R Reynolds Posted April 21, 2013 Share Posted April 21, 2013 Same model in both left and right images but better (IMO) textures, lighting and setting; ten years between renders. I'd be willing to bet there's nothing in the 2013 versions that couldn't have been done in 2003, it just took that long to motivate myself to sweat those details. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ilidrake Posted April 21, 2013 Share Posted April 21, 2013 That is really impressive! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hash Fellow robcat2075 Posted April 21, 2013 Hash Fellow Share Posted April 21, 2013 Looks great either way! I suppose a light rig could have gotten you the AO in 2003. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSpleen Posted April 21, 2013 Share Posted April 21, 2013 Very nice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itsjustme Posted April 21, 2013 Share Posted April 21, 2013 Great stuff, Rodger! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agep Posted April 21, 2013 Share Posted April 21, 2013 Very Nice as always Rodger. How big is your project now? Do you have a scene where you have combined everything? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thefreshestever Posted April 21, 2013 Share Posted April 21, 2013 very nice! the new version looks great, although i liked the pale red in the earlier version better, looks a bit more washed out by the sun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vertexspline Posted April 21, 2013 Share Posted April 21, 2013 I would enjoy a ride on either version. Awesome work in both cases Rodger . now if you twist my arm and make me pick ----yep 2013 looks better. But if they were not side to side ----independently I would have said ---wow --nice job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimd Posted April 21, 2013 Share Posted April 21, 2013 slow but steady really good Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dpendleton77 Posted April 21, 2013 Share Posted April 21, 2013 They both look great but the 2013 gets the prize. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maniac Posted April 21, 2013 Share Posted April 21, 2013 very nice the detail really impressive on both Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R Reynolds Posted April 22, 2013 Author Share Posted April 22, 2013 Stian asked, How big is your project now? Do you have a scene where you have combined everything? The closest I have to "everything" in one shot is the attached image. When I dropped my locomotive and tender onto the track, 17e crashed near the end of the render. Resource Monitor says that project consumes about 160 Mb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hash Fellow robcat2075 Posted April 22, 2013 Hash Fellow Share Posted April 22, 2013 When I dropped my locomotive and tender onto the track, 17e crashed near the end of the render. Resource Monitor says that project consumes about 160 Mb. What windows are you on and how much RAM do you have? We ought to be able to do better than 160 MB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R Reynolds Posted April 22, 2013 Author Share Posted April 22, 2013 What windows are you on and how much RAM do you have? Win7-64bit, 16Gb; when the render stopped, the Memory meter read just below 4Gb. We ought to be able to do better than 160 MB I submitted the consolidated/embedded project to A:M Reports at the beginning of the month. Hopefully Steffen will solve it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hash Fellow robcat2075 Posted April 23, 2013 Hash Fellow Share Posted April 23, 2013 Was it an explicit crash or a freeze or some other indication of no-longer-workingness? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R Reynolds Posted April 23, 2013 Author Share Posted April 23, 2013 The single frame render chugs along through passes 1 to 4 and then somewhere in pass 5 (percent complete has been at 100% for some time) the progress icon stops walking and the screen goes translucent white. A message appears saying "program has stopped responding". I had no other programs running at the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MMZ_TimeLord Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 I wonder if NetRender crashes at the same point. I would probably try it on that frame and see. Cheers! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NancyGormezano Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 When I dropped my locomotive and tender onto the track, 17e crashed near the end of the render. Resource Monitor says that project consumes about 160 Mb. Obvious question: Have you tried 17g? (don't know if that will make a difference). Perhaps there is a memory leak? The single frame render chugs along through passes 1 to 4 and then somewhere in pass 5 (percent complete has been at 100% for some time) the progress icon stops walking and the screen goes translucent white. A message appears saying "program has stopped responding". I had no other programs running at the time. What are ALL your render settings? (eg using ao? what % & what quality of AO, etc etc). Can you tell where in pass 5 (or is it really start of pass 6?) the render stops? (expand the steps). Do you have soften on? Can you get a complete render image with only 4 passes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Bigboote Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 Or try NO multipass... LOOKIN GOOD RODGER! 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.