|
Hi Frank,
Only guessing I'm afraid...
Apart from upgrade the cpu, RAM, etc ... maybe
check the render settings ... if you are using the default "Super High Quality"
or the "Quality Over Speed" then cut the Recursion Depths and Anti-aliasing
Levels and increase the thresholds of both. The results here can be quite rough
depending on your final output.
I have found with some projects that it is faster
to render a rough image to bmp than raytrace within the viewport. You would have
to test that for yourself.
If you can drop one or two light sources then you
will have faster renders. The particular materials you have chosen need to
compute reflections and reflections of reflections etc, except with such small
radii this data will be invisible even though it needs to
processed.
Set "shadows invisible" also set "no shadows" in
the general tab for the object sets but then you might want some shadows cast on
the ground plane so maye select some of the nurb objects only and uncheck
"shadows invisible". With "no shadows" set, the objects dont receive shadows
from other nurb objects and maybe this would not be obvious to anyone looking at
the final image ... test this.
Same for the lights ... have only one light source,
the main one, set to "ray traced shadows" ... in the spec tab of the light
object's property box.
These are all the buttons I play with when checking
a job for shorter render-times and I'm not even sure that my guesses are correct
but anyway, here it is.
Neil Cooke
.
|
- Re: Rendering times and nurbscurve picture ;-) Neil Cooke
- RE: Rendering times and nurbscurve picture ;-) Frank Bueters
- Re: Rendering times and nurbscurve picture ;-) Frank Dodd
- Re: Rendering times and nurbscurve picture ;-) Vesa Meskanen
- Re: Rendering times and nurbscurve picture ;-) Neil Cooke
- RE: Rendering times and nurbscurve picture ;-) Frank Brübach
