That's faster than falcon with simple materials (so you can use specular instead of 'physically (more or less) correct' real reflection. And as said before: Area lights with soft shadows work slower than for example a spot, but you loose quality. The more of 'em you have, the scene gets more complex with each one which results in longer render time. It depends on what look you want and need to achieve.Įven with simple 'legacy' lights. You can lower the resolution of the hdr and blur it (less detail, less computing time). The complexer the HDR the longer the render times, especially with reflections.
It could help to use low res models wherever possible (you could have several versions of the same thing). Or f you have for example a figure with clothing, it's usually worth it to delete the body underneath (if you have a setting like this).
You would have to test (and in a movie a few seconds here and there already count). If you have a polygon-heavy scene it may be worth to really delete it because even what's not seen is somewhere in the memory. But it certainly helps, if you have a big scene, to make invisible (should already lessen the rendertime) or even delete, what's not in your shot. The more RAM you have the less of a problem it is). The more geometry you have, the longer the render times (at least with complex models, because geometry fills the RAM of your computer. But the ways you can cheat are fully dependent on the scene and include more than just this (like the geometry in itself (delete what's not seen), hdrs, texture trickery, the number of lights, and so on). If you go for a cartoon look, on the other side, the Cheetah renderer will probably be enough and help you to get faster render times.Īnd yes, compromise is a far better way than have render times that are going through the roof or bad materials only.
But if you show it, you have to make it believable. So the optimization process includes also what you show (avoid everything made of glass, if possible, anything transparent, plastic with blurry reflections, and so on). You know, for example using caustics or transparency and blurry reflection isn't a 'don't' those are very important functions that sometimes are needed. Like I said, I'm all for render optimization (I certainly spend lots of time on it). I just see what's in this thread and go from there. I don't estimate at all, because I don't know what's there (and in all probability never will). But pictures in 640 * 480 are very seldom of any use nowadays). So yes, a reduced resolution gives you faster renders (double the resolution gives at least four times the render time. So you should look at that what you want to accomplish and use whatever tricks you find to get a good result. I'm all for optimizing render times, don't get me wrong here, but for good results you have to pay with processor time. You know, cheap materials make for cheap looking images. You will recreate images that were made in the 90s on cheap home pcs, not much too look at by today's standards. If you avoid all the stuff that eats render time, you'll throw overboard all the good things. And displacement instead of bump maps takes of course longer (as real geometry is produced here).īut to be honest, in my humble opinion you're on the wrong path here (as I already implied in my last sentence of the other post). And with simple materials the Cheetah renderer is faster than falcon (in Cheetah renderer specular can replace some of the reflections).
One of the advantages is that you can download a lot of such materials for free, very often in very good quality and you can use them in almost any 3d app which gives a lot of compatibility).Įspecially blurry reflections eat quiet a bit of processor time. Pbrs are physically based materials (you'll find some experiments in the forum.