The issue here is that basically slowdown depends on particular hardware configuration, tile settings and device used to render (GPU/CPU). Meaning, on modern CPU i've noticed around 20% slowdown peak, which is not that bad as 100%. So what i'm trying to say here, is that if we'll provide information "up to 100% slower" it might just scary artists and they wouldn't use the option at all, even though for their configuration slowdown wouldn't be so bad.
What about more neutral (in my opinion): "could lead to significant slowdown"? On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 12:22 AM, Simon Repp <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Renderistas, > > I only recently found out that progressive refinement in Cycles > rendering (which the corresponding checkbox's tooltip describes to be > "somewhat slower" than bucket rendering) in fact can impose performance > penalties of over 100% (aka the same amount of samples takes more than > twice as long to render). > > Now I don't know if this is just a personal flawed interpretation of the > english language on my part, but when reading "somewhat slower" I didn't > realize what I was really in for, and in retrospect I'd rather not > reconstruct how many days my poor laptop spent in excess to render some > projects I did in the past. > > I'd hereby like to propose a change of this tooltip to something less > ambiguous, lest anyone else falls into that same trap that I have - My > proposal for this would be to include actual figures describing the > possible speed penalty that progressive refinement can impose, that is, > something along the lines of "renders [a]% to [b]% slower depending on > the scene", where figures [a] and [b] are ideally derived from real > world data we gather (or already have?) about how much speed penalty > progressive refinement can impose in different scenes. Alternatively, > only stating "up to [x]% slower" would work as well I guess, as the main > point is to make people aware that it _can_ possibly affect render times > _significantly_. > > If the proposal to include figures is not agreeable for some reason, I > would at least ask for a more indicative wording than "somewhat slower", > which even after consulting multiple dictionaries I'm not sure if there > is an official interpretation for. (One dictionary suggests "quite" as a > synoym, another "slightly" ...) I'd still prefer the figures though, no > one looks up terms in the dictionary while using Blender and I am > probably not the worst offender at massacring and misunderstanding the > english language in the Blender community, and it doesn't get less > ambiguous than numbers anyway, so I say we use them here? :) > > Best, > Simon > _______________________________________________ > Bf-committers mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers > -- With best regards, Sergey Sharybin _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
