Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 12:40 PM
Ignatz,
I was wondering, what do you know about render services?
It seems to me you could design textures and detailing for the ship to your heart's content, if we used an outside service to render it. The pricing doesn't seem bad at all. I'm more than willing to pay for render time in order to get the ship that you envision. I mean, to end up with a fantastic design and set of images at the end? It would be bargain.
Let me know what you think.
-David
Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 5:32 AM
David,
Thank you for the render services suggestion. A friend of mine also uses a render farm for his Blender work and speaks rather highly of it. And you are correct, that does buy a lot of 'bang for the buck'. But I'm sure I can afford that sort of thing if need be.
Allowing for your very kind suggestion it is not yours to be concerned about. As I said in a previous email, I'm not really short on funds, just long on complaint(s) (ha! ha!).
Anyway, the renders go fast enough for purpose at this point - only a few minutes per at max, so I'm just being impatient to be impatient. Perhaps the future would say something else to me. But let me put this into perspective: When I worked on my very first commercial grade computer animation system (way back in 1985) I ran a sample render with ray tracing at one-quarter NTSC broadcast size - an image of a mere 352 x 240 pixels - to determine the feasibility of actually using ray tracing in any of the commercial work turned out by the video post production house where I was employed. That little, tiny render took 2 hours and 40 minutes to complete (!) which would have meant that one, single frame of animation at actual broadcast resolution (704 x 480 pixels) would have required four times as long to complete... making the whole idea of our rendering animation (in-house) using this option absolute financial suicide. Render farms of many computers did exist at the time, but the costs way back when were not inconsiderable, even for a going commercial concern. But I digress.
So, let me put that time issue into perspective by comparing the render time for an image, pixel for pixel, as it did back then. I quickly cobbled together a rough approximation of the test image I did so long ago which was nothing but an array of chrome-surface balls that were reflecting each other and an image wrapped around the universe (what we call an environment map). Today's render of that image was at the now default output size of 1920 x 1080 pixels. This is approximately 6 times the size of the broadcast size from back then... thus being approximately 24 times the size of that long-ago test render. If the render times had not improved, today's quickie render should have taken me 64 hours (!) or roughly two-and-one-half days.
Happily, computers have improved, speeds have improved and that test render took me all of.... 32 seconds.... and that is with a far better software system offering far more complex and nuanced graphic abilities that seem nothing short of miraculous when viewed with my younger eyes from way back in '85. And our space ship renders? With all that complexity? The complete cargo frame with containers and space ship attached renders in something like... 56 seconds... so why the hell am I complaining? Guess I've just become spoiled, dagnabbit!!
But anyway, I'll look into the render services thing just to stay ahead of the wave if required.
I wish you happy writing,
- Ignatz