#3D CHALLENGE!
85 messages in this thread
OK .. many of us have 3D Studio, Lightwave, Imagine, Aladdin and other
3D programs..why don't we build a scene and render it on each
platform and compare rendering speed and output quality..and really
figure out which product is the winner!
With Interchange Plus..we can covert the objects pretty easily ..
Anyone got any good ideas for a test ?? Mebbe a room with furniture,
lights, books etc.. ?? If we've really got nerve, let's post the
challenge in the 3D Studio, MAC and other relevant areas….. Lemme
know what you think…unless your chicken that is!
I will volunteer for the test. I am running a 2000 with a GVP 33mhz
'040. I have the 2.0 release of Lightwave as well as an early beta
copy of the 3.0 release. It's basically the same as 2.0 but
redirected for the '040. Let me know, I am up to the challenge.
OK .. cool, what shall we use as the the 3D model….anything in
mind..?? Where should we post the files…??? How should we judge
the winner..??? SK.
All good questions. I think we should choose something of average complexity,
say, no more than 20,000 or 30,000 polys. This would allow for more people to
get involved and would also keep the download time reasonable. As far as
subject matter, hmmmm. I'll think about it and get back to you.
I guess the files could be put in Lib 10 of the Amiga Arts forum or possibly
here in the Newtek area.
Let's get it on! (typed with a New York accent, a la boxing announcer)
Jim Roof
It seems like a good test would be one of the old standard images that
has already been made on a number of platforms. (2 that come to mind
are the Hurricane Lamp used for the Mac render-off a few years ago,
and the Blurred Bowling Pins from the Renderman cover.)
Sounds good to me! I'm really interested in finding out how the
packages compare. I don't care about what platform it's on, I want
SPEED! :^)
Keep On Toastin'
Erik Flom
P.S. I read your initial statement, and would agree with most of it.
(The point about the which versions of the renderers were being used
is a valid one, IMHO. LW3.0 is MUCHO faster, even if it doesn't have
think like the IPAS modelers.)
Thx Eric. Now, you've been busy lately with 'museum' pieces (very
impressive..) so, I'm wondering, what have you got that we can
convert to 3DS format etc.. Unless these models are highly
proprietary, it'd be a good place to start – multiple
relections/lights/object mapping types/surfaces etc… Whaddya
think. I have Interchange Plus and the 3DS add-on so if nesceccary
could be the official converter! Mebbe Foust will jump in and donate
a scene from his upcoming 3D object library??
I could probably make parts of the museum public – though folks that have
paid me already might not be too crazy. :^o
I'll be getting Interchange+ in the mail on Monday, so I'll be in a better
position to work on this.
We may want to consider setting up one or two scenes which will showcase
both Raytracing options, and std Phong/Goraud shading renderers? (Since
some packages are optimized for tracing/non-tracing, it'd only be fair.)
(Also, alot of my models rely heavily on lots of 24bit bitmaps – we'd have
to convert those too.)
I like the idea of using something from the 3D CD-ROM. Since those would
likely use mostly procedural surfaces, the resulting 'test' scene(s) would
be smaller (for distribution).
Keep in touch. I'd like to do anything I can to help.
(This sort of comparison has been done on single platforms, but it'd be
nice to have a 'suite' of test scene which we could use across platforms
as a benchmarking utility.)
Keep On Toastin'
Erik Flom
Erik, unfortunately, LW 3.0 is significantly slower than 3D Studio and
slightly slower than Imagine. In the past few months, I have been
heavily involved in the creation of a new product for all three
platforms called the VRS Media Master Designers' Objects Series.
Each scene we rendered is quite large (at least 8 Megs) and requires
reflection, shadows, etc. A scene which might require several HOURS
in Lightwave (with raytracing) could be produced in UNDER 5 MINUTES
on 3D Studio. Imagine tracing came in at about 45 minutes.
If you use shadow mapping and reflection maps (which is all 3D Studio
does, anyhow), Lightwave is still significantly slower, coming in at
somewhere around 15 minutes.
If you'd like, I can prepare a more detailed posting of our findings.
The machines we used were an A2000 with 28 Mhz 040 and 18 megs of RAM
and a 486/33 with 16 megs.
Someone said that 3D Studio's current version wasn't using real
raytracing. Scanline with simulated shadows and other things would be
in most cases significantly faster than true raytracing.
That's right, 3D STudio doesn't raytrace at all. But even when using
shadow mapping and reflection mapping in LW 3.0, 3DS still is at
least three or four times faster. –Rick Rodriguez, VRS Media
Ok. Just wanted to clarify that. *8)
-= Vance =- Image Master
using Black Belt Systems' Imagemaster!
You don't mention anything about how much oversampling and at what threshold
you had LW 3.0 set for. You also do not mention the resolution of the image or
the degree of antialiasing. These attributes need to be included in your
comments or there is no true comparison. I once passed a Ferarri Testerossa in
my VW Rabbit.
Jim Roof
Jim, the images were rendered at 768×482. Antialiasing was set to medium and
the threshold and sampling were left at their defaults, which I have been told
is too much. Imagine edge level was set to zero. 3DS' antialiasing was set to
max. –Rick
Hiya Rick, any news on Imagine 3.0? I know this is getting redundant
but us Imagineer's grow impatient after seeing Lightwave 3D 3.0
wether it's slower than Imagine or not.
Peter, from what I've seen so far, I would say that LW 3.0 is
certainly faster than previous incarnations. However, I think that
much of the talk surrounding its incredible speed may be attributed
to hype.
Likewise, Imagine has been given a bum rap for being exceedingly slow.
Which it certainly isn't. Scanline rendering for both programs is
about the same speed and Imagine doesn't add the kind of potential
penalties for maximum antialiasing as LW does ( although I grant you
that the maximum antialiasing in the new Lightwave is significantly
superior to Imagine's maximum antialiasing).
When raytracing is thrown into the conversation, my experience shows
that Imagine can be up to four times faster than LW 3.0 on an '040 28
Mhz. For example, the bathroom scene contained in Volume 1 of the VRS
Media Master Designers' Objects Series took 40 minutes to raytrace in
Imagine. It took nearly four hours in Lightwave 3.0.
On a 486/33, the Imagine raytracing took 15 minutes!!!
Generally, 3D STudio is far faster than either Imagine PC/Amiga or
Lightwave. However, for this scene, I turned on automatic reflection
mapping, which meant that the program had to generate new images for
every reflective surface in the scene. This bogged down the program
and I ended up with a 30 minute rendering.
Thanx for the info Rick.
This is interesting. The beta version of LW 3.0 (to the best of my
knowledge, it hasn't ben publically released yet) works only on an
A4000….that is, it requires AGA.
Hmmm…wait a minute…that may be the TOASTER software 3.0 that
requires AGA…I've access to both.
I have tested a number of "real world" scenes on LW 2.x beta (real
world meaning they have been commissioned and paid for) and NONE of
the images has taken over an hour to render. Most (without
raytracing, but with shadow mapping) render in between 2 and 4
mintues. All my images are done in medium res with either low or
medium anti-aliasing. With raytracing, the time depends on the
number of reflections/refractions but most of mine have averaged
under 10 minutes (for scenes >6 Mb). Granted, if I do a scene of
chrome balls in a mirror room light by a couple of candles, etc. then
things slow down. But…that isn't real world.
I wanna participate in this test. I've an A4000 (25 MHz 68040) with
18 Mb of RAM and the Toaster 4000 (among other things…but they
aren't relevant). I've a beta version of LW 3.0.
Oh, yes. I also have a normal Toaster (2.0) running on a 25 MHz 68040
based A3000 and LW 2.0. The beta version of LW3.0 does not run on
this system. What revision of LW are you running? The version I run
will (as long as it isn't raytracing) match or beat 3D Studio on my
33 MHz 80486DX in both speed an quality. I haven't seen Imagine
since 2.0.
Somebody pick a scene an upload it either here or in AmigaArts 3D
library.
Rick, did you happen to mention when your Object Disk series will be
available? If it is already, how can I get catalog/order info?
Trent, volumes 1 and 2 are available for Lightwave, Imagine and 3D Studio. You
can see two images from volume 1 in Lib 4. Just browse VRS. Email me your
name, address, phone and fax number and I'll send you something ASAP. –Rick
Rodriguez, VRS Media
This sort of information sounds very useful! Please upload a text file to
the the appropriate area. (I'm not sure where, but maybe in the AmigaArts
RayTracing group?)
I have to admit that I AM sorry to hear your results. Is there a chance
you could suggest (or create) some good 'test' scenes that would work on
all platforms?
Thanks for the input,
Keep On Toastin'
Erik Flom
Erik, prior to commencing the Master Designers' Objects Series, I
designed a western scene for a new videotape we're developing called
"3D Shootout." This video takes on this precise question head on by
putting each program through its paces both for modeling and
rendering.
The scene is included on Syndesis' 3D ROM.
Once again, our findings were that 3D STudio rendered the scene with
mapped shadows and reflections in about 2.5 minutes. Lightwave took
about 15 minutes to map shadows and reflections and Imagine took
about 20 minutes to raytrace. –Rick Rodriguez, VRS Media
Sounds like I need to talk to John Foust, and see if he can supply us
with the 'shoot-out' scene as a sampler from his disk. Would you have
any objections to that?
None whatsoever. Since I've laid down the gauntlet, I suppose I
should sit back and see what results come back from independent
sources. –Rick
Well, I think it's all a matter of programming technique. I think that
3D Studio's approach must have been unique to garner such speed
increases. It certainly isn't the 486.
I'd like to see these speed comparisons sent to NewTek so they'll work
on a solution to get Lightwave up to the speed it is capable of.
I'm definitely getting Imagine 3.0 when it comes out. I don't have
the energy to adjust to another renderer outside of Lightwave and
Imagine. So, I'll leave it up to the rest of you to push the
envelopes of the other Amiga renderers.
I'd be interested to see what the time for LW is if you used a 33 mhz
040 which should be more comparable to the 486/33.
Also, are you using Med res images in LW or High Res…and what level
of antialiasing. My experience has shown that even with ray tracing
on in LW, it's difficult to get frames to render in over an hour
unless there are over 100 lights.
John, the image I traced can be found in the Imagine lib as bathroom.jpg. The
image posted there is the Imagine version, which required an hour to trace.
The Lightwave version took several hours. This result was confirmed by former
VTU editor David Duberman. The same scene takes 45 minutes in 3D STudio.
–Rick Rodriguez
was that done with 2.0 or 3.0 LW? also, what resolutions were used?
Ok, I'm in, but I'll raise the anty… One of the SGI dead heads
around here has offered to render the scene on his workstation,
during lunch. I have seen how it renders and it would be interesting
to see how it works out. Some of the scenes they have reproduced from
3d studio files have render in 1/60th the time.
In addition, I can setup a 486 50 mhz with 3d studio, and a 33mhz 040
Amiga. Of course there will be some advantages to each of the
platforms that should be taken into account. The 486 50 has only got
32 megs of ram, the 040 Amiga has 72 megs of ram, and the SGI has
some ungodly amount of ram in it…
Also, how will we handicap the 3d studio images in regards to ray
tracing ? Oooppssss…. I can't use lightwave in this test but can
use Imagine 2.0 ….
Well guys, this wild!!..we've got 3DS, Imageine, Lightwave and SGI…
so the question remains whats the scene that we'll render. Taking
suggestions given, I reckon that two scenes is definetly the way to
go : (1) Raytracing ON (s/w that doesn't do it, will just have to do
it's best!).. (2) Phong only. Who knows Foust well enuf to persuade
him to donate a scene or two from his forthcoming CD-ROM title??
Lastly, I'll start to build a library of the Hardware we're gonna put
on this project….and I'll post the images/scenes to the 3DS studio
when we're ready. This'll be fun. SK.
Suresh, I undertook this exercise in the last few months as I began
developing my new object series, the VRS Media Master Designers'
Objects. If you'd like, I'd be glad to share my findings with you
regarding 3D Studio, Imagine (Amiga and PC) and Lightwave. –Rick
Rodriguez, VRS Media
I'd absolutely like!
Just one thing…aren't you a little biased <gr>.
SK.
My association with Impulse is based primarily on friendship. I am
not now, nor have I ever been employed by the company. I've used the
Toaster since day one and have known Alan Hastings since way back in
'86 or '87 with Videoscape 1.0. I began using 3D Studio about a year
ago.
If I'm biased, I'm biased toward speed. I've always used these
products inn a production environment where deadlines are everything.
It's unfortunate that there is no room for unbiased journalism in the
3D arena. There are too many vested interests clouding writers'
perceptions of the products they are covering.
I'd be interested in seeing those numbers as well! And why on earth
does the pc version of imagine render faster than the amiga version
??? 486 50 and 040 33 were the test machines… Is imagine 2.0 not
optimized for 040 operation ? I assume that 3.0 will be ???
Imagine 2.0 has been optimized for the '040 for over a year now! My
test machines are a '040/28 Mhz with 18 megs of RAM and a 486/33 with
16 megs of RAM.
From what I understand (and I'm not a techie, so forgive me if I'm
mistaken) the PC's architecture allows a single program to run more
efficiently. Even though you may not be multitasking on your Amiga,
the computer is always polling every device to make sure you haven't
inserted a disk in a drive or performed another task which requires
attention. Thus the Amiga's strength becomes a weakness when it comes
to pure performance.
Reading the above, I know I'm in for a lambasting from a lot of you!
Please, if I'm mistaken set me straight. However, before sending off
a flame, remem- ber that I am working with real world objects in real
world products. Imagine PC is up to three times faster than Imagine
for the Amiga when raytracing the same scene. 3D STudio is much
faster than anything on the Amiga. Go figure. –Rick Rodriguez, VRS
Media
Well, couldn't Impulse devise some sort of patch for Imagine to gain
similar speeds (ie. deactivate polling devices)? Or would that cause more
trouble than it's worth? Maybe we should just wait for the next generation
of accellerators?
-= Vance =- Image Master
using Black Belt Systems' Imagemaster!
Like I said before, I'm not a techie except when it comes to 3D and
video. I tried to play around with task priorities on the Amiga to
see whether or not I could simulate the "single-mindedness" of the
PC.
I ran a pd program that listed all the tasks going on at once and I
was shocked to see so many of them! Anyway, task priorities are very
delicate if you raise or lower a priority too much. I tweaked the
system a bit and got the refresh to work a bit faster, but rendering
ended up being the same.
Rick, I can corroborate your findings on 3D Studio vs Imagine. I run
3DS on a 486-33 vlb and I have Imagine on an Amiga 3000 25. Both
machines have 16 megs of ram (and of course the Amiga has an
additional 2 megs on Agnus while the 486-33 has one meg on the vlb
video card. My 3DS not only renders faster, but also displays 24-bit
.TGA images very quickly. I would never give up 3DS, esp since the
manual and tutorial were so nicely done that even a dummy like me
could learn 3D imaging <g>. BTW, you are not the guy who wrote that
manual for Imagine 2.0 are you?
A better comparison would have been if you had a 68040 instead of a 68030.
*8)
-= Vance =- Image Master
using Black Belt Systems' Imagemaster!
No, I wrote the documentation for versions .9 and 1.0. –Rick
>No, I wrote the documentation for versions .9 and 1.0. –Rick
Then we can speak freely <g>.
That 2.0 manual is quite an interesting book. But it is not a manual
for 2.0. I did get Steve Worley's book and I am now actually
beginning to understand the program. Since you use both 3D Studio
and Imagine, I have a question for you. Since we agree that 3D
Studio is faster, when would you have a need to use Imagine? I have
heard people complain that 3D Studio is not a ray tracer, but when I
look at the results of mapping, I say, "Who cares?" What do you
think?
Well, unless newer techniques are found that will render
raytrace-accurate shadows and refractions, etc., raytracing is almost
always preferable for complex/high quality images.
I think Imagine is a superior object creation tool. Perhaps it's the
years of familiarity with Imagine, but I also think it's easier to
animate within Imagine than 3DS. For the most part, I would agree
that I prefer to render in 3DS; however, there are some things that
annoy me. First off, 3DS apparently can't reflect map onto a flat
surface. Am I doing something wrong? Secondly, in a highly
reflective scene like the bathroom (which has a mirror, reflective
tile walls and floors and reflective porcelain), rendering reflection
maps can actually take LONGER than simply raytracing the scene in
Imagine. To sum it up, I use Imagine, 3D Studio and Lightwave. Each
has its strengths. Each has its flaws. I'm also trying to figure
out how to swing purchasing a Softimage system. So it goes… –Rick
Rodriguez
I'm looking at 3D studeio for the IBM and I saw your message on the
Newtek forum. I have a 486/66 Gateway system with an ATI Ultra Pro
video card – it's capable of 24bit display. Are you using a Targa
board or another video card similar to mine? I'm curious because I
keep hearing conflicting information from different people.
Joe, I'm using both a 24bit graphics card and the Targa. If you need
to go to videotape, you need the latter. –Rick Rodriguez
Joe,
I am not sure what your question is, but here goes…
I am porting my .TGA files generated in 3D Studio over to the Amiga
and converting them to 24 bit DCTV anims. My video card for the 486
is a Cirrus Logic Vesa Local Bus card that cost me $120. It displays
640 by 480 at 24 bits. I had thought at the time that I got it (and
the upgraded VLB motherboard) that I would use a program called F16
to compile 16 bit (64k colors) animations that I would play in real
time through some sort of VGA to NTSC box. But after a guy sold me
his Amiga 3000 for $800 ($400 in cash and the rest in used video
equipment that I had no use for), I changed direction. With your
setup, if all you want to do is dump 256 color animations to tape,
you just need an external VGA to NTSC converter. If on the other hand
you want to do higher color anims such as 15 or 16 bit, I would look
into the F16 program. You can look at a demo by downloading it from
their BBS at (602) 956-5959. You will find that even though your ATI
Ultra Pro is fast, the ISA bus throughput of your Gateway system will
be too slow for more complex F16 files with large delta (change
between frames) values. The Targa card is nice if yoiu have a Single
Frame Capable VCR such as the Panasonic AG-7750. But I am not sure
how it would help if you were trying to do what I do on the Amiga,
which is recording to a Panasonic AG1960 in real time. So, for my
money (and I got an incredible deal on 3D Studio), the best is to
render with 3D Studio and transfer to tape on the Amiga via DCTV.
Hiya Mike, I'm glad the DCTV is working out for you. Haven't seen ya much
on FIDONET lately tho.
We had a very immature person at the hub of our fido feed and when he
quit, he simply "unplugged" the rest of us from the system. No fido
feeds for over a month now. :-< Someone commented on his abrasive
style and he just dumped all of us into the trash. I have been
capturing the video and amiga-video echos from Ron's bbs in Michigan.
I got his Toaster, btw.
I have not got it up and running yet because of problems with
installation and bad disks. I am rebuilding my a3000 ("We can make
him bigger, stronger…" -The 6 million dollar man) with a 330 meg
Fuji drive, a 200 watt power supply, the new Personal Component
Adapter (from DPS for S-video input and output to the Toaster) and
the Toaster. I already have one TBC and once I have the other one, I
have a complete S-Video A/B roll editing system. Now, if I only had
some clients…
Mike uses both a IBM/Clone and an Amiga, I believe he uses a DCTV on the
Amiga to output to Video tape.
As the Amiga is multitasking while doing rendering,then to "equalise"
these tests, shouldnt the PC be doing some other real world task.
Like running another programme. EG getting info from CIS while
rendering, which would seem to me to be a real world like activity
for us. 🙂
Unfortunately, DOS doesn't multitask and neither Imagine PC nor 3D
Studio may be launched from Windows. Also, I don't multitask with my
Amiga when rendering, either. My point was that whether you like it
or not, the Amiga's always off doing something while the user thinks
it is performing only one task. –Rick Rodriguez
So what it sounds like is this – You're saying "Unfortuneately, neither the PC
nor the Mac multitask. Unfortuneately, the Amiga does."
That's weird.
Kinda sucks, doesn't it? Fortunately, any SGI box multitasks and doesn't
penalize you for it. Unfortunately, the minimum real investment is $20-$30,000
minus software. –Rick
Hi Rick,
When you say "multitask", what exactly d'ya mean? I've heard the term
"preemptive multitasking" used before, specifically in contrast to what our
desktop machines do, but am not exactly sure what it signifies…is this what
you're talking about?
From what I understand, DOS can only run one app at a time. But Windows allows
scheduling of multiple apps at once, even DOS apps, and these can be
prioritized by the user. How does this differ from the Amiga's setup? And can't
you turn off if you want to?
Thanks,
John D.
To backtrack a little on this thread…We were lamenting that Amigas don't seem
to have the throughput that 486-based machines have. Impulse has always told
me that the PC Imagine would be faster than the Amiga version, but I didn't
believe it until I verified it myself. Rendering can be as much as three times
faster on the PC version!
One of the reasons for the improved throughput is that the PC does not have to
contend with the constant overhead required by true multitasking. Windows'
flavor of multitasking is more akin to task switching. For example, the Amiga
is always polling its disk drives to see whether you have popped in a new disk.
When a machine is on a network, this can be a serious drain on resources. The
PC, on the other hand, does only one thing at a time. So you have to tell it
when you've changed a disk.
Screen refreshes are very fast on the PC, but the mouse is momentarily disabled
as the screen updates. I tried to play with task priorities on the Amiga to
achieve faster screen refreshes, but there simply is too much going on at one
time to make much difference. In fact, minor changes can really foul up the
system, disabling the mouse altogether or other similar havoc.
I'd like to hear other more technical folks explain some of the other possible
causes for differences in throughput on the two platforms. –Rick Rodriguez
Rick,
Ah! <lightbulb flashes>
It's that background polling for system events like floppy activity that makes
the difference between the two — gotcha! Still, it seems there are advantages
either way…guess that's what you meant by your "unfortunately/unfortunately"
line.
The NeXT folks used to say that their multitasking was unique, because if (say)
Adobe Illustrator crashed, it would not affect other programs running at the
same time. Is this in the same vein as what you're talking about?
And fwiw, other multi-platform renderers also report similar speedups when
moving to '486. More speed is great…until we get used to it!
Thanks,
John D.
<Unfortunately, DOS doesn't multitask and neither Imagine PC nor 3D Studio
may be launched from Windows. Also, I don't multitask with my Amiga when
rendering, either. My point was that whether you like it or not, the
Amiga's always off doing something while the user thinks it is performing
only one task>
Well Rick, personally I love my Amiga's multitasking. :->
Laurie Carroll AKL NZ
Longdistance Autopilot
So do I, Laurie. I just wish I had the fast screen refreshes of the '486. And
just wait til Imagine is running on a Pentium! Ouch! –Rick
I can't wait till Imaine is running on the SGI, Forget the Bloody
Pentium.
If they did something like that I hope they make it an option and not a
default! You would lose your multitasking.
That's kinda what I meant… toggle multitasking to allow faster
rendering… Unlikely, I suppose. I'll live. *8)
-= Vance =- Image Master
using Black Belt Systems' Imagemaster!
OK, so that would make some sense… and while we are on the subject
of multitasking and such, what plans does imulse have to support the
new generation of operating systems ? I know that Autodesk is
supposed to be working on getting 3d studio to run under os/2 and
windows, and it's obvious that Imagine/pc needs to have this ability
as well.
I think that once those things happen, we can get a better impression of how
all these programs work on equal terms. We did have a windows ray tracer for
about 3 days, Renderize was the name, and it was painfully slow!
It's very dissapointing to witness the speed of the pc version vs the amiga
version, even screen updates are faster…
Maybe it's time to carry out the multi-platform test? I think you should be
meticulous about it… such as, document the machines used in great detail, and
let each platform's official representatives and interested users comment on
the rules of the test beforehand. For example, it would be good to test LW and
Imagine on a variety of Amiga systems. Similarly, test a half-dozen PC systems.
As for the scene, I'll lend whatever conversion help is necessary! We might
want to add POV, etc. to the mix, too!
I'm all for it. Actually the scenes are already designed and ready to go!
Which would you recommend, the western scene on the 3D ROM, the bed or bath or
one of the houses? –Rick
I think the Western scene is good. Care to mention this project in the 3D
Studio forum?
Do you think anyone over on the 3DS forum cares? I've found those
guys to be pretty sold on their software and hardware!
I think they're less fanatical than many Amiga-based users!
Ok, PC users may not be so fanatical, because they think they're above
it all! 🙂 –Rick
Great to see you volunteering to get involved! Now we've talked
about the things we want to do, let's spec it out. Everyone who
wants to particpate in the rendering stage of this project, E-MAIL me
with your hardware and software specifications. Include details of
machine type, Ram (and RAM type), Processor (and type – motherboard
vs. accelerator), Chip Ram, Hard Disk type and speed, Hard Disk
Interface Type, Software and Revision Number, OS revision and
anything I've missed! I will compile a database of this information.
John, can you be responsible for putting a scene together (or getting
one donated) and making it available in multiple formats. If you need
help I just bought your program and the 3DS add-on and will happily
fire it up. Eric, maybe you can act as the Amiga referee. Making
sure the test isn't inadvertantly *biased* against the Amiga and or
Lightwave, Imagine etc.. Can someone volunteer to take this
*challenge* to the MAC forums ?? Maybe John and I can do the 3D
Studio forum presentation. Comments? Other suggestions?
I think you'll need to coordinate this effort by a team of "experts" from each
market… no ringers. Multi-platform people allowed, but they need to be
considered "experts" in the programs in question.
John, Why do you say "experts only" ? If we create a scene that
encompasses every major facet of 3d rendering (i.e reflections,
shadows, opacity, bump maps, lighting, colour spectrum etc..) and
convert this scene into the relevant formats, surely anyone with the
software is capable of giving us a time result?? Am I being dense?
SK.
3D programs advance by differentiation, so each program has one or two
whiz-bang features that the others don't have. Other features are more basic
and have a more dramatic effect on rendering times. For example, have you
given any thought to whether the test scene is made of randomly oriented or
consistently normal'd polygons? Is it polygons or triangles? LightWave does
better with multi-point polygons. Any LW "expert" will probably (rightfully)
argue that a triangle-heavy scene is an unfair comparison. 3D Studio uses only
triangles, but its triangles can be oriented, which speeds rendering times in
the same way that LightWave's polygons can be one-sided or not. Imagine's
triangles are randomly oriented.
So, for example, converting an Imagine object to LW and 3DS would be
non-optimal in several ways: triangle orientation and no polygons. Converting
LW to Imagine or 3DS would reduce all those nice polygons to triangles. (If
you use Pixel to do this, the triangles will be randomly oriented even though
the original polygons were oriented; but InterChange will preserve the original
normal on all the resulting triangles.)
I'd recommend at least two test scenes: one that originated whoops,
make that at least one test scene created solely in each program you
intend to compare. Let the experts in that program optimize the
scene however they like. Provide a rendered image to the other
platform's teams and let them translate the data as they like and
optimize as they like to obtain the "same" results. You may need to
agree on what constitutes a fair "tweak": removing polygons would be
illegal, but re-orienting them would be OK.
Along another axis, you might want to vary the scenes according to all
those other whiz-bang surface attributes: render once each in
wireframe, "quick" renders with simple shading, then on to the more
complex additions. It would help compare the programs. You'd
certainly have a lot of data to present, and it would lead to a lot
of useful hot air in all the 3D-related forums. You might invite the
Macromedia 3D people from the Macromedia Forum, other CAD-related
companies from the CADENCE, LEAP and ACAD forums, etc. beyond the 3D
Studio people.
mmmmhhhh..I guess you just made 231 great points…
I'll have to go away and mull over them.
Back to you soon.
In short, I think it's going to turn into a religious war unless
you're very careful. 🙂
John have you recieved the HUMAN.ZIP DXF model I uploaded to the Syndesis
area yet?
I'll send you my system stats later.
I just got Interchange+ today, so I should be in a better position to work
on this.
I'd be willing to act as Amiga 'guru' & referee for this test. It could be
interesting. (And, hopefully, not too depressing for Amigans.)
If you can supply me with a Stratovision, Swivel 3D, or Infini-D
compatible scene, I have some friends with Quadras and the like who would
probably be interested in taking part in this 'shoot-off.'
Keep On Toastin'
Erik Flom
Unless there are any objections…I hereby pronounce you.. man and
wife..no no I mean… the official "Amiga Guru"… I had another
thought..let's get some of the magazines interested in this…
perhaps the results can be published eh? After I think about this
thing some more (esp. in light of Fousts observations)..I';ll post
another message suggesting some ground rules.
Sounds great! If you need any kibbitzing on the ground-rules, pass
them my way. I'll try to add what I can. (Like that's going to be
much . . .:^)
If we get something that's a valid test of a wide range of platforms, I
could think of several mags that would be interested. Especially if we had
'finished' images from each package.
Keep On Toastin'
Erik Flom
P.S. One ground rule: NO touch-up of the rendered image. The image to be
judged should be the final rendered output of the package. (Adding lens
flare in PhotoShop would be a no-no. :^)
I'm in too. I have access to MANY different Amiga & the newest LW
setups.
1: I've been trying to send Quickmail to you… which numbers
a 2: re active, and at what times? I'm hoping to make the
a 3: dditions to the DXF transltorator so it can handle those
4: hinifty polymeshes you were getting frmo the om the Symbolics??
5:
6: What /exit
Post action !mail
Message mailed to 71740,2357 via CompuServe Mail
Traditionally, a Teapot is the object of choice for rendering tests…
But it's very boring! Also, some products do much better with single
object scenes than others. So while it's a good idea, I don't think
it's every programs cup of tea (ha ha – groan)! SK.
Tis Easier to do, get the Amiga version of Imagine and the PC version and
render the EXACT same Scene and compare times.
I'm game! I have an A3000/25 and a A2000 w/ GVP '030 Combo. I also
will donate a cyborg object I've created and named "Anti-Motion Man"
for this project. The attribute for him is gold. For his attributes,
the reflection is set all the way up with a yellow-like color.