Computer not fast enough, Vray + Sketchup
-
Hi all,
First ever forum post so apologies if this is a stupid Q;
Have been asked by a client to render an image at 300DPI to be printed 4m wide by 2.5m High. with my current computer spec I will be grey and old before this renders (im 28)
Im using vray 1.49 for sketchup pro 8 computer spec as follows;
-Gigabyte GA-B75-D3V Socket 1155 VGA DVI 8 Channel Audio ATX Motherboard
-XFX HD 7850 Core Edition 2GB GDDR5 Dual DVI HDMI Dual DisplayPort PCI-E Graphics Card
-Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium w/SP1
-Intel Core i7 3770 3.4GHz Socket 1155 8MB Cache Retail Boxed Processor
-HGST Deskstar 1TB Hard Drive SATAII 7200rpm 32MB Cache - OEM (for storage and files)
-SanDisk 128GB Pulse SSD - 2.5" SATA-III - Read 490MB/s Write 380MB/s (for programs)
-Corsair 16GB (2x8GB) Ddr3 1600mhz Vengeance Memory KitI need to severely upgrade mu PC and am willing to pay 1k+ if it dramatically improves performance.
Thanks in advance
-
I don't know Vray but maybe you can use a render farm for this big project?
-
I have considered this but ideally wanted a longer term solution. Final render times at around 4000x3000 have taken up to 2 1/2 days depending on reflections and displacement amount.
-
Hello Luca and welcome to the forum.
Your PC spec is well up to the job, it's solely down to the displacement! turn this off and see the difference. Do you need displacement? will bump or PP do.
John -
@l-maldacea said:
Hi all,
...
Have been asked by a client to render an image at 300DPI to be printed 4m wide by 2.5m High.
@unknownuser said:
Final render times at around 4000x3000 have taken up to 2 1/2 days depending on reflections and displacement amount.
Hi Luca, welcome!
1st off - I quite agree with the points above - your computer is fine, and forget displacement if you are trying to render very high resolution. If you use saved GI maps, you could make it work - however they only work properly in vray for sketchup 2.0 (saved irradiance map is broken in 1.49)
2nd - consider the resolution as a suggestion. Nobody renders a 4m final output at 300dpi. (47,000 pixels wide!) That's just insane and totally wasteful. you could easily do 60 or 70 ppi, and if your client is a stickler - you can just upscale the image to whatever they need. No one is going up to an image like that with a magnifying glass... You could easily render about 6000 pixels on the long size, upscale to about 10000 and that should be plenty.
-
Can you give more info, why that size and resolution? I cannot think of anything that size and resolution, and I do bill board renders for building sites and banners on buildings, you may need to rethink your sizes friend.
-
I can just picture the scene....
Client on the phone every 30mins screaming for his render...
Your sat there for 52hrs watching this render, eyes like pi** holes in the snow thinking only a few hours and it will be finished...
Wife down stairs messing in the kitchen, pokes her tongue in the toaster, blows the electric and your up shit creek without a paddle me old son.......
moral of the story...keep the wife away from the toaster.
John
-
(this may appear twice)
OK so general consensus is this client is asking for something impracticable.
I think the best option is to render at 72dpi for those dims then up-scale as suggested and re sizing to 300dpi in-case the printer picks up on it.
Slightly concerned im giving them a valid reason not to pay...
On a slightly different note a few of you have suggested omitting displacement on hi-res renders. Something i find to significantly add to the realism of a render is the 'jagged edges' or at least not smooth, flat kirb edges and stone. I appreciate chamfering all the edges in SU prior to rendering would solve this to an extent but it seems a mammoth job..?!
Advertisement