robcat2075

Sounds like a good prospect for a bug report.

I enjoyed that very much, Tore! The look is very impressive, especially the body. I look forward to more productions!

What? It's done already?? I thought it would be rendering for at least another year! It looks great, Tore! You should post it in "Showcase" I didn't catch this right away because I figured it was just another update.

He looks fierce!

I've sometimes thought larger buttons would be needed for touch screen interfaces but I figure you still need a mouse to use A:M so finger-sized buttons might just be using up needed screen space.

This might well be a case where multipass gets you a faster result with comparable quality. There is no waiting for an anti-aliasing pass in multipass, you just have to wait for the multiple passes. If you had a long animation to render, i'd test a few representative frames in both modes, see which is preferred and go with that for the whole run..

If you have an example of that, it would be interesting to see.

I can recall an answer I gave to a similar inquiry... So, the difference between the first AA pass and the second AA pass can be as much as the difference between rendering 4 sub pixels and rendering 16 sub pixels (worst case).

Thanks for adding the example PRJ!

In my AO experiments I decided i didn't like the grayness of it. It is possible it is possible to set the "Ambiance Color" to something other than white for a bluish skylight or reddish sunset coloration.... However, I still wanted something less the-same-all-over. If we set Global Ambiance Type to "Image Based Lighting" we can use a bitmap to make the light different colors from different directions. Image based lighting has a "Mapping Type" setting. The simplest is "Latitude-Longitude" which basically stretches and wraps an image 360° onto an imaginary sphere around your universe. You don't see it in the background of your render, it just colors the global light. What follows are experiments with different images (seen on the left) and the lighting result (seen on the right) This uses a photo taken in my front yard facing away from the house... Similar but curves adjusted in Photoshop to make it lighter... Added sky at top and painted in some "dirt" color for the ground The previous one was i the ball park but too green and still too dark so i reduced the saturation in Photoshop, painted out some of the green and did another curve adjustment to overall brighten it. I regarded this as satisfactory. The Image Based Lighting doesn't make a dramatically different result on the flat surfaces of the house but I like how the slight variations on the round shapes of the character create a Subsurface Scattering appearance even though the skin is just a default A:M surface. These IBL renders were done with no Ground plane. The light or lack of it from below was controlled by painting black at the bottom of the IBL image.

That page is the first time I've encountered the "KiB" (Kibibyte)

You question is not stupid. I don't want to belittle you for it. But you have asked it... it's going to get an answer. What I can tell you is what I know about A:M's development and how i know the lack of GPU rendering isn't because it's not been tried and how I see rendering time in the whole production process and what i know about other solutions to rendering time that can be done now. My next suggestion is a very serious one. It is not meant to brush you off... Blender has the render features it has only because they recruited very knowledgeable people to donate a huge amount of their programming time and knowledge to make it happen. Those are not trivial additions. Recruit a similar team to do that for A:M. That is what it will take. It will take an enormous programming effort. I don't see anyway to make it happen except to find the people who can do it. I mean that very seriously.

What does this mean? Does this mean 2D motion graphics like you do in After Effects with flat images but no 3D objects?

I'll tell you why the render time isn't a big hindrance for me personally... The amount of time I spend modeling, rigging, texturing and animating is so much larger than the render time that even if the render time were instantaneous it wouldn't change the duration of the project much. The things that A:M does without me, like rendering, have gotten to be the least worrisome part of it. The stuff where A:M is waiting for me to do something is the big bottle neck that no render speed up will change.

If someone can program it, I'm all for it.

It depends, of course, but in average 3-5 minutes for a 1280x640 9xmultipass frame without hair/particles. You should get in a time machine and go tell 1987 me that the day would come when it would not take 5-15 hours per 320x240 frame with no hair or particles even if you wanted them.

How long are your renders taking?

Well, I got taken! My Nvidia board has just 1GB and cost $85 about four years ago.

Sure it's 4? NVidia says it's 1 or 2 https://www.geforce.com/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gt-630/specifications

It is impressive that it works at all since the GPU cards were never meant to do number crunching like CPUs do.

I'll note that Steffen did make a run at implementing GPU computing with A:M but it turned out to be not faster. Aside from the coding change that Fuchur discussed, a GPU renderer has to be able to hold all the data for what it is rendering in the GPU RAM so you'd probably need about a 4GB GPU card to do typical A:M stuff. A 4GB GPU card isn't wildly expensive anymore, I'm seeing prices of around $200-$500, but it would be an extra expense you'd have to accommodate. However, since we don't have GPU computing, you could take that same $200-$500 and get a 4 or more core computer to add to your rendering pile. I don't know much about the networking details but we have people on this forum who could help you with that if you went that route.

For Shaggy's "Bus Stop" Rope Trick I used a displacement map on a long cylinder. Because Shaggy's rope had to start out as a coil of simulated cloth that would fall on his shoulders, and because that was a difficult shape to decal i tried using the image as a "Patch Image" first. However I found that many patches would have to be individually selected to "Rotate" the patch image into the intended alignment. That was not undoable but I also found that when I set the image to Bump or Displacement the shading on many of the patches would appear inverted and I didn't have a solution for that. What i ultimately did was to simulate with the original coil and then constrain a long,straight cylinder version of the rope, with the image applied as a regular cylinder decal, to the coil which was then hidden for render. There were about 100 spline rings that were individually constrained across the two versions. (You can see several patches on the coil that did not orient right by default) Since you do not need to simulate flexible rope with Simcloth, my first idea is that you could model your ropes as straight cylinders, decal them, then use a pose to bend them into the shape you need them to be on the ship.

Because I don't like to paint in the Sun I envisioned this as a shady-side-of-the-house scene using Ambient Occlusion instead of directional lights. This is what the AO defaults do with Ambient Illumination and Occlusion set to 100% AO casts light from all directions but the Ground Plane is so large that it blocks all the light from below the horizon. That works well for most purposes but for something viewed from below it makes for some very dark surfaces facing the camera. In real life there is substantial light bounced up from the ground. To experiment, I progressively reduced the size of the Ground, to allow more light from below to reach the objects. You have to reduce it quite a bit to get a noticeable change. This is with 50% of the original dimensions... 20% 10%... No Ground Plane at all... The 20% version was about right for illumination levels but I began to get unhappy with the uniform grayness of it all. That led me to experimenting with Global Illumination, which I will show some tests of in the next post.

Yes, that would be essential when using "flatten" My preference, when painting decals, is to use cylindrical mapping which allows my to get good UVs with just one seam instead of two. However, if you are using decals from a photo, as for your jeans that may not be an option.

A case that produces a spline with odd curvature might be to take a beveled cube such as one out of the Library and decal it with an image using the spherical application method. The initial observation not having much to do with the application of the image itself so much as the layout of decal splines that appear via Decal>Edit. There should be at least one decal spline that has excessive curvature. i gave it a quick try. The result is not wildly unexpected. A cube is a difficult target for Spherical mapping. When you have time describe me more about what you are seeing that is odd.