southpawami Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 I posted earlier that I haven't been yet able to try this software, so I have silly questions. I do hope I'm not testing any of your patience. I'm guessing there is a lot to animation, more than I'm aware of, and perhaps rendering is the least of it. I'm looking at A:M and Houdini Escape as options, and with a workstation ATI card in my laptop, Houdini renders faster than the other software I've tried(GPU rendering). Yet... A:M's TAO technical manual says that the patch exports take under a hundred patches and turn into thousands on a single character. Does this patch modeling and painting make rendering any faster? My processor is only an i5 in my laptop and from what I've seen so far... an i5 is not desired with CPU rendering. Is A:M any different from other software in rendering due to the patches? Thank you for your help. p.s. i run hwinfo64 on my laptop to see temps... and since it's a laptop, cpu render temps of 71 to 81 celsius (159.8 to 177.8 fahrenheit) are scary to me. could be just paranoid though, who knows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuchur Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 I posted earlier that I haven't been yet able to try this software, so I have silly questions. I do hope I'm not testing any of your patience. I'm guessing there is a lot to animation, more than I'm aware of, and perhaps rendering is the least of it. I'm looking at A:M and Houdini Escape as options, and with a workstation ATI card in my laptop, Houdini renders faster than the other software I've tried(GPU rendering). Yet... A:M's TAO technical manual says that the patch exports take under a hundred patches and turn into thousands on a single character. Does this patch modeling and painting make rendering any faster? My processor is only an i5 in my laptop and from what I've seen so far... an i5 is not desired with CPU rendering. Is A:M any different from other software in rendering due to the patches? Yes it is, but no it is in general not faster. The biggest advantage over polygone based methods is, that you can go to any resolution you want without having to readjust your model, because the precision level of patch is setted automatically to show for example round edges round all the time. Polygones have to be adjusted manually. That means you may have to work with proxy-models and final-models, etc. which is not necessary for A:M. Depending on the amount of polygones you are using it can be faster or less fast than A:Ms rendering. It highly depends on what you want and how precise it have to be for you. For now, A:M has no GPU-rendering, so GPU rendering can be much faster. (depending on the GPU and the CPU compared) However GPU-rendering will become available soon. It is currently in developement and will be based on OpenCL. (> compatible for ATI and Nvidia-cards). I don't know exactly what Houdini uses there, but it is possible that they only support CUDA. And CUDA is not ATI-compatible. See you *Fuchur* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southpawami Posted July 20, 2011 Author Share Posted July 20, 2011 Yes it is, but no it is in general not faster. The biggest advantage over polygone based methods is, that you can go to any resolution you want without having to readjust your model, because the precision level of patch is setted automatically to show for example round edges round all the time. Polygones have to be adjusted manually. That means you may have to work with proxy-models and final-models, etc. which is not necessary for A:M. Depending on the amount of polygones you are using it can be faster or less fast than A:Ms rendering. It highly depends on what you want and how precise it have to be for you. For now, A:M has no GPU-rendering, so GPU rendering can be much faster. (depending on the GPU and the CPU compared) However GPU-rendering will become available soon. It is currently in developement and will be based on OpenCL. (> compatible for ATI and Nvidia-cards). I don't know exactly what Houdini uses there, but it is possible that they only support CUDA. And CUDA is not ATI-compatible. See you *Fuchur* Oh wow, you got me excited. GPU rendering on OpenCL? Wow!!! I've got an ATI Firepro m7820 and it's a monster when used by programs(sighs..) I tried the newest Sony Vegas Pro with the OpenCL programming and it's insanely fast. As far as Houdini, it's an anomaly in 3D. It's Firepro's and Quadro's only, so it's the only GPU rendering 3D modeling app I can use with my ATI Firepro right now. The temps from Houdini are incredible also. Basically, it means for me, Houdini is required for 3D options. If A:M goes GPU rendering with OpenCL, and figures a way to keep the temps bearable, it's a must have, for sure. I am eagerly waiting for that update. And no adjustments sounds similar to the bitmap/vector argument. It does sound very cool. Well, this is awesome. I might even get a subscription in a month or two based on this news. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hash Fellow robcat2075 Posted July 20, 2011 Hash Fellow Share Posted July 20, 2011 In the interest of full disclosure one should note that GPU in A:M is in the very earliest stages of development. There isn't a beta of it we can all test yet and we dont' know how much of A:M's functionality can be made to work with things like that. A:M renders about the same speed as other similar apps that do 3D. A while back I compared the speed of A:M vs. Maya on CPU intensive scenes and found that they were either the same or A:M was a hair faster. That was with v13, A:M has gotten about 50% faster since then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hash Fellow robcat2075 Posted July 20, 2011 Hash Fellow Share Posted July 20, 2011 Regarding the speed of your CPU...anything you have in a computer today is way better than what we had a few years ago and still did lots of stuff with. There will always be something faster out there teasing us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southpawami Posted July 20, 2011 Author Share Posted July 20, 2011 Regarding the speed of your CPU...anything you have in a computer today is way better than what we had a few years ago and still did lots of stuff with. There will always be something faster out there teasing us. So true. They say an i7 laptop is equal to an i3 desktop. And my m7820 with OpenCL 1.0 was awesome until OpenCL 1.1. "Now there is great gain in godliness with contentment," contentment... ya... that's a hard one. faster processor, tighter pixels, better sound... lol, is there an annual upgrade deal on computers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southpawami Posted July 20, 2011 Author Share Posted July 20, 2011 In the interest of full disclosure one should note that GPU in A:M is in the very earliest stages of development. There isn't a beta of it we can all test yet and we dont' know how much of A:M's functionality can be made to work with things like that. A:M renders about the same speed as other similar apps that do 3D. A while back I compared the speed of A:M vs. Maya on CPU intensive scenes and found that they were either the same or A:M was a hair faster. That was with v13, A:M has gotten about 50% faster since then. If A:M's rendering speed has been keeping up with Maya, that's awesome. I appreciate this information, as besides speed, GPU rendering is so attractive because it keeps my CPU temps lower in my laptop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuchur Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 In the interest of full disclosure one should note that GPU in A:M is in the very earliest stages of development. There isn't a beta of it we can all test yet and we dont' know how much of A:M's functionality can be made to work with things like that. A:M renders about the same speed as other similar apps that do 3D. A while back I compared the speed of A:M vs. Maya on CPU intensive scenes and found that they were either the same or A:M was a hair faster. That was with v13, A:M has gotten about 50% faster since then. If A:M's rendering speed has been keeping up with Maya, that's awesome. I appreciate this information, as besides speed, GPU rendering is so attractive because it keeps my CPU temps lower in my laptop. What do you need such low CPU temps for? Did you overclock it? See you *Fuchur* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pixelplucker Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 Isn't Houdini Escape the lite version and restricted from commercial use? If your a single person AM offers a very complete package with dynamics, hair, reusable animations etc. I'm sure the learning curve is much much less than most other packages out there since the tools are very no frills and streamlined (no abstract icons and slow help popups). I was hesitant at first with AM because there is no demo to fiddle around but am glad I got it. It has become a good part of my workflow and is just a lot of fun to use. It is also not hardware heavy and can be run on a vast number of systems. $79 a year, most people spend more at a fast food restaurant in a month. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hash Fellow robcat2075 Posted July 20, 2011 Hash Fellow Share Posted July 20, 2011 I found my comparison thread... http://www.hash.com/forums/index.php?showt...80&hl=brand I guess A:M was more than a hair faster. Fine print: My knowledge of Maya is far less than that of A:M, it's possible I wasn't using Maya to its full advantage. But i was following the manual to set things up as similarly as possible. A sun light is a sun light and a cylinder is a cylinder, I figure. It's also possible that, like A:M, Maya has become more clever and faster since that 2007 version. I haven't bothered to upgrade Maya to find out; A:M already does everything I need. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southpawami Posted July 21, 2011 Author Share Posted July 21, 2011 What do you need such low CPU temps for? Did you overclock it? See you *Fuchur* Nope... just paranoid... lol. My laptop seems to run around 45 to 50 celsius, so when Houdini renders and 58 celsius it tops, I'm happy. I tried Shade 12 pro, it was an absolute dream in formats compatibility, had everyone of them in the book, but when I applied textures and rendered, my temps jumped to 71+ celsius and it scared the tar out of me. Of course, blue mars hit 81, *cough*, so I don't run it much. As high as I've seen the temps though, seems like the temps can get pretty high without issue... still worried, though... (it's still new.. *blows on it, and buffs the wax again*) Isn't Houdini Escape the lite version and restricted from commercial use? If your a single person AM offers a very complete package with dynamics, hair, reusable animations etc. I'm sure the learning curve is much much less than most other packages out there since the tools are very no frills and streamlined (no abstract icons and slow help popups). I was hesitant at first with AM because there is no demo to fiddle around but am glad I got it. It has become a good part of my workflow and is just a lot of fun to use. It is also not hardware heavy and can be run on a vast number of systems. $79 a year, most people spend more at a fast food restaurant in a month. Houdini Escape is Houdini for modeling, animating, and compositing. It's got the full import/export format list, toolsets for modeling, rigging, biped/quadraped auto rigging, lights, hair/fur, but no tools for fluid/fire/smoke physics types of things. Houdini Escape runs $2000 which is somewhat difficult to chew.(A subscription for annual updates runs at least $800 more). So, yes... while the free version has been fantastic, the price keeps getting to me. Fun? 3D modelers can be fun? wait... you're kidding right? I mean, moi, swift3d, and sketchup are fun, but that's a slim number compared to everything I've tried so far. I'm still debating it, got just about a month to finalize the decisions, and it's true... $80 doesn't seem like much. It's just 3D painting program... and the facial program add another $220 to that. Still way cheaper by comparison. You really make it sound quite complete by itself. Decisions, decisions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hash Fellow robcat2075 Posted July 21, 2011 Hash Fellow Share Posted July 21, 2011 I tell people A:M is not intended to provide every possible means of CG production, A:M is intended as an end-to-end pipeline for narrative animation, meaning you want to tell stories with characters. Do you want to pre-test the optics of a 17-element zoom lens you've designed? A:M is not for that. Do you want to study the efficiency of a coolant flowing through an internal combustion engine? A:M is not for that. But if you want to tell a story about a guy who sees something very odd with his zoom lens or a story about someone who gets stranded in a strange place when his engine overheats, that's what people do with A:M. My pitch would be... buy the $80 subscription, give it a fair shot and if you love it the extras will be there waiting for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuchur Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 I tell people A:M is not intended to provide every possible means of CG production, A:M is intended as an end-to-end pipeline for narrative animation, meaning you want to tell stories with characters. Do you want to pre-test the optics of a 17-element zoom lens you've designed? A:M is not for that. Do you want to study the efficiency of a coolant flowing through an internal combustion engine? A:M is not for that. But if you want to tell a story about a guy who sees something very odd with his zoom lens or a story about someone who gets stranded in a strange place when his engine overheats, that's what people do with A:M. My pitch would be... buy the $80 subscription, give it a fair shot and if you love it the extras will be there waiting for you. ... and yes, A:M can even be used for such things... so it is not specially designed for it. Characteranimation is what A:M can do the best. Most other things are possible but are not the main intend of A:M. I have done product-visualisations, game-assets-creation, elearning-animations, motiongraphics for video-editings and effect-work with A:M too. And totally yes: A:M is fun. This is of course only my own opinion, but compared to other brands it is much more fun than anything else I have tested... See you *Fuchur* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pixelplucker Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Don't forget the help from other users for AM that is here.. I can't think of any other program that has this much support from it's creators and users. There has been countless times I asked a question and moments later get a response. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southpawami Posted August 3, 2011 Author Share Posted August 3, 2011 Well, I've been thinking about it. I'm still thinking about it. If I go A:M, I'd definitely be looking toward a sub 100 dollar cross program for collada. UU3D, AC3D, wings3d, and Shade12basic are among the options I suppose. Still thinking about it. And yes, the people here have been incredibly helpful. I've also decided I can't afford the 2800 commercial option of Houdini... so... A:M with a friend seems my best 3d option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.