1280x720

09944.jpg

๐Ÿงต Untitled Thread

Anonymous No. 844728

>a 20 fucking seconds animation in Blender using Cycles X is gonna take me anywhere between 3 to 5 hours to render fully
Holy shit. I thought this thing was supposed to give faster renders. Seems to work fine for just still images but rendering animations is just as slow as ever.

Anonymous No. 844729

>>844728
use redshift

Anonymous No. 844733

>>844728
3.0 is still in alpha phase you fucking retard. Of course it's still going to be slow.

Anonymous No. 844734

isn't "3 to 5 hours" pretty good for a 20 s animation, though?

Anonymous No. 844735

>>844734
Eevee would've gotten that shit rendered in less than 10 minutes, lol.

Anonymous No. 844736

>>844735
So....then use Eevee. Holy shit, it's like ya'll are too dumb to find an easy solution.

Anonymous No. 844738

>>844735
eevee is a real-time renderer, what's next, complaining about mantra because unreal is faster?

Anonymous No. 844743

>>844728
>a 20 fucking seconds animation in Blender using Cycles X is gonna take me anywhere between 3 to 5 hours to render fully

The target for this is not for you to render muscle futa 2b blowjob PoV's on your gaming computer. The target for this is for VFX studios to render globohomo animations on how the future is female (incidentally, a not dissimilar subject from what you had in mind) for corporate on $50,000 machine with ten RTX 3090's in it.

192x192

3344546803.jpg

Anonymous No. 844744

>>844729
>use redshift
>tfw when no cracked RS since 2.5

Anonymous No. 844755

>>844744
try 3delight then

Anonymous No. 844782

>>844735
yeah and it would also look like dog ass

Anonymous No. 844793

>>844728
At what resolution though?
If it's 4k with all the bells and whistles without using something like 10 samples and hitting it super hard with denoising that sounds pretty good.
3-5 hours for an animation shouldn't really matter either. Who the fuck renders while they're awake? I always try to set up the render settings to where an animation of this length would take the entirety of me being asleep (so 8-10 hours).
A render that only takes 3-5 hours would mean I'm wasting time that could be spent rendering at an even higher quality with 0 downtime since I'm asleep.
Any gains to be had with it being faster means I can render for the same amount of time I usually do, but at even higher quality.

That's the thing about 3d and improving technology. Technology improves, but total render times stay the same since we can throw more at it. You're looking at the numbers the wrong way. It's not about making rendering shorter, it's about making them more efficient so you can do more with them in the same amount of time.

Anonymous No. 845298

>>844728
They don't want to kill e-cycles, it reels in donation

Anonymous No. 845355

>>844743
So you're tellin' me, that there is a chance...?

Anonymous No. 845359

>>844728
No matter how you look at it; Cycles remains trash, in both render times and output quality.

Anonymous No. 845361

>>844728
>Holy shit. I thought this thing was supposed to give faster renders.
It is fast, you are just too uneducated to realize it. I have no idea where your references are coming from but rendering a frame in ~1.20 minutes minimum to ~2.45 minutes max is pretty fast. Assuming you are rendering in 24fps. If its 30fps then it is even less.
You have no reason to complain nigger, you are just an entitled ass who has an wrong perception of the world.
>rendering animations is just as slow as ever.
Rendering animation was always slow and will always be slow. Cycles might not be the fastest renderer out there but it is in the group of fast renderers, there are many renderers that are much, much slower and not many that are faster.
>>844735
People that are unironically recommending an an Real-time raster engine (and not even a great one) over an Path-tracer renderer while ignoring the differences in ability are IMHO the dumbest fucks on this board. You sound like an retarded 14 year old.
>>844755
>try 3delight then
Really? An complete obscure CPU only production renderer nobody in the 3D industry talks about and which has no significant amount of learning material available (and no cracked version) that only runs on Maya, Houdini, C4d and Katana....
Why would you recommend it instead of one that is easily available, faster and more mainstream. Jesus, even Arnold is better than this thing.
>>845298
>They don't want to kill e-cycles, it reels in donation
But not for them. They seem to simply not care about it. Brecht refuses to look at the code, in order to not taint his mind with it, he just wants to do it his way.

Anonymous No. 845362

>>844728
how did you get this ? We're on the 2.91 version of blender

Anonymous No. 845363

>>845362
>how did you get this ?
You didn't know that you can get all kinds of daily versions and builds of branches the moment they are released?
https://builder.blender.org/download/daily/

190x190

1592742736922.webm

Anonymous No. 846523

>>844743
Can't those corporate globohomos just use Autodesk products?

Anonymous No. 846531

>>845361
>Brecht refuses to look at the code
is this true?

Anonymous No. 846569

>>845361
He's trolling. 3delight is an outdated piece of shit from 90s propably even worse than houdini's native renderer.

Anonymous No. 846572

>>846569
theres nothing wrong with houdiinis native renderer which is the only one avaliable for apprentice users since you cant use 3rd party renderers with that version.

Tldr - get back to learning

Anonymous No. 846575

>>846569
lol. did you know that Mantra is being used for current day productions? and that 3delight has been rewritten, and is also used for big productions?

upd8 urself m8

Anonymous No. 847319

>>845362
>>845363
Cycles X is on the experimental branch not daily.

Anonymous No. 847320

>>845361
Brecht's mind must be protected.