Messages

1

General CG Discussion / Re: Have you seen Unreal Engine 5.5?

« on: 2024-10-04, 17:24:43 »

I still use Max/Corona mainly because of workflow features (Slicer mat, all the Include/Exclude tricks, Overrides, etc..), things that help Design&Architecture projects that have revisions being big part of the process.
And also because I need 100perc. precision, not even 99perc. would suffice. So the extra-level of detail/sampling/etc... that pure dedicated path-tracer engine outputs is still beneficial.

In faster, more purely result oriented work, I am not sure I wouldn't be using Unreal already. For something like Real-estate marketing, I think the switch would absolutely make sense. Faster visual development, super fast rendering, easy VR/Animation/etc.. outputs, etc..

Technical limit is meant in regard to computation (lower floating point precision) making sim. (algorithms) either more prone to errors or simpler, introducing more bias, less quality - physical incorrectness. Simple fact. Even regulatory standard for industrial simulations demands double precision.
It's good for games, imagery and illustrations, but lacks for predictive rendering, visual prototyping, engineering, ...

Can really agree with it. The more you are on the design side of the industry, the more is classic off-line renderer still valuable. The more is your work veering into pure marketing imagery, the more attractive Unreal and other real-time solutions look.

And then there are all the hybrids, like D5 renderer, etc.. I don't have time to test them, but they can be possible bridging solution.

2

Work in Progress/Tests / Re: Juraj's Renderings thread

« on: 2024-10-04, 15:08:52 »

Yes the beds are scans, the textures on top are also scan, so it's 2X Detail, and on top of that, AI can improve it further, but not without good 3D base.
I plan to upload one older bed for free soon. Just too much stuff going on in life :- )

3

[Max] Resolved Bugs / Re: Crash with OSL wParallax

« on: 2024-09-21, 10:22:38 »

In my opinion no, I stopped using almost all OSL, not just this one. The risk of random crash was just too high.

The alternative for Parallax planes OSL, is just .EXR mapped box. It works just as good, but requires positioning a box instead of just plane... it's less useful, but still useful.

4

Hardware / Re: Which Monitor is best?

« on: 2024-09-18, 08:21:31 »

That Dell is very good, the "black-IPS" panels are very decent, but the monitors are very expensive for what you get (which is just slightly better IPS..).

I will write review of recent WOLED monitors (OLED panels from LG, I tried both LG and Asus version). QD-OLED (the Samsung version without polarizer) is not good fit for work. I'll make a post next week.

5

[Max] I need help! / Re: material editor SLOW - i think its a CORONA issue?

« on: 2024-09-13, 11:01:32 »

Update from my testing:

- Show Textures in Viewport ON/OFF = No difference (using standard ShadedViewport, no HQ)
- Materials applied to scene or existing only in material editor = No difference
- Type of material, amount of textures = Some influence?

I have very optimized Windows setup. No ControlFlowGuard, Ultra-performance mode, higher-process priority for 3dsMax, no network setup (all files local, full-path mapped. It's nothing to do with this.
I have zero plugins in 3dsMax. It's not that either.

It's Corona/Corona materials.

I can replicate ultra-slow material editor with single object and two materials in material editors. Since to me even fresh resetted scene just swapping two default Corona Material Editors are like 1-2 seconds to switch.
It's nothing to do with my Windows or PC, 3dsMax Physical material take 0.0001 second to switch. It's instant. It's just Corona material that is immensely slow.

And once I start IR, it's just catastrophe. I don't remember if it was always like this.... but I've been on big PCs (Xeons, Threadrippers) for so long that the issue might have worsened with that, or with just later Corona versions. I don't know, I have no frame of reference. But it's massively frustrating.

6

Hardware / Re: AMD 9950x

« on: 2024-09-13, 10:53:05 »

Do you get smooth material editor? Switching CoronaPhysicalMaterials? In and Outside of Interactive Rendering.
I am pondering buying one just to test how much better it works compared to Threadripper.

7

[Max] I need help! / Re: material editor SLOW - i think its a CORONA issue?

« on: 2024-09-05, 13:18:35 »

I will oppose all the advice in this thread, because I can already tell you, it will not help. Any big-PC (Threadripper, Xeon, etc..) in high-core version, is pain like this in material editor unless as you correctly shown, you use native Physical Material.
Corona, will have super slow material editor in any remotely sized scene. And it's not snappy even in completely empty scene, unlike native.

This has absolutely nothing to do with proxies. This is technical issue on Corona's side that they just don't care about. I guess majority of users aren't on 64-core machines.

BTW, my settings:
Standard viewport (so no HQ)
Every big mesh is proxy. (most of long opening is due to bugs like "corona assets" etc.. and similar stuff, having proxies makes scenes smaller, but it hardly makes difference in opening after scenes start to feature bloat).
Viewport texture settings 1024px for all 3 types(laughably blurry, so despite having 16GB of Vram, I only use like 2GB per scene because otherwise everything will be even slower).
Basic material editor for editing materials. I only use Slate to create them, but because it's so slow, all the little changes (changing IOR 10perc. here or there, etc..) I do in basic.
All textures mapped locally, on local disc with exact paths.
No plugins whatsoever. No ForestPack, no nothing.
It doesn't matter which Max version. It's the same as long as I can remember. Really makes zero difference.

It's not anything else, it's Corona. Yes you are correct.

This does in no way help with slow material editor, and esp. slow material editor during IR. That's like unusable, I waste like 90perc. of my time and 99perc. of my mental health waiting on shit to unfreeze.
It's what it is :- (.

If it's really all because of QT, then that should have been tried ages ago.

One thing I never tested, if it's connected to materials being applied to scene ( and/or additionally, having "shown in viewport"). So I will test:
- disable show in viewport in big heavy scene
- dis-apply all materials (I don't know, apply them to single box and hide it) just keep big material editor full of materials.

8

Hardware / Re: Threadripper & Ryzen only builds (3rd Gen starts on page 50)

« on: 2024-09-03, 15:21:30 »

It looks solid. The retailer doesn't specify the memory, but I hopefully that is RDIMM (Registered ECC memory), which Threadripper now requires, and makes like 50perc. of the build price increase.
Threadrippers have become more expensive themselves, but the RDIMM memory is big part of it.

I believe the 32-core 7970X to be the sweetspot. All the cost that RDIMM + Motherboard eats up makes the 7960 quite poor value. If you're already spending 5K, might as well get the 32-core.
It's also the best performing one for daily tasks outside of pure rendering performance.

It's still worth it if it's the main PC for both work & rendering. But if you have rendering farm, I am not so sure anymore.

9

Hardware / Re: Threadripper & Ryzen only builds (3rd Gen starts on page 50)

« on: 2024-07-31, 20:05:44 »

Nothing is similar to disabling hyper-threading :- ) But, in September (or +/-) Microsoft is rolling out Win11 update (24H2) with new scheduler, the OS part dedicated to allocating threads correctly. It might help the situation a bit, since scheduler is the part making most issues with high-core machines.

But given the prevalence of this behavior there probably isn't anything more to do.

Maybe the issue is just 3dsMax or Corona and nothing can be done at user level.

10

Hardware / Re: Threadripper & Ryzen only builds (3rd Gen starts on page 50)

« on: 2024-07-08, 13:04:25 »

My main goal is to achieve a responsive 3ds Max viewport and fast interactive rendering within Corona.

I can echo everything Nejc said. But in particular for your above request, run away from 3xxx Threadrippers :- ). Their performance in responsiveness in Max/Corona is questionable, particularly the high-core (64) models. It's debatable how much of that is platform, the CPU, the Max/Corona architecture, Windows Scheduler, etc.. the reality is it's just sluggish.

32-core 7970X would be the best for the particular task.

11

Hardware / Re: Threadripper & Ryzen only builds (3rd Gen starts on page 50)

« on: 2024-07-02, 13:13:00 »

Overall, this increase in price would be minimal compared to the rest of the components.

Exactly! People always try to save money on PSU, arguably the single most important part of PC that can save you from losing hours of work and your house burning down ;- ). Not being sarcastic, for workstation, it's always good idea to just get the best PSU and sleep soundly.

There is no downside to having Platinum+ 1500W PSU from big boys like Seasonic, BeQuit, SuperFlower, EVGA, Corsair, etc.. except the cost. But for Threadripper/Xeon builds, that cost is fairly small chunk of the overall build.
For <32- core & sub/= 4080 type of builds, 1200 Watts is reasonable choice. For 64-96 core + 4090, I would opt for 1500 Watts PSU.

12

Hardware / Re: Laptop vs Desktop in 2024

« on: 2024-07-02, 13:07:43 »

There really is no easy way to answer that :- ) You posed the questions and partly answered yourself already. It's just too many choices and variables with laptops unfortunately.

The more all the features aligns, the more expensive it gets. "Buy once, cry once" I see quoted fairly often on internet today :- ).

You always overpay with laptops. They're just damn expensive today.

13

Hardware / Re: Threadripper & Ryzen only builds (3rd Gen starts on page 50)

« on: 2024-06-30, 00:11:17 »

Ignore online PSU calculators, there are many more aspects to it than that, biggest being transient spikes and PSU current protections.

In short, you're PC can consume just 800W, but the GPU alone can for split-second consume 400-600 (depending on GPU tier) and trip the PSU.
Good PSUs allow for over-draw, but high-end ones can also be very protective, Seasonic in particular.

PSU also run at maximum efficiency at around 50perc, and most of them will run passively (fanless) at that point.

So 1200Watt is reasonable default choice for workstation today.

14

Hardware / Re: Laptop vs Desktop in 2024

« on: 2024-06-30, 00:01:09 »

In laptops, performance between different laptops with same chip can be up to 50perc. It also fluctuates much more depending on conditions.

Different laptops provide different amount of juice and cooling. But majority of laptops outside of boost only provide around 50 +/- Watts for extended duration (rendering, etc..) and that makes it almost impossible to distinguish between different CPU models.

There is often very little benefit to upper tier of CPUs/GPUs in laptop, there is only so much the tiny body of laptop can cool. With GPU you're at least getting more VRAM which is always valuable, but with CPU the top models are almost useless.

15

Hardware / Re: Laptop vs Desktop in 2024

« on: 2024-06-21, 12:38:02 »

The AMD one is bit faster, but much more power efficient, so it keeps high performance in almost any chassis. It's definitely better laptop chip.

There is no difference between 13th gen and 14th gen Intel CPUs. It's matter of statistical error, +/- 3-5perc.