|
Forums >> Revit Building >> Technical Support >> 2 Days Rendering...38% Complete 2009 Slow Rendering
|
|
|
active
Joined: Wed, Jan 12, 2005
2 Posts
No Rating |
I am working on a simple Ice Arena. The arena is nothing more than a box with a few interior wall, roof trusses, roof deck, concrete floor, hockey boards & glass and some interior signs. There are several interior lights, which I turned off in the rendering, I am using studio lights and the signs on the wall light up. The rendering is set at BEST and 150 dpi for printer. I started the rendering 1 day 14 hours and 56 minutes ago and it is still rendering. The pc it is rendering on has a 2.4ghz Pentium 4 with 1 GB RAM. Pretty much the minnimum requirements as listed by Autodesk. With older verisons Overrnight would normally be enough time to render just about anything. Is this what we should be expecting in the future??? We are looking at an new Dual processor, with 4+ GB RAM and high end Video Card..How much will this help??
|
This user is offline |
|
 |
|
|
|
site moderator|||
Joined: Fri, Apr 14, 2006
584 Posts
 |
Autodesk recommends a 2 Gig ram minimum for even moderate performance. Currently Revit is not multi-processor capable. The upgrade you mentioned would probably make a difference. That is about what I am running and I don't experience and a huge slow-down when rendering. It is still slow but not more than a couple of hours so far.
|
This user is offline |
|
|
|
site moderator|||
Joined: Tue, May 22, 2007
5921 Posts
 |
Hi there, hi have a dual-core 2 2.4Ghz with 3Gb Ram, Ati 512 and isolate Revit with SMP SeeSaw in one core and an INTERIOR Render in the BEST quality like you it take about 17 hours to do it....
-----------------------------------
I Hope and I Wish to LEARN more, and more, and more.... REVIT |
This user is offline |
|
|
|
active
Joined: Mon, Mar 17, 2008
2 Posts
 |
hmm i have 2gb ram 3.8 dual core prosseor and 1 gb N-vidia graphic card , yet its taking like 9 hrs for interior rendering M'A salaam IRFAN
|
This user is offline |
|
|
|
site moderator|||
Joined: Fri, Apr 14, 2006
584 Posts
|
I guess I haven't rendered very big files yet. I have seen a slow down in rendering time, but not anything to the degree that you guys are talking about. I will try to render one of my bigger files when I get a chance and see if I am getting the same numbers. I am using a Dual 2.8 Ghz processor, 4 Gb Ram, with a NVIDIA graphics card.
|
This user is offline |
|
|
|
site moderator|||
Joined: Mon, Jan 12, 2004
2889 Posts
|
I find interior renderings very slow. Even on my Core 2 Duo E6850 with 8GB RAM, if you need these fast I suggest exporting to MAX if you have it available as it is a LOT faster... Exterior renderings with just sun lighting I find are quicker than Accurender was with a lot better quality. If you plan on doing lots of rendering then Quad Core would be advisable as the rendering engine I believe can take advantage of up to 8 cores... (I think)
-----------------------------------
Regards,
Chris.
Co-Founder | BIM Consultant | Software Designer  B. Arch)
Xrev Revit API Addins | Revit Rants |
This user is offline |
View Website
|
|
|
active
Joined: Tue, May 6, 2008
68 Posts
|
Coming from a visualisation background I would say that you should customise your rendering settings rather than simply selecting 'Best' Also, make sure you have as few glossy materials as possible, As glossy materials and Glass really slow down the rendering. Try to set your rendering to medium (copy to custom) but change the antialiasing to 6-8 (8 is default for Best) What we used to do in maya was to hide the glass and assign a flat grey material to everything to get an idea of render speed/quality. But if all else fails, export into max and render there as Mr Spot suggests Well, that’s my 20 cents Good luck mate Edited on: Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 12:18:11 AM
Edited on: Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 12:19:04 AM
-----------------------------------
|
This user is offline |
View Website
|
|
|
active
Joined: Wed, Jul 11, 2007
19 Posts
No Rating |
I have also found rendering with artificial lighting to be very slow. I have had inconsistent success when leaving the computer to render overnight, but this typically is only when using sun and no artificial lighting for exterior scenes. Other times when I have tried using the high quality settings and artificial lights, I've found when I come back in the morning that my image is completely black, as if nothing rendered at all. Also wondering if there is a maximum number of artifical lights that is practical to use. I'm currently trying to do a night shot of a 20-story hotel without overwhelming my processors.
|
This user is offline |
|
|
|
active
Joined: Tue, Dec 7, 2004
4 Posts
No Rating |
Same problem. I am running a 2 gig virtual memory and a render that took 20 minutes in 2008 with accurender is 15 hours into it and it is only 17% done. Explain to me how this is an improvement over accurender? For those of us in the real work world this is not an advantage. I am no luddite, but so far I cannot appreciate the superior quality of the new render because I can't wait 100 hours for it to finish. I've gotten around the blackscreen on interiors by juicing up my light sources and increasing reflection bounces. I know that is costing me time but what else could I do? I will see if that fix package will help interior renders. But I don't want to throw away 15 hours on the hopes it will change things. So how come in the all the cons this problem was not mentioned? Hey, I back in the 1990s I would render and entire 3 minute 3ds animation of my buildings in 3 days on a 486!!!! Now the same time for a single image? I remember a version of Revit about 5 years ago, the rendering application was so bad, I did not render images for about a year. I would do hidden line only and hand color. Useless! If I could save my current project as a 2008, I might just go back to render.
|
This user is offline |
View Website
|
|
|
active
Joined: Wed, Jul 11, 2007
19 Posts
No Rating |
I haven't found a way to get Revit to utilize 8 cores. I've got dual 2.0 Ghz quad core processors with about 8 gigs of RAM but it looks like I'm only using a maximum of 4 cores (50% of the computer's total capacity) at any given time. Mr. Spot, is there a way to boost the number of cores Revit is using? I can open two sessions of Revit and run a second render which makes the other 4 cores kick in, but that's not really what I'm looking for. Working on two renderings right now that are on "Best" settings at 150 dpi...one is 10% complete and the other is 18%. Both have been running for around 18 hours.
|
This user is offline |
|
|
|
|
|
active
Joined: Tue, May 6, 2008
68 Posts
|
It would be nice if you could render in segments as you can do with a simple command in a command line using stand alone MR – then take these segments into PS to work your magic. If Autodesk really want to take there customers seriously they need to provide a more well rounded renderer - that utilises ALL hardware aswell as more customization within MR - which includes command line options. I hate the excuse - Just buy max design and take it into there to render. WELL, that’s another step along with forcing firms to spend more cash. Sorry for the aggressiveness - but I’ve gotta deal with Monday morning blues somehow.
-----------------------------------
|
This user is offline |
View Website
|
|
|
active
Joined: Wed, Jul 11, 2007
19 Posts
No Rating |
Hmmm...here's an idea. Why not render the same view using 2 regions that are both half of the image? Seems like that could be a workaround to use all of the hardware. Then take the two halves and put them together like KennyGee suggests in PS. Haven't tried it but can't think of why that wouldn't be effective.
|
This user is offline |
|
|
|
site moderator|||
Joined: Fri, Feb 10, 2006
1874 Posts
|
" I haven't found a way to get Revit to utilize 8 cores. I've got dual 2.0 Ghz quad core processors with about 8 gigs of RAM but it looks like I'm only using a maximum of 4 cores (50% of the computer's total capacity) at any given time. Mr. Spot, is there a way to boost the number of cores Revit is using? I can open two sessions of Revit and run a second render which makes the other 4 cores kick in, but that's not really what I'm looking for. Working on two renderings right now that are on "Best" settings at 150 dpi...one is 10% complete and the other is 18%. Both have been running for around 18 hours. "
-----------------------------------
best regards, coreed,aia bmpArchitects,Inc. "Revit has to be implemented, Not installed." Long Live Revit |
This user is offline |
|
|
|
active
Joined: Mon, Jan 9, 2006
23 Posts
No Rating |
Forget using best unless you really need it. We have found thur T&E that medium printer quality at 150 dpi works fine for most of our interior renderings. They usually take around 60-90 min. These include shiny and rflective surfaces, glass et.c We use quad cores w/8 g of ram and 3.0 proces. If you really need high end stuff try using a renderfarm very inexpensive for single shots. try link below. http://www.rendercore.com/
|
This user is offline |
|
|
|
active
Joined: Wed, Jul 11, 2007
19 Posts
No Rating |
My company bought this system for the exclusive purpose of rendering, so we typically have it running those images. We all have separate (slower) machines that we generally use for normal Revit modelling. For the few times when I've used our rendering PC for modelling, it runs just fine. I am finding out that using the "best" setting just isn't worth the time. I eventually cancelled one that had been running for 3 days, 19 hours without finishing up. I'm beginning to switch to the customized settings based on "medium" but adjusting anti-aliasing, soft shadows, etc. as seems appropriate for the scene.
|
This user is offline |
|
|
|
Search