Burt |
This is a random test I did today - it may be common knowledge and you may scratch your head and wonder what the heck I'm going on about but hey I made all these screen shots so gotta post them.
I was adding lots of details to a filter via multiple Bombers and it was crawling so I had an idea I wanted to test. I set up the Bomber two different ways. The first 'regular' way I just fed 3 ellipses to the 5 particle slots, and used a Perlin noise for the chance. ![]() and on the second try I fed the 3 ellipses into 3 offset components, then used a Multiblend to feed the result combined images into 1 particle slot (using multiple slots with option 2 renders the exact same image so I imagine they are one of top of the other (hmm... another idea there). ![]() I attached the .ffxml in case you want to verify. I set the parameters of the bomber exactly the same. The result is a rather large image but you can see them side by side. ![]() Not only does the second option, with 4 additional components render substantially faster but to my eye, even the results are 'fuller' and appear to be more random - though logic tells me that shouldn't be the case. (OT: does anyone have a script or some way to compare render times?). Again this may be me excited about nothing but I wanted to add a lot of critters to a coral filter and this second way seems to provide a way without making everything crawl. ffxml file The test was with FF 2.014 Pro. |
|
Posted: February 19, 2013 1:44 am | ||
Skybase
![]() |
Yeup, you can compare render times by enabling "Show elapsed render time" in the options > interface tab.
http://www.filterforge.com/more/help/...tions.html I'm not super technical with this part but there may be caching going on behind the scenes and those do improve render times. *correct me if I'm wrong* |
|
Posted: February 19, 2013 1:59 am | ||
Burt |
Great - thanks! I guess that is a version 3 option have to try it on my laptop tomorrow but just eyeballing it and hitting "Next Variant" as fast as I can I can see a substantial difference.
|
|
Posted: February 19, 2013 2:02 am | ||
Burt |
Well I should have guessed it. I tried this on FF 3.0 on my newer laptop (my desktop is 10 years old) and the rendering time was essentially the same, and very fast, either way. I still like the result for method 2 better - seems more random and 'fuller' but that may just be me trying to hang on to something.
![]() Method 1 on the left, method 2 on the right. ![]() |
|
Posted: February 19, 2013 1:36 pm |
Filter Forge has a thriving, vibrant, knowledgeable user community. Feel free to join us and have fun!
33,719 Registered Users
+8 new in 7 days!
153,546 Posts
+6 new last day!
15,348 Topics
+71 new in year!
41 unregistered users.