Chaos Corona Forum
Chaos Corona for Cinema 4D => [C4D] General Discussion => Topic started by: habber on 2024-07-05, 12:37:51
-
Hey,
So I just downloaded Corona 12 and had to find out that renders times are SO MUCH SLOWER compared to corona 9. (Yes I was still using version 9 due to having this issue in the past already)
I had already encountered this problem with Corona 10 + 11 so I always stuck with my Corona 9.
Now since 12 has some very nice new features I was hoping this issue would ve been fixed but just found out that it's not.
I use C4D R26 on M1 max Macbook Pro, 64 GB
Rendered the exact same scene with pass limit 5.
Corona 9 took 1:27 (with aprox 11 million rays total)
Corona 12 took 2:28 (with > 24 million rays total)
How is this possible? Took almost double the time, while having more than double the rays? I can't wrap my head around it.
Percentage wise this is a disaster.
It's very frustrating to have to decide if I want the new features of if I wanna keep rendering faster.
Hope you can help me. (before I go back to installing my old Corona 9)
Thanks!
Habber
-
I feel your pain. When updating to C10 I've made this topic about it https://forum.corona-renderer.com/index.php?topic=40809.0 (https://forum.corona-renderer.com/index.php?topic=40809.0)
I could guess whatever the reason could be, but I don't know anything about programming or whatsoever.
I sucks nevertheless, all the new stuff is a lot of fun but finishing renders faster is the most fun :)
-
I feel your pain. When updating to C10 I've made this topic about it https://forum.corona-renderer.com/index.php?topic=40809.0 (https://forum.corona-renderer.com/index.php?topic=40809.0)
I could guess whatever the reason could be, but I don't know anything about programming or whatsoever.
I sucks nevertheless, all the new stuff is a lot of fun but finishing renders faster is the most fun :)
Hey!
Thanks for sharing my pain. Also thanks for the link.
I checked out the topic and read it all. Tried converting the whole scene to corona bitmaps and all that stuff.
Just to find out that now it took EVEN LONGER :D (now the very same scene took 2:58) compared to 1:27 with v9 and 2:28 with v12 before converting scene :(
It is so frustrating. I will have to migrate back to corona 9 very soon. For the 3rd time. Unbelievably sad.
Cheers,
Stefan
-
Yes, it has gotten slower for sure. I was also sad. I think every version gets slower despite what they tell you about speed increase and optimizations.
-
This is interesting, is it just C4D or Max also?
-
Its gotten slower for sure
-
This is interesting, is it just C4D or Max also?
Hey,
Can't say about Max. Only been using C4D since the beginning.
But the difference is truly insane between V9, which seems to have been the fastest of all.
Seems like each never version has gotten just slower and slower (at least for me on M1 MAX 64GB + C4D R26).
What makes 0 sense to me is the fact that the rays are significantly higher while render times are twice as long.
I just can't understand as to why this could happen, it's soo soo frustrating :(
And seeing that this has been an issue for the past 3 versions doesn't really fill me with much hope.
It clearly has to be corona related. I'm always reading to send scenes, benchmarks etc. but to my common sense, it shouldn't really matter what kind of CPU, m1 pro, ram whatnot i am using. The fact that I am rendering the same scene 1:1 with different version on the same machine and getting such crazy different results is just insane.
At the end of the day I have such a busy schedule and the only thing that matters to me in my work is how fast I can render "X" scene and would be nice to take advantage of newer Corona versions with all its nice features without having to compromise for 2x the render times.
Let's see if anyone has found any solution or if we can get any deeper insight.
Cheers,
Habber
-
This is interesting, is it just C4D or Max also?
Hey,
Can't say about Max. Only been using C4D since the beginning.
But the difference is truly insane between V9, which seems to have been the fastest of all.
Seems like each never version has gotten just slower and slower (at least for me on M1 MAX 64GB + C4D R26).
What makes 0 sense to me is the fact that the rays are significantly higher while render times are twice as long.
I just can't understand as to why this could happen, it's soo soo frustrating :(
And seeing that this has been an issue for the past 3 versions doesn't really fill me with much hope.
It clearly has to be corona related. I'm always reading to send scenes, benchmarks etc. but to my common sense, it shouldn't really matter what kind of CPU, m1 pro, ram whatnot i am using. The fact that I am rendering the same scene 1:1 with different version on the same machine and getting such crazy different results is just insane.
At the end of the day I have such a busy schedule and the only thing that matters to me in my work is how fast I can render "X" scene and would be nice to take advantage of newer Corona versions with all its nice features without having to compromise for 2x the render times.
Let's see if anyone has found any solution or if we can get any deeper insight.
Cheers,
Habber
This is interesting, I wonder if it's Hardware related or software related (C4D).
Can you do a test of the scene in v9 and v12 but using 4% noise threshold. I would like to see if it has to do with using passes as the limiter.
-
This is interesting, is it just C4D or Max also?
Hey,
Can't say about Max. Only been using C4D since the beginning.
But the difference is truly insane between V9, which seems to have been the fastest of all.
Seems like each never version has gotten just slower and slower (at least for me on M1 MAX 64GB + C4D R26).
What makes 0 sense to me is the fact that the rays are significantly higher while render times are twice as long.
I just can't understand as to why this could happen, it's soo soo frustrating :(
And seeing that this has been an issue for the past 3 versions doesn't really fill me with much hope.
It clearly has to be corona related. I'm always reading to send scenes, benchmarks etc. but to my common sense, it shouldn't really matter what kind of CPU, m1 pro, ram whatnot i am using. The fact that I am rendering the same scene 1:1 with different version on the same machine and getting such crazy different results is just insane.
At the end of the day I have such a busy schedule and the only thing that matters to me in my work is how fast I can render "X" scene and would be nice to take advantage of newer Corona versions with all its nice features without having to compromise for 2x the render times.
Let's see if anyone has found any solution or if we can get any deeper insight.
Cheers,
Habber
This is interesting, I wonder if it's Hardware related or software related (C4D).
Can you do a test of the scene in v9 and v12 but using 4% noise threshold. I would like to see if it has to do with using passes as the limiter.
Hey!
Yes, already tried and unfortunately it's not noise related. I tried earlier and actually it takes more passes to achieve same noise limit, while taking ~twice as long, while having ~ twice as many rays at the same time.
I know, it makes no sense at all.
Also, reading that over people are experiencing the same issue and that this has not yet been resolved makes me more worried there might be no solution to this.
Just a huge mystery :(
Cheers,
Habber
-
Looking forward to seeing a reply from the DEV's. Something seems to not be going right here, maybe this is an opportunity to get back speed in later versions.
-
Hi habber,
Also, your rays/sample went up from 86 to 338 (lower is faster). Very strange.
Your mats look pretty simple but did you check if something funky goes on in your materials?
Is this your “test” scene? Maybe you can simplify the materials further? The walls have bump and not displacement correct? My r/sample are usually around 50-60.
Was there a change in UHD calculation bet. V9 and V10?
-
Are you all on macOS? I haven't compared render times here on Win, but it doesn't feel slower than before.
Since there is no max version for Mac, this issue seems to be a Corona for C4D (And maybe a Mac thing...)
-
Hi habber,
Also, your rays/sample went up from 86 to 338 (lower is faster). Very strange.
Your mats look pretty simple but did you check if something funky goes on in your materials?
Is this your “test” scene? Maybe you can simplify the materials further? The walls have bump and not displacement correct? My r/sample are usually around 50-60.
Was there a change in UHD calculation bet. V9 and V10?
Hey!
Yes i know it's so weird that rays/sample is also so different. Just doesn't make any sense.
As for the materials: Yes, quite simple. Actually couple of them are unlinked (hence black floor). Just loaded any of my old random scenes and lost links. I realize it's not the perfect "test scene" but even setting it up properly it results in much longer render times.
Still, even having unlinked textures, the main point being is the difference between v9 and v12 (+10,+11)
I've noticed this speed difference with every single file over the past years with each new version, even if I optimize materials etc. which is why I haven't upgraded since v9, but had hoped to do so now.
Cheers,
Stefan
-
Are you all on macOS? I haven't compared render times here on Win, but it doesn't feel slower than before.
Since there is no max version for Mac, this issue seems to be a Corona for C4D (And maybe a Mac thing...)
Hey,
Yes all macOS since the start.
I am starting to think it might be C4D/Mac related.
You are windows + max?
Would be interesting to see if there's more ppl that don't face this issue.
Maybe it's just Apple / C4D.
M chips related? Would think they would test this pre release.
Cheers,
Habber
-
I normally don't pay attention to render times, because for me few percents slower or faster rendering is irrelevant, but out of interest i installed V9 and rendered random scene. Turns out V12 is significantly faster, which is not surprising. I noticed that the floor in V12 is rendered wrong though and that may indicate that there were some changes that affected complex materials between V9 and current version and that could possibly be the cause of slowdown in your case. Dramatic increase of rays/sample in your V12 render seems to support that guess. Other than that, it could be C4D or Mac thing as pointed by others.
-
@romullus, interesting and nice to see that Corona got faster (unfortunately not for all it seems)
@habber, I'm using Win+C4D, most likely that's why I didn't notice a speed slowdown.
-
I’m still on intel Macs. I keep more of an eye on r/sec instead of absolute render times, and r/sec stayed pretty consistent since V9
The stats displayed in your VFB are definitely strange. Are you using team render or just a M1 max MBP?
I think 11M rays/ sec is too high for an M1 max, even if only clay mats are used.
I would run these tests again and override all mats with a simple clay material to make sure there is no weird corona bitmap shader hidden somewhere. Use simple glass or delete windows.
Did you ever benchmark your M1 max? What r/s are you getting in the benchmark?
The 24M r/sec in V12 is just wishful thinking - that would make your MBP the fastest Mac ever build and would even bring Steve back to life.
Do you know for sure the render times are actually that much slower (stopwatch?) and not just a stats issue?
Anyways, no idea what’s going on here but hope the devs can help with this.
-
I normally don't pay attention to render times, because for me few percents slower or faster rendering is irrelevant, but out of interest i installed V9 and rendered random scene. Turns out V12 is significantly faster, which is not surprising. I noticed that the floor in V12 is rendered wrong though and that may indicate that there were some changes that affected complex materials between V9 and current version and that could possibly be the cause of slowdown in your case. Dramatic increase of rays/sample in your V12 render seems to support that guess. Other than that, it could be C4D or Mac thing as pointed by others.
Hey romullus,
I notice you are using windows. I think that this issue might be Mac / M1 related? Sometimes windows gets more programmers attention since more % are using windows.
As for speed difference: I would agree if it's "few percent" + or - but in my case it's double :(
Cheers,
habber
-
The 24M r/sec in V12 is just wishful thinking
Hey Jojorender,
Fully agree - 24M is way too much for the m1max, and seeing the render times makes me think that this has to be a mistake. I've noticed this on all of my scenes. Depending on the scene, rays are usually between 2M (with tons of scatters and instances) vs 20M r/sec (simpler scenes), total render time with same passes still almost double though between V9 and V12.
Cheers,
habber
-
We’ve all suspected there’s something going on with the Apple Silicon implementation…would be good to get to the bottom of it. Maybe it’s the Apple Silicon port of the Embree raytracing libraries, the “clever” memory management, bitmap processing libraries or just something weird… who knows?
-
hi everybody
i‘m on mac, too (m2 ultra, 24c). with version 11.2/c4d 2024.2 i can‘t confirm double render times, because i can’t run v9 on v2024.2 anymore. but…
- i sometimes see strange numbers in the vfb (rays/s etc), too
- there’s slower render speed (felt)
a current interior scene needs ~15h to render (resolution of 4000x6000px). all materials are setup with cbitmap, mostly bump used and only a few displacements. plus illuminated by hdr and some basic lights outside the house.
is this normal?
i really hope the devs can figure it out with apple. i don‘t work as a visual artist nor make money of it, but it‘s no fun to render one image for 15h. i mean it‘s 2024 and not 10 years ago. ;o)
-
i‘m on mac, too (m2 ultra, 24c)
Oh man that hurts to read ... m2 ultra 24 cores and taking 15 hrs per render is painful. that machine is a beast and so is its price. (im actually thinking of getting the same setup to complement macbook) anyhow, should be way faster than that. resolution is quite high but still...
what pass limit you use for noise limit? maybe you are even rendering too many passes? of course personal preference but maybe you are trying to reach noise limits that are just too hard to achieve within reasonable times? i'm usually more than fine with 5% for example. Actually end up adding some grain on purpose in post production. Gives it more realistic appearance and less "perfect CGI" style.
In any case, speeds are low on macs. they haven't been low before, they started getting lower after v9 which is the sad and not logic part to me. I'm now suffering on a daily basis. And since scatter brush is not out yet for v12 anyway i guess i will have to go back to v9 very soon since nobody of the devs has responded anything yet :(
Cheers,
habber
-
i‘m on mac, too (m2 ultra, 24c)
Oh man that hurts to read ... m2 ultra 24 cores and taking 15 hrs per render is painful. that machine is a beast and so is its price. (im actually thinking of getting the same setup to complement macbook) anyhow, should be way faster than that. resolution is quite high but still...
what pass limit you use for noise limit? maybe you are even rendering too many passes? of course personal preference but maybe you are trying to reach noise limits that are just too hard to achieve within reasonable times? i'm usually more than fine with 5% for example. Actually end up adding some grain on purpose in post production. Gives it more realistic appearance and less "perfect CGI" style.
In any case, speeds are low on macs. they haven't been low before, they started getting lower after v9 which is the sad and not logic part to me. I'm now suffering on a daily basis. And since scatter brush is not out yet for v12 anyway i guess i will have to go back to v9 very soon since nobody of the devs has responded anything yet :(
Cheers,
habber
@habber
sorry for not mentioning the noise limit. it‘s 3.0.
i know, maybe 4.0-5.0 would do the job and will of course provide lower render times. but in this case i primarily have a detailed stucco surface and want the fine details to be seen. i think noise limit 3.0 isn‘t very utopic to run with.
it would be so nice to get some information or at least some attention from the corona devs about that topic, which a lot of mac users does bother.
-
sorry for not mentioning the noise limit. it‘s 3.0.
Got ya! Yes 3 is quite low (keep in mind noiselimit incrementes rendertimes exponentially) but regardless 15 hrs is too much.
Forgot to add 1 important point: I've never heard my fan on my m1max even while rendering heavy scenes on Corona 9. Those M chips are so good that I even forgot I had a fan since it never turned on. Now, even with simple scenes I can hear my fan kicking in on Corona 12 :(
Cheers,
Habber
-
sorry for not mentioning the noise limit. it‘s 3.0.
Got ya! Yes 3 is quite low (keep in mind noiselimit incrementes rendertimes exponentially) but regardless 15 hrs is too much.
Forgot to add 1 important point: I've never heard my fan on my m1max even while rendering heavy scenes on Corona 9. Those M chips are so good that I even forgot I had a fan since it never turned on. Now, even with simple scenes I can hear my fan kicking in on Corona 12 :(
Cheers,
Habber
@habber i did another render test. i managed to reduce the render time from 15h to 5.5h. but how...well, i was cheating a bit.
my approach:
positioning an omnidirectional light (sphere) in the room incl. compositing tag (everthing unchecked). the rendering of course is overexposed now. but in lightmix i turn off this light to get my desired exposure back. after 5 passes the rendering has 6.35% noise. in the render test with 15h the noise level was somewhere 15-20% at 5 passes. i don't know if this is the way to go, but it seems to help. does anyone have the same approach to get less noise and faster render times?
attached you will find two render test:
4000 x 6000px > 5h05min, noise level 3.0
3333 x 5000px > 3h30min, noise level 3.0
rays/s are normal. only rays/sample is high > 323.6
> specs: mac studio m2 ultra 24c, 192gb ram, 60c gpu, ssd 4tb – c4d2024.2 - corona renderer 11.2
any feedback from the corona team is welcome and appreciated.
-
Very interesting workaround! It's wild that this trick would reduce render times by 2/3!
Also, wow your scene is so simple - beautiful but VERY simple - I had no idea. Not even using reflections or any form of special material.
Can't really understand how it would even take you this long, having such a strong machine. I can only guess displacement for the walls? (still shouldn't be as much) What do you use as setting for displacement size? I've realized this affects times a lot and the result being only slightly affected.
-
Very interesting workaround! It's wild that this trick would reduce render times by 2/3!
Also, wow your scene is so simple - beautiful but VERY simple - I had no idea. Not even using reflections or any form of special material.
Can't really understand how it would even take you this long, having such a strong machine. I can only guess displacement for the walls? (still shouldn't be as much) What do you use as setting for displacement size? I've realized this affects times a lot and the result being only slightly affected.
only the rock and the wooden piece have displacement. walls and floor are using bump.
render settings are untouched. displacement screen size (px)= 2 (see attachment)
i don't know how to tweak the scene and settings any further to reduce render time. maybe we have to accept that apple machines more and more suck when it comes to 3d-rendering.
but i have to say...i'm very happy with the mac studio. my main work is photography (commissioned) with medium format. and the mac studio does a marvelous job handeling the big raw files respectively filesize.