27 threads found!
Thread | Author | Replies | Views | Last Reply |
---|---|---|---|---|
fiontar | 4 | 133 | ||
fiontar | 3 | 43 | ||
fiontar | 18 | 577 | ||
fiontar | 2 | 42 | ||
fiontar | 13 | 177 | ||
fiontar | 0 | 23 |
(none)
|
|
fiontar | 2 | 30 | ||
fiontar | 3 | 49 | ||
fiontar | 3 | 45 | ||
fiontar | 4 | 59 | ||
fiontar | 4 | 49 | ||
fiontar | 10 | 131 | ||
fiontar | 10 | 111 | ||
fiontar | 10 | 93 | ||
fiontar | 2 | 42 |
2000 Mar 26 9:00 PM
|
213 comments found!
Looks great!
Glad I could help.
Definitely a work around that resulted from intuition unhindered by indepth knowledge. I had no reason to think it wouldn't work so it was the first thing I tried. :)
I tried to duplicate your full node settings and failed, but I can see from trying how powerful node use can be for someone who does know what they are doing. (Not in the pic I posted, that was just a basic color with the bump/gradient bump).
Thread: Procedural Bump Artifacts in Firefly | Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL
Thread: Procedural Bump Artifacts in Firefly | Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL
It must be a bug. It does look like a moire pattern to me as well. I remember similar results in Bryce if the scale of the procedural texture wasn't right.
A work around is to use the Gradient Bump Channel. You'll have to fine tune the min. and max. noise values a little bit, but the checkerboard pattern is gone.
Thread: Can't I post positive things about Poser over at daz3d? Post deleted... wtf? | Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL
It would be hard for me, given the wording of the original post, not to think it was a trolling thread, espescially in the context of being posted on the Daz boards. :) If you really just wanted an honest pros and cons, to see if you were missing anything, that was probably not the most courteous or productive way to do so!
As far as Daz, D|S and Poser, I'll only have a problem with Daz if they start to "gimp" content with a lot of new features only supported by D|S.
I really wish they would get over what ever problems they had in the past and find a way to have a better relationship with E Frontier. The Daz figures are still pretty much the standard in the community, it would be better for everyone if the two companies could innovate together for the benefit of both (and of course the rest of us)!
D|S made sense for Daz as an insurance policy when the future of Poser was in doubt. It still makes sense in that regard and of course as a lower cost alternative to Poser for those who want to get their feet wet with Daz content. I had hoped D|S might also have been leveraged as a more robust cross application platform, to allow better use of Poser content in higher end 3D packages, but that seems to have fallen far short of it's potential. However, to try to move it towards being a direct competitor or replacement to Poser, using compatability with it's content as a differentiation point, is something I do NOT want to see down the road.
Looking at E frontier, the attempt to establish it's own default figures as the community standard has also been largely a failure. Options are nice, but (no offense to RDNA) I just don't find the new figures to be up to par.
It seems like a lot of wasted effort on both sides. Competition is nice when it breeds innovation, but I don't feel we've seen any real innovation from either company.
Thread: My shadows are rubbish!!! Have a look at this... | Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL
Try setting the minimum shading rate in the render settings to a lower number than the default. I usually use .08 (click the number and enter the digits, the slider for me doesn't offer good fine control over lower numbers).
Thread: Shadow problem (Poser 7) | Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL
Does lowering the min. shadow bias in render settings and for the light casting the shadow have an effect on this? I know I get some pretty funky effects with shadows in some renders unless I lower the min. shadow bias under render settings (I currently use .08 for final renders).
Thread: Poser and single core processor vs quad core speed? | Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL
Thanks for running the 1600x1600 numbers, definitely gives us all a better baseline and makes the quad core a lot more attractive. The performance boost between 400 and 800 was so small, glad it scales much better at higher rez. :)
Very interesting as well how the P7 Firefly renderer scales at higher resolutions. With 1600x1600 being 4x the area in pixels than 800x800, I would have expected the render time to scale closer to 4X as well.
Looks like a quad core will be a good investment for Poser users. I'll be looking at it more seriously myself. I usually only upgrade when I can get at least a 40% performance boost over my current system and I just couldn't get that by upgrading to any of the current dual core processors.
Thread: Poser and single core processor vs quad core speed? | Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL
OK, I ran the Jim Burton P5 benchmark,
http://www.renderosity.com/mod/freestuff/index.php?user_id=2541
under the same conditions, plus ran some math on the results:
AMD64 X2 4400+ (2.4 Ghz, 2GB DDR Ram (480 Mhz))
400x400 (Re-use Shadow Map, keep textures in memory).
1 Core(s), 1 Thread(s): Render time = 42.35 seconds.
1 Core(s), 2 Thread(s): Render time = 45.24 seconds.
2 Core(s), 2 Thread(s): Render time = 31.33 seconds.
2 Core(s), 4 Thread(s): Render time = 32.52 seconds.
800x800 (Re-use Shadow Map, keep textures in memory).
1 Core(s), 1 Thread(s): Render time = 105.56 seconds.
1 Core(s), 2 Thread(s): Render time = 108.00 seconds.
2 Core(s), 2 Thread(s): Render time = 63.14 seconds.
2 Core(s), 4 Thread(s): Render time = 63.43 seconds.
1600x1600 (Re-use Shadow Map, keep textures in memory).
1 Core(s), 1 Thread(s): Render time = 360.52 seconds.
1 Core(s), 2 Thread(s): Render time = 358.26 seconds.
2 Core(s), 2 Thread(s): Render time = 192.74 seconds.
2 Core(s), 4 Thread(s): Render time = 182.18 seconds.
Best results, performance boost from 1 core to 2 cores:
400 x 400: 35.2%
800 x 800: 67.2%
1600x1600: 96.7%
***svdl's Intel Core 2 Duo Q6600 at 2.4 Ghz
Best results, performance boost from 1 core to 2 cores:
400 x 400: 29.1%
800 x 800: 55.0%
1600x1600: ???
Best results, performance boost from 2 cores to 4 cores:
400 x 400: 22.2%
800 x 800: 25.0%
Best results, performance boost from 1 core to 4 cores:
400 x 400: 57.8%
800 x 800: 93.75%
1600x1600: ???
*AMD Athlon64 4400+ X2 (2.4Ghz) 2 Cores vs. Intel Core 2 Duo Q6600 (2.4Ghz) 4 Cores
Intel quad-core advantage vs. AMD dual-core Both@2.4Ghz:
400 x 400: 39.3%
800 x 800: 57.9%
1600x1600: ???
Intel dual-core advantage vs. AMD dual-core Both@2.4Ghz:*
400 x 400: 13.9%
800 x 800: 26.3%
1600x1600: ???
*****Extrapolated based on 2 cores running on Intel Core Duo 4
core processor.
Note: My AMD processor is 1 1/2 years old, newer models at higher Mhz would fare better.
**Summary:
**Based just on raw rendering power, not taking into effect the additional multi-tasking benefits of a quad core system, the performance advantage rendering in Poser 7 of an Intel Core Duo Quad Core vs. Dual core is approx 25%. The cost differential between similarly specce'd Dual Core and Quad Core systems would need to be weighed vs. a 25% performance difference for someone deciding primarily on Poser Rendering performance.
Also note that standardized benchmarks for other 3D rendering programs show a higher advantage of quad core vs. dual core. Poser 7's multi-core rendering process could definitely be improved. With the current approach of halving or quartering the image based on the number of processes, it's just to easy to run into situations where some threads finish well before others, leaving some cores idle for the final portion of the render process.
Thread: Poser and single core processor vs quad core speed? | Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL
svdl,
    Thanks for what you ran. I understand the reason for wanting to run some standardized benchmark, but I had already covered the point that the pre-rendering overhead, which uses one core, would skew results on short renders. :) If one where to look at your numbers alone, the conclusion would be that four cores is not worth while. However, with most renders being of higher quality, the pre-render overhead becomes insignificant and the benefit of additional cores really kicks in. We don't get to see that with these numbers.
    This still leaves my questions unanswered.
    Assuming the render is complex and large enough to overcome the pre-render overhead, I've seen that with my AMD X2 dual core, the second core has provided a performance boost of 85%. If the scene where balanced such that both cores ran for the entire render (with the image split up into halves or quarters based on the number of threads, some threads end before others) the benefit may be even higher.
    True AMD quad core is still a few months away I believe, and I can not extrapolate X2 performance to AMDs current X2+X2, two socket "quad core" systems. Theoretically, Intel's Quad Core should offer a nearly linear benefit for each additional core, once overhead and thread distribution are factored in, for large, more complex renders. Unfortunately, the benchmark tests are not sufficient to show how the Intel quad Core scales in pure rendering performance.
    [Also, (on a side note) maybe someone else might want to test this out for themselves, but I found the seperate process renderer to be undesirable for more than the fact that it produces a performance hit, rather than a performance benefit. When layering renders of the same test scene at the same settings, one from the regular FF render and one from the seperate process FF renderer, I could clearly see that the results were not consistant. There was severe color banding in the background from the seperate process render not present in the standard FF render.]
Thread: building a Graphics workstation? | Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL
If you aren't sure on whether or not a particular power supply will work for you, check the specs or the manufacturers web site. Most power supplies have a toggle you change with a screw driver to chose 115v or 240v. If your outlets are different, you'd need a compatible plug as well.
The voltages output by the power supply are based on the specs for computer components. This won't be different in different parts of the world, the important thing is that the power supply can accept the local power. i.e. if you switch your power supply to your 240V input and use the proper power cord from the powersupply to your power outlet, the output of the the powersupply to your components will be proper and the same it would be if run in 115V mode in the US.
Sorry about Newegg and shipping over seas. :( Hopefully you can find a way around it. I have no idea about similar stores in the UE.
Thread: OT: Turbo Squid removing all Lockheed models | Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL
Maybe someone can explain to me how an artistic 3D model of an airplane can be an infingement? If you sell it under the name and brand of the product and/or used copyrighted markings on the model, I can see it (even if I don't really agree with it). However, if you offer a generic jetliner that looks a lot like a certain model, how can that be copyrighted?
I know a lot of 3D modelers use basic blueprints for objects like this, maybe that's part of the problem. But even if I use photo references, I don't understand how that would be infringement. Does this mean that if I sold photographs or paintings of Lockheed aircraft it would be considered an infingement?
I think what is happeneing here is bullying by a big corporation, knowing that 99% of the people they issue these orders to won't have the money to challenge them in court. Look at the case by the University of Alabama against painter Daniel Moore for his football paintings. He has promised to fight not only for himself but for the rights of artists in general. Most people don't have the money or desire to do anything but comply.
Thread: building a Graphics workstation? | Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL
Looks like a good setup, similar to one I configured in my head yesterday. :)
Only thing I might consider different is having two SATA drives instead of one. I have two SATA 250GB Seagate Barracuda HDs on my current system (built a year and a half ago). I have them each plugged into different channels, with my Pagefile on it's own partition on the second drive. I also use a partition on the second drive for back ups.
When you do get your system together, to save some hassels later, plan out how you want to partition your drives. I always create two seperate Primary partitions, one for my main OS and one for my secondary OS. I'm currently using the second trying out the 120 day free trial of Windows XP Pro X64, but in the past I've also used it to allow a fresh install of my Primary OS when needed, with out over-writing the original, (which I only get rid of once the transition is completed and everything is running smoothly). This could be helpful in your situation for adding Vista 64 "once the kinks are worked out", or if you want to maintain a 32 bit and 64 bit OS on the system until you are certain that all your programs run fine on a 64 bit OS.
Of course, having the secondary HD is also nice if you lose your primary one to a hardware failure. No rushing out to Best Buy or Staples to find something to stick in your machine because you don't want to go with out for the time it will take to receive a replacement through the mail. :)
(Some people, rather than buying identical drives, will buy a smaller, faster (more expensive per GB) HD for their OS and primary software, and a larger, more economical HD for their secondary. That's another possibility).
Thread: Poser 7 crash on High quality renders... | Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL
I've been rendering scenes more complex than that with 2 GB of Ram with Poser 7. I was having mixed results with the new adaptive bucket, so I turned it off and set the bucket size down to 15. Even though a larger bucket size will result in a slightly faster render, so far I haven't found the difference to be anything major. However, reducing the bucket size has so far fixed all my out of memory problems with high quality renders.
Also, don't use a seperate process render. Seems that feature isn't really up to snuff at this point. Uses more memory in total, renders more slowly than rendering inside Poser and it doesn't even free you up to work in Poser as the render progresses. On top of that, I've noticed color banding using the Seperate Render Process that doesn't exist in renders with the same setting done internal to Poser.
In case it matters, I have my page file set up on my secondary drive. 4096 MB Min 4096 MB Max on my G: drive, but also 16MB Min/ 16MB Max on the C: drive.
Of course, anything you can do to free up more memory before a render is probably helpful. If I'm worried about a complex, high quality render, I'll save the scene, quit Poser, restart Poser and reload the scene. I'll also make sure to close any other programs I'm not using.
Thread: What is updated in the Victoria 4.1 model? | Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL
4.1 also adds an eyebrow "prop" for transmapped eyebrows, but I'm not sure if any characters currently available use that approach.
Thread: Parenting 3 Objects to the head? | Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL
Mid-render atm, but I would think that either approach would work fine. Unless there is something odd about head parenting, I've never had a problem parenting multiple items to one parent or even chain parenting.
When loading in multiple props that make up a scene or "stage" I always parent them all to one of the objects so I can move them all in the scene at once. (I usually pose and light the figure(s) first, then import and place the backgrounds relative to the figure(s)).
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.
Thread: Procedural Bump Artifacts in Firefly | Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL