that e-on staff is aware of the speed of their rendering engine and they probably know that most of us don't have high-end computers. And even more, when this problem was discussed, Lynn's answered "Don't judge, WAIT and SEE". I supposed it could probably means that it was a non-official answer that they fixed the problem... Now, for the people still thinking Vue is crap, I suggest this : let them founding a company that they can call... mmm... 'F-Out Graphic' And let them start to work on a project that can be named... errrr... 'Spirit View' or 'Mind's Eyes', why not ? I'll be the first one to take my hands on the demo of that kind of products... :-)


NightVoice ( ) posted Tue, 02 July 2002 at 6:20 PM

I think we all really enjoy Vue that is why we keep using it. The ability to create worlds within it, is what makes Vue shine.

But some do have a problem with the render engine and hope it would be better. I can understand that. I don't think anybody here believes Vue is a POS otherwise they wouldn't use it. But I think it fair to want the best of both worlds. :)

That being said, since we don't have the best of both worlds, I don't suppose we can create scenes in Vue and port them over to these other high end renderers can we? I am guessing not or we wouldn't be having this discussion. :)


Bop ( ) posted Wed, 03 July 2002 at 5:29 AM

Thanks for your constructive answer, Eric. It's not a problem to test rendering settings, as you can see in my previous post on this thread, and it's not a problem comparing different 3D softwares... Of course, nobody wrote as explicitely "Vue is crap", but that was more or less the substance of post that I had to read, without searching one year ago... I agree with you, the origin of this thread was very usefull and I too will probably loose less time in rendering... I look at your picture and I see a large difference. Look at the C4D picture. Decoding what I see lead me to think that this app calculate silhouette of the shadow and blur it all. Look at the vue, the blurring is function of the distance. That makes a lot of difference. But, I agree with you, even if that process takes more rendering time, that not justify the huge difference between 20 s. and 40 mn. What I also see is that your soft shadows on ultra rendering are not grainy... ;-) What was shocking for me is that when Lynn's invited you to wait and see, posts continued to talk about the speed of render engine. I think that when that message was posted, that was meaning that the staff of E-on have read your complains the first time... Of course, one more time, I didn't see post that state explicitaly to "change for a better and faster software" but I invite you to re-read your own message : "Of course comparing the $200 VUE4 with the $1700 Cinema4DXL7 is not fair. But there are many low cost 3D softwares with a better rendering engine than VUE : Truespace 6 ($600) and Carrara Studio 2 ($400) for example. They can both produce perfect renders. They have a higher price tag but don't forget that they include a complete modeler and many others features not yet available in VUE." And I have no time to go search the Lynn's announcement... For the "many othe features not yet available in Vue", you probably include the SolidGrowth (TM), the terrain editor, the rocks and planets editor, the importing of full PZ3, etc... I not agree with you for the fact that Vue would be as complicated as other 3D softwares if it includes more features. E-on staff prove their ease to put powerfull features with keeping a clear interface. Go to see the material editor, the terrain editor or atmosphere editor. And I suppose the integration of Poser animations in Vue will be as easy... And surely I will be more than happy to have a faster rendering engine in Vue, but what I was pointing in my post is that I think E-on staff is already working on that, so it's useless to post again and again complains about that... They prove in each version that they were listening to user's voices, so, wait and see... Well, it's time to return to my Vue scene... :-)


YL ( ) posted Wed, 03 July 2002 at 5:46 AM

Many thanks for this test Eric ! as I said I already knew that other softs were faster than Vue for the same type and quality of picture (Cinema 4D or 3DSmax for exemple). I agree that rendering time could be improved for Vue5. If it's not in the wishlist for Vue 5 (see Vue d'Esprit forum Annex at the top of the page), maybe it could be added ?


gebe ( ) posted Wed, 03 July 2002 at 6:03 AM

I think there is really no need to put in the wish list a faster renderer Yves, because this was always an important point for e-on to make eache version faster:-) Comparing Vue with cinema or carrara is just not fair. Makes me laugh. Why are you using Vue if it is so "bad"? Aren't there features you cannot find in cinema and other softs? The press release (Lynn Frederick's post), if you want to read it again, is HERE Guitta


audity ( ) posted Wed, 03 July 2002 at 7:59 AM

Thanks for your answer Bop,

And I agree with you about VUE's interesting features that you can't find in other softwares : Solidgrowth and the very "user-friendly" atmosphere, terrain and material editor. But we are only talking about the RENDERING quality in this threat.

Guitta : "Why are you using Vue if it is so "bad"?". I'm getting a bit tired of this... I'll say it AGAIN then especially for you : VUE 4 is a good software, but the RENDERING ENGINE is very bad.

I remember that a few months ago you said exactly the same Guitta... you even said "for metallic materials, the rendering engine of "xxx" is much better than the one in VUE" (I can't remember the name of the other software...).

You are the moderator here so you know that problems with slow and grainy render are the most common messages appearing in this forum... if I answer these messages, I always try to help people, but you know, sometimes when I hear about 10 or 30 hours of rendering for a 800x600 pixel image, I don't know what to answer...

But OK, if my statements and comments sounds too harsh, I'll shut my mouth. It's seems that this forum only accept words like "VUE is great" or "VUE is better than BRYCE".

:( Eric


gebe ( ) posted Wed, 03 July 2002 at 8:04 AM

Eric, the metallic render problem was corrected in Vue 4.06:-) (Have you got my Instant message?) Guitta


gebe ( ) posted Wed, 03 July 2002 at 8:05 AM

Oh, and the "other software" was Vue 2. :-)Guitta


audity ( ) posted Wed, 03 July 2002 at 8:21 AM

Sorry Guitta for the "nudity", as I can't edit the message, I had to delete it...


gebe ( ) posted Wed, 03 July 2002 at 8:23 AM

You can repost it here, Eric, just put the nudity flag on, then there will be no problem:-)


audity ( ) posted Wed, 03 July 2002 at 8:31 AM

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?Form.ShowMessage=499510

The other software was not VUE 2, but Corel Dream 3D. I hope you don't mind if I quote you :

"the only modeler I own is Dream 3D v6, doing just little things and it only exports in DXF. But, Alekssander, I don'y know if you agree with me, their render engine is absolutely great, much better results as Vue (I hate to say that)." (gebe 12/21/01 07:41)

:) Eric


gebe ( ) posted Wed, 03 July 2002 at 8:43 AM

Yes, right:-). And I always agree with what I have said. But I have paid more for it 6 or 7 years ago then Vue's price is today:-). And no vegetations, no great features in there, even no bending possible. Just the render engine! Today I have to pay 400$ for Carrara (Dream 3D's suite, in a sort) to get the same powerful render engine. And almost no plants in there. Guitta


NightVoice ( ) posted Wed, 03 July 2002 at 9:38 AM

I guess this brings my question up again. Can Vue scenes be imported to other programs like cinema 4d or lightwave(or what ever is a high end renderer for speed and quality. Assuming no, is it in the best interest of both companies (say makers of cinema 4d and Vue) to have a way to do it? I don't know how the industry works so I don't know if having a plug in for cinema 4d would be beneficial to both companies or not. Just want to know who and if I should send an email suggesting my support for such a product. :)


gebe ( ) posted Wed, 03 July 2002 at 10:12 AM

You will then be able to export Vue plants to other soft? Hm! I don't think this is for tomorrow. Many 3DMAX, Lightwave, Cinema4D (and others), have already expressed this wish to e-onsoftware. You are one more. Why not? :-)Guitta


Bop ( ) posted Wed, 03 July 2002 at 10:21 AM

NightVoice : no, you can't export Vue scene in any application. The only add-on E-On (Add-on E-on... that sound funny to me...)made was a conversion of the vue atmosphere editor for LightWave. And I suppose that making a converter the way you talked about would be a bad idea for E-on, especially for the SolidGrowth technology that they are so proud about (and surely they can !)... And yes, you could post a mail to e-on... :-) Audity : yes, the render engine of Vue 4 is really slow and have graininess problem. I think we all agree with that. yes, it must be said, for that it could be changed for the next version of Vue, of course. And saying it does not sound too "harsh" to me. It must be said one time, two time maybe for being sure that it is heard, three time if you really want to be sure... But not claimed again and again and again... E-on staff is not deaf (or in this case, blind...) If you want to be sure they hear your voice, send them mails... every day, every couple of hours if it can please you ! The sentence you quote from Gebe was never repeated again. She said that one time and OK. One last thing, I don't want you, to shut your mouth, nor anyone in this forum. Critics is the motor of all good projects. Vue is not perfect and the problems must be pointed for being solved.


NightVoice ( ) posted Wed, 03 July 2002 at 12:55 PM

Ah well that makes sense I suppose. It just seems that if the users of all those $1500+ software programs would love to see a Vue plug in for their programs, it makes sense they would be willing to shell out another $200 for Vue itself. I just kind of see it as instead of creating scenes just in poser, people (like me) bought Vue to use for their poser figures. So instead of poser, the big program users will use Vue as a starter / backgrounds for their scenes.

Well I will drop e-on a letter of support for the plugin. Thanks for the response. :)


gebe ( ) posted Wed, 03 July 2002 at 1:01 PM

NightVoice, I think it's not as easy as you see it. Lets say Max can import Vue scenes and the user has Vue also. And then he will give away for free or for money Vue's vegetations? But I'm not sure I understood well what you meaned right here above?? :-)Guitta


Cheers ( ) posted Wed, 03 July 2002 at 1:12 PM

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=74215&Start=1&Artist=Cheers&ByArtist=Yes

I don't think anybody said Vue is crap, Bop. I may have been critical of Vue 4 in my above post, but I was fair, and compared it to Vue 3 ;o) I do, luckily, make my living from creating art, and assisting those that wish to...and I would never put my name to crap ;o) I'm sure I am amongst a number of Vue users, that have been very proud to assist E-on in their quest for wider recognition...but that does not mean we cannot be critical of it's failings :o) I am still very proud to have this in my resume: http://www.the3dscene.com/gallery/vue4_ad.htm ...and here is the original: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=74215&Start=1&Artist=Cheers&ByArtist=Yes Cheers

 

Website: The 3D Scene - Returning Soon!

Twitter: Follow @the3dscene

YouTube Channel

--------------- A life?! Cool!! Where do I download one of those?---------------


NightVoice ( ) posted Wed, 03 July 2002 at 1:18 PM

I see what you are saying. Worrying about Vue's cool solid growth getting ripped off. True, that could be a problem. But I suppose they can set up in the agreement that it can't be given away or sold and only used for your own scenes. I don't think it would be any worse that somebody buying a cd with textures and models and people who give them away too.

But I understand what you are saying and the concern of people doing that. :)


scifiguy ( ) posted Wed, 03 July 2002 at 2:11 PM

If you think Vue renders slow, you must not have tried Bryce 5 ;) Stupid question...the quality one is just a slider. Is there some way to "know" what percentage I'm setting more precisely? Also, does anyone know what the different presets are actually using? In particular, I'd like to know what Broadcast quality uses because I've been very pleased with it as a good compromise between quality and speed.


Thalaxis ( ) posted Wed, 03 July 2002 at 2:27 PM

What I was thinking was that you could only edit Vue scenes (including trees) in Vue, but integrate them essentially at render time into (for example) LightWave. You'd need standins or something for trees, not the trees themselves. This method works pretty well for a Shave and a Haircut, only SaaH is just one product; you don't have to buy a separate plugin. It would amount to a souped up version of Ozone that allows you to import entire Vue scenes rather than just their terrain, and edit the atmospheres and such inside of LW via Ozone. That would make it 2 products in the $250 range each, which would have it priced pretty much competitively with the average LightWave plugin.


senjin ( ) posted Wed, 03 July 2002 at 3:41 PM

Ok, now I hope I don't come off as stupid, but how do you change the settings to these " Subrays"??


gebe ( ) posted Wed, 03 July 2002 at 3:46 PM

senjin, do PICTIRE--->RENDER OPTIONS Click USER SETTINGS and under Anti aliasing OPTIONS. :-) Guitta


YL ( ) posted Wed, 03 July 2002 at 3:51 PM

Right click on render button, choose user settings, the go to Antialiasing "edit", you are here !


gebe ( ) posted Wed, 03 July 2002 at 3:54 PM

Right, I wanted to say anti-aliasing EDIT, not Options. Thanks Yves. Guitta


senjin ( ) posted Wed, 03 July 2002 at 4:53 PM

Duh!!! ( talking about myself.LOL) Thanks to all and I will try it on the render that I asked help about in the other forum.


scifiguy ( ) posted Wed, 03 July 2002 at 6:38 PM

Ok, I've been trying some of this using the Doberman. Again, I'm just kinda guessing about the quality thing because its only a slider, but it is clear that best quality is needed if the soft shadow is important. However, the dog looks quite good to me at lower settings and I can't imagine too many times I'm going to be casting a soft shadow on a plain flat surface. Really, I hardly even turn on soft shadows. The noise from background stuff and surface textures easily masks pixelation flaws in them, so I think its more a matter of matching the right kind of render to the right kind of scene and this 'acid test' for shadows is one factor to consider.

I do now realize that Ultra doesn't even enable soft shadows so no wonder they look so bad with that setting.

Now I'm really not sure what the lighting set up others are using is. I just used the plain "blank" sky and the sun, moving the sun so it would cast a shadow off the dog similar to sitting blues (I only used one dog though) and made the ground flat white. I made the sun 30% soft and with all the render settings maxed out it took just over 8 minutes. Granted, we didn't use the same animal and stuff but 8 minutes versus almost 2 hours for Nightvoice? Something seems wacky there. I have a 1.7gz p4, but I can't imagine the difference between a 1gz and a 1.7gz it THAT huge (btw I don't use openGL either for the same reasons, plus imported Poser figures often looked weird with gl on for me anyway and it made it hard to position them).

Maybe if someone could make a "test scene" with the stuff that comes with Vue we can do some real benchmarking tests to get an idea of how different systems perform. At least then the results would have some meaning and people could get an idea of what Vue likes. We did that with a Poser scene a while back and the results were quite informative.

Regardless, this has prompted me to spend some time with the render settings and I feel like I understand them better now. So if nothing else, that's one good thing! :)


senjin ( ) posted Wed, 03 July 2002 at 8:34 PM

Now I see that I am not the only one with slow render times.To Cheers. I think Vue is a cool program, like you I also make my living designing things for verious clients. But I have tried other programs and to me the best is not always the easiest to use or understand. Lightwave is just such a program. I mean it can do wonders in the modeling area, but lets be real a moment. The look of the program is bland, ( I have the latest vershion) unattractive and hard to remember just what each tool does. Then when you read some of the tutorials they make the user even more confused, because of the color and tools. But to me it's what ever works for you, I like Vue,Amapi3d and a few others, but that is because they are easier to remember and don't require a hugh book to look at while trying to model. But again I say to each his own. Ok I don't know how many of you have read the help that I asked for in the Vue Forum, I did it before I got all the help from you guys. I would like to know what you think could be done to improve the pic as well as correct the problems that you see in it?? thanks. Vue forum: " Render help. "


Privacy Notice

This site uses cookies to deliver the best experience. Our own cookies make user accounts and other features possible. Third-party cookies are used to display relevant ads and to analyze how Renderosity is used. By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understood our Terms of Service, including our Cookie Policy and our Privacy Policy.