paulchoate

And why are all my lights on except the two pendant lights over the island? I have them turned on in all views...can't figure this out now.

Thanks. I'm testing it out now at about that resolution (you'd think that by selecting the "quick" ray trace option it would automatically select a lower resolution.

2996 x 1219

I have no idea...I'll look into it (does a 4k monitor make a difference?)

Here is a trace I just did: Two passes in 45 minutes. Now I'm gonna read up on ray tracing and get some pointers (my stainless steel always comes out looking black).

1 minute ago, Renerabbitt said:

I would check in with someone at Chief about that...most any rendering program I know works independently of the camera view...which is to say that it doesn't know not to reflect outside light off of the foundation or roof because the camera is inside. It will calc light for ALL materials including ambient light and ambient occlusion...in the program I use, I have to delete anything I don't need to contribute to the scene to speed up my renderings.

I believe their was a discussion about this years ago about turning off all lights that don't contribute to a scene.

 

and Paul, will you setup a scene and post your plan, we can tweek it for you and tell you what we did to cut your time

 

That would be great...I'm actually working on it now. It's far from complete but I'll send over what I have shortly.  It's still in concept stage and I have to provide a few different layouts for my customers...once they choose the layout they like best I can refine and improve the concept (you guys know the drill lol). Thank you.

27 minutes ago, TheKitchenAbode said:

 

Yes, I think that would be a win win situation. A dual approach would truly maximize your gains and just might save you some money.

 

Just another example, this ran in 1 minute and only needed 7 passes. I realize it is not magazine quality but for 1 minute of Ray Trace time I really find it hard to fault.

I REALLY need to watch the tutorials on ray tracing because I (more often than not) need AT LEAST two hours too get 7 passes. Occasionally my traces will be very fast but that's only when I just have a kitchen without foundation, roof, other rooms, etc.

1 hour ago, TheKitchenAbode said:

 

Your missing my point. I'm not disputing the fact that a faster system won't run the same number of passes faster. The point I'm try to emphasize is that by getting a handle on lighting there is no need to run a Ray Trace for 6 hours. On that sample output you posted in the other thread you could run that for 20 days and the stainless steel would still be black. The quality of a Ray Trace is not directly related to the number of passes.

I do see your point and  value it. I was just making a small joke...What you are saying is that if I spend a bit of time learning what makes for a "good" ray trace I'll save myself a lot of time and probably money as well. Thank you and keep it coming!

On ‎6‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 9:44 AM, TheKitchenAbode said:

Just to emphasize my comments above concerning Ray Tracing and what to expect by throwing more CPU horsepower at it.

 

This is after 5 passes in 1 minute.

 

This is after 100 passes in 17 minutes.

The only change is a cleaner image, less graininess.

 

Running more passes does not substantially change the overall scene, it just cleans things up.

 

If your scene looks like this after 5 passes.

 

Then it's going to look essentially the same after 100 passes.

 

You can spend all of your money on cores, but you are not going to get any better results, just faster.

 

"The only change is a cleaner image, less graininess. Running more passes does not substantially change the overall scene, it just cleans things up." EXACTLY lol

"You can spend all of your money on cores, but you are not going to get any better results, just faster." EXACTLY lol (again)

Thanks. Good to know. I still want more horsepower though lol

I'm aware that I won't be able to get a high quality 6 hour ray trace down to 15 minutes...I simply want to significantly cut the time down. That 15 minute sentence of mine wasn't really meant to be taken literally...though if it can be done I'd love to be able to make it happen.

16 minutes ago, TheKitchenAbode said:

It's fairly easy to estimate the performance one could expect when comparing frequency and cores, the relationship is fairly linear. If one system runs at twice the frequency as another it can have half the cores and be about equal to the lower frequency system with twice the core count.

 

That 14 core Xeon 2695 v3 has a lot of cores so even though a 4 core (8 thread) system might run at a higher frequency that shear number of cores would likely result in at least a 50% improvement in Ray Trace through put time over say my I7 6700K.

 

I know I'm a bit repetitive on this issue but there are oth2r ways to seed up your Ray Traces without having to spend a ton of money on your CPU.

 

This scene ran in 3 minutes, 1200 X 600 px. Just can't justify spending another $1,000 to save maybe 90 seconds.

Thanks for your input.  This ray trace ran for about 6 hours on a 7700HQ (4-core 2.8 GHz) CPU. And yes, I know I can shut off layers, objects, etc. when Ray Tracing to reduce the time it takes but I'd prefer to be able to leave everything on. Kind of like you can reduce a car's weight and change gearing too improve speed/performance OR just build more horse power. In this case I'd like too simply build more horse power.  I'd like to reduce my ray tracing from 2-4 hours to 15 - 30 minutes.

Upgrading my desktop. I'm okay spending more (option 3) if it significantly improves speed on "normal" drawing tasks and cuts down significantly on Ray Trace time. But if a faster 4-core CPU (7700K) is just as fast overall  as a slower 8-core CPU  (AMD Ryzen 1800x or Intel 7820x) (going by clock speed) then why pay more for the 8 core? I was told by a CA rep that "the more cores the better" for ray tracing and that the NVidia cards are better than Quadros and the I7 CPUs are a better choice than Xeon (as a nother CA member also pointed out).  Other than the CPU and GPU the three computers are all on par with each other (as far as I can see). The hard drive sizes are all plenty big enough for me. Don't know if the 1080 TI is way overkill as I'm not a gamer but I will have a two or three monitor setup.

Choices are three computer setups as follows:

Option 1 specs:

Intel 7700K CPU (4-core @ 4.2 GHz)

Nvidia 1080 8GB  graphics card

240 GB SSD

1 TB hard drive

$1,500

Option 2 specs:

AMD Ryzen 7 1800X CPU (8-core, 3.6 GHz)

Nvidia 1080 8GB graphics card

240 GB SSD

2 TB HD

$1,900

Option 3 specs:

Intel 7820x CPU (8-core, 3.6 GHz)

Nvidia 1080 11GB TI graphics card

480 SSD

3 TB HD (7200 RPM)

$2,650 

Any input will be very much appreciated.

On ‎6‎/‎8‎/‎2017 at 6:31 PM, paulchoate said:

I like the 15" 4k screen on my Lenovo Yoga BUT I also like the 17" no-glare screen on my Asus G752.  I want to merge them together so that I have a 17" 4k, anti-glare shiny screen. Ain't gonna happen lol. Seriously, the anti glare is a bit "dull" but it's nice. I believe it's easier on the eyes when looking at the screen for a long time.  On the flip side the The 4k image on a quality ray trace looks awesome...customers like that. So, I do most of my work on the large, no glare 17" screen then bring the smaller 4k screen to show my customers. Plus my Lenovo is a touch screen which I don't use often but it's nice to have.

Follow up...going to return the 15.6" 4k laptop computer. The resolution is nice but there are just too many times I need to adjust the screen size because the text is tooo small but the icons too large or vice versa. It seems 4k really isn't optimal until the monitor is at least 30". So, back to the standard HD screen!

Wow, once again I'm floored by the time all of you put into answering my question and explaining a few things. Really appreciate it. I only run one monitor now but am planning on running two 4k screens (I have a 4k now on my laptop and though there are sometimes issues with scale overall I like it).   And if (more of a "when")  I'm going to upgrade my desktop setup I may as well set it up for "tomorrow" and not "today": the 1080 graphics card may be overkill but I'll have it covered for the next few years. The hard part of all this is finding a computer that has more than a 4-core processor (a "fast" one) other than Xeon which are relatively "slow" compared to some of the more common quad-cores found in most "over the counter" computers (actually I haven't seen anything more than a 4-core). Unless of course I find a company to customize/build it for me. Basically I'm trying too customize my desktop for Chief...I don't like lag time and am willing to spend a few bucks to reduce lag time during "normal" drawing and also greatly improve ray trace speed. My current desk top is 8 years old and ran my old CAD software just fine but won't run Chief at all...so, time to upgrade and I may as well get what I want.

So I think I got my answer: 6 or 8 core Intel I7 high GHz processor (fast single core for daily tasks yet multiple cores for faster ray tracing...which by the way is a great way to wow clients) and a Nvidia 1060, 70 or 80 graphics card. ( I think). 

8 hours ago, TheKitchenAbode said:

The issue with the Xeon processor you are considering is its low frequency 2GHz. What you want is the highest frequency plus the most cores. You need the high frequency as many of CA's functions are single threaded, it does not take advantage of all available cores. Ray Tracing is the exception, it is specifically written to use all available cores. The current top Skylak I7 7700K is likely the best bang for the $, it can be easily clocked up to 4.2GHz and has 8 logical cores. Intel is just launching some new chips under the I9 series. These will offer similar clock rates with many more cores, they are going to be very expensive.

 

Concerning the graphics cards, CA will run fine on a Quadro card but you will be paying a premium for functions that CA does not take advantage of. A good Nvidia gamming card will do just fine and save you some money.

Another great answer. Thank you. Very helpful.

8 hours ago, HumbleChief said:

The dual Xeons ( I have them) will be great for RayTracing but not so great in all other areas. Chief likes clock speed and good single core performance and only seems to respond well to lots of cores when Ray Tracing. I've done tests against other machines with newer i7's and they outperform my dual Xeons in (more important IMO) every day tasks which is where the rubber meets the road in Chief. If you Ray Trace ( I hardy do any more) then the dual Xeons will be great.

 

This is not to mention that if you had dual Xeons of the fastest around then perhaps it would be a great machine all around as well? Dunno. But for budget and value the best i7's will be a better bet for Chief IMO - as well as the Nvidia cards versus the Quadro cards.

Thank you. Great answer!

1 hour ago, lbuttery said:

yes, only get the Quadro card if you will also be running CAD software that can benefit from it

 

Chief is not really based as CAD software and is better with a good gaming card

 

Lew

Chief isn't CAD software?

On 5/24/2017 at 10:20 AM, HumbleChief said:

This is good advice though within that search hopefully you will discover why Xeons are not necessarily good for running Chief and in some cases down right bad. I have a dual Xeon system and would not go that route again.

I was just about ready to

pull the trigger on a new workstation with a dual Xeon processor that has a total of 16 cores....why would you not do that?

I'm in the same boat. Been doing a lot of research. According to a rep at Chief the more cores the better (8, 10, 12, 20!) when it comes to ray tracing. And from what I understand a Quadro graphics card is specifically geared towards CAD yet the rep at Chief said a Nvidia GeForce is a better choice for Chief...now I'm confused. I think I'm going to go with a 10 core Xeon processor (around 2 Ghz) and a Quadro 2000 graphics card. Probably a Lenovo ThinkStation P710

I have no idea lol.  I wish I had the time to understand more on how Chief works (and computers in general). I'm learning about Chief and computers at the same time as running my business (as many of us here are doing) so I can only devote so much time to one thing or another (I'm doing well with Chief but have a lot to learn...trial by fire as I have 5 designs sitting on my desk that need to get done so I'm designing and learning at the same time).  Only now have I gone from simply using computers to learning about them. One thing I'm wishing I did is purchase a Lenova ThinkPad with a no-glare 4k screen instead of the Asus with the no-glare 1080 screen. Apparently the Lenova Think Pad P50/51 and P70/71 are pretty much the best of the best when it comes to CAD....But I did save $2,000!

Where are you located?

On ‎6‎/‎5‎/‎2017 at 8:50 AM, SeasideHome said:

On another topic; any opinions on upgrading to 3840 x 2160 4K resolution? Is this only gratifying to me as user, or are there other benefits?

I like the 15" 4k screen on my Lenovo Yoga BUT I also like the 17" no-glare screen on my Asus G752.  I want to merge them together so that I have a 17" 4k, anti-glare shiny screen. Ain't gonna happen lol. Seriously, the anti glare is a bit "dull" but it's nice. I believe it's easier on the eyes when looking at the screen for a long time.  On the flip side the The 4k image on a quality ray trace looks awesome...customers like that. So, I do most of my work on the large, no glare 17" screen then bring the smaller 4k screen to show my customers. Plus my Lenovo is a touch screen which I don't use often but it's nice to have.

Wow...thank you all for the thoughtful and helpful replies. Being that I'm new to Chief (and 3D CAD altogether) I really don't know how to judge if my computers are slow, fast or really fast. I do know that compared to my old laptop that didn't have an Intel i7 quad core or dedicated/separate graphics card my new laptops are pretty darn fast. I have tww "laptops". My Asus G752 is more like a portable desktop: I bought it as an open box special at best buy for almost 1/2 price and it is pretty much replacing my 8-9 year old desktop. It has an i7 quad core, Nvidia 965m 2GB graphics card, 16GB RAM  and a 1 TB hard drive. My other laptop is a Lenovo Yoga 720 with an i7 quad core, Nvidia 1050 graphics card (2GB I think), 16GB RAM and a 512 GB SSD. The Lenovo is definitely faster in opening up programs and downloading/uploading files due to the SSD but as far as using Chief I can't say whether or not the SSD and the newer/"better" Nvidia graphics card in the Lenovo make it render, ray trace any quicker and if the graphics look better it's likely because it has a very shiny/glossy 4k screen vs the no-glare matte finish on the Asus (not for nothing but the no-glare screen on the Asus is actually very nice and comes in handy when showing customers renderings on the computer...it might not be shiny and cool but I there is never an issue of having to adjust the screen, turn the computer, etc. due to glare from light reflecting off the screen...the downside is the Asus is a tank...but that's another topic).  In a nutshell, for overall Chief use both machines work nicely but the ray traces seem to take a long time....again, I'm new to Chief and don't really know the ins and outs of setting up a ray trace for optimal renderings done quickly (relatively speaking)