- Jun 13, 2022
- 215
- 47
like i have set render quality to 2.0 but still looking grainy slightly.best setting for making a game mmm....
you need to find your own settings based on your skills and knowledge every systems are different
my setting might work me but it might not work for you
Lol, Daz. Their render settings documentation's been a stub for seven years but they finally decide to put useful info into a fucking blog post. I guess maybe the sale of shitty overpriced tutorials waned to the point where they decided they should maybe explain a few things. Just not, you know, in the place where they're supposed to explain things.But to help you a little.You must be registered to see the links. That might give some guidance as well.
dammm you going big for 4090 you sure going to be fast af in renderingPlease tell what numbers I should change the below settings for best quality without compromising too much on efficiency. I have a 4090 so I am willing to not cut corners for the renders of my game,
View attachment 2233151
Depends even a 4090 can be overwhelmed if you try just a littledammm you going big for 4090 you sure going to be fast af in rendering
I think he can render faster than me with my fried 2070 super tho whats yours ?Depends even a 4090 can be overwhelmed if you try just a little
-1 is around 21 bounces.A value of -1 is programmer-speak for "keep iterating", but I think practically it's capped at 1024
Man, I don't have anything even close to a 4090 and yet I know that the question you just asked is alike to "Dad, can you explain women to me?"Please tell what numbers I should change the below settings for best quality without compromising too much on efficiency. I have a 4090 so I am willing to not cut corners for the renders of my game,
View attachment 2233151
I did a scene with two characters and a house at 4k(bunch of lights included) with max samples and time maxed out. Quality set at 1 and it took me an hour. At first when I did it the render looked grainy but with this setting above, it looked way better.Man, I don't have anything even close to a 4090 and yet I know that the question you just asked is alike to "Dad, can you explain women to me?"
There are no "best settings" .. at least not in such a broad context as you are implying here. Like the others have said above, the best thing to do is to learn what each of those settings in DAZ are actually for and, TBH, for most of us here doing porn games, a lot of them are best left at default.
Heck, I have had renders done at 250 iterations that looks 10X better than ones that had 3000 samples. Every scene is different. And, IMO at least, proper lighting is near the top of the list of things you need to get right, way before messing with the deep core DAZ settings.
The thing I always told my apprentices is to learn how to do it right first, then you can get faster and learn tricks and shortcuts. Starting with the tricks and shortcuts is just building on a crappy foundation that can crumble under you.
That's impressive.Number of figures doesn't really matter (it's marginal), camera range does.
Mid range shot with few surface tweak (mostly keeping specularity in check), knowing what you do (section planes/correct lightning) :
On a 2080, I had ~15min on average per 1080 render
On a 3090, ~12min average per 4k render
You can absolutely go sub 10min but you need to sarcifice something. It's old result tho I havn't benchmarked in a while.
edit :
This is what I mean by mid range, little less than 9min on a 2080. Not the best render but hey.
View attachment 2237117
I'm going to assume a bit of dyslexia creeped in there or you have some radical future tech in your 6030!This is done on a AMD 5 something... with RTX 6030.
3060... i wish.. must have been the parallel universe. String theory and all.I'm going to assume a bit of dyslexia creeped in there or you have some radical future tech in your 6030!
Thanks o/ It's the good part to have started with an old 1060, you need to find a way. All in all, iterations per seconds is the only metric that count whatever method you use. Imho cranking convergence to 100% do more harm than good (iirc I always stuck to 95%/98%, 0 time, 999999 max samples). I deal with "hard" noise/unconverged px pool with slight surfaces tweaking and lightning. Iray cam/sections planes bring an early "exit-to-the-void" to most of light bounces, giving an absurd number of iterations/sec (turn off guided sampling if you use that method).That's impressive.
Considering the time rendered.
Would be a pass to me.
I did a scene and it takes about 30 minutes. Though i cranked up to 7000 samples and went full convergence. There are some additional lights but the camera of course. The closer you get to the figure the longer it takes. Details i suppose.
This is my shot. I think its good but what do i know.
This is done on a AMD 5 something... with RTX 6030.
Agree.Thanks o/ It's the good part to have started with an old 1060, you need to find a way. All in all, iterations per seconds is the only metric that count whatever method you use. Imho cranking convergence to 100% do more harm than good (iirc I always stuck to 95%/98%, 0 time, 999999 max samples). I deal with "hard" noise/unconverged px pool with slight surfaces tweaking and lightning. Iray cam/sections planes bring an early "exit-to-the-void" to most of light bounces, giving an absurd number of iterations/sec (turn off guided sampling if you use that method).
Agree.
I was checking for an iray cam and found this one which is even free.
mickydoo share it here Iray Cam
Which can be found hereYou must be registered to see the links
It cut indeed the render times in half.
Yeah, never used guided sampling. I use more or less standard settings. The only thing i had changed was samples, which i cranked up to avoid the convergence to not reach 95% which can happen.
So that is it then. I like it.
p.s. i just realize now that it will cut off everything. I forgot that part.
It would be great if it had planes that hide everything else. I will try to make one and parent it to the camera. That way, you won't have to put planes around. Unless you use a scene in the environment.
I just did a test and it appears that the lights that are emitted through the lamps are different in some form when applied in the environment setting. Or its something else.
Anyway, this is still the best way to cut time when rendering. And on the cheap, i may add.