bucket-based RT?

[super gnu]

ok, probably going against the tide here, but would a bucket based RT renderer be able to handle higher poly scenes? im thinking specifically about dynamic geometry here, fe. displacement, you have to generate the whole mesh on the cpu and load it onto the gpu in one go. this is inefficient and limits the displacement detail.. if the rendering was tiled, or bucket based, the gpu could render one chunk while the cpu was generating the mesh for the next and so on.

same goes for proxies. at the moment the whole proxy is loaded before the gpu starts, so you get no memory benefit from the proxy system.

[savage309]

What you say could work if there was no GI.
The only potential benefit from the buckets is that the network traffic with DR could be possibly reduced.

[super gnu]

so am i wrong in thinking vray adv. generates the displacecment per-bucket? and loads parts of a proxy as they are needed? i can certainly render much finer or larger areas of displacement using 12gb ram on my cpu as opposed to 12gb on my titan x.

[3LP]

Interesting, I also heard about Vray only loading what it needed but never really understood how this would work with part of the image relaying on geometry outside the buckets or the direct viewing angle, IE : reflection/refraction
So I always assumed it loaded the whole scene

edit : by the way, I asked for bucket rendering in RT last year but no luck yet
http://forums.chaosgroup.com/showthr...ghlight=bucket

Stan

[LudvikKoutny]

AFAIK RT in Vray RT name means real-time. Vray RT is supposed to be interactive rendering experience with real-time feedback, therefore i don't think it makes much sense to have buckets in RT. Yes, one of the benefits of using bucket rendering is ability to load and unload parts of scene on demand, but that would obviously kill any chances of interaction with scene in real time. Sure you can see some of the interactive renderers using bucket, such as ClarisseIFX renderer or Arnold, but those are progressive buckets. They run around the screen so fast that loading and unloading parts of scene at such pace is probably not possible at all. The reason those interactive renderers use buckets to render frame is probably just because it's simpler to execute adaptivity.

[savage309]

V-Ray Adv. loads the resources on the fly and when those are needed.
This approach is not applicable for GPU rendering. You can load on the fly stuff on the GPU, for sure, but because of the GI rays at some point you will need all resources.
Waiting the CPU to prepare data (and probably load it from a disk), send it over PCIe, etc is just a lot of latency, that the GPU multithreading won't be able to hide and it won't be efficient.

[wyszolmirski]

@savage309: How do you see Pascal GPUs and NVLink ? Could faster communication open up some development paths ?

Best,

[savage309]

@savage309: How do you see Pascal GPUs and NVLink ? Could faster communication open up some development paths ?

Best,

In theory it could. But whatever I say would be guessing until we have the chance to test them and see how it works for our needs.

[oophus]

Isnt the Redshift3D renderer doing this? Would love to see the speed of that renderer brought into Vray RT in some way.

[3LP]

AFAIK RT in Vray RT name means real-time. Vray RT is supposed to be interactive rendering experience with real-time feedback, therefore i don't think it makes much sense to have buckets in RT. Yes, one of the benefits of using bucket rendering is ability to load and unload parts of scene on demand, but that would obviously kill any chances of interaction with scene in real time. Sure you can see some of the interactive renderers using bucket, such as ClarisseIFX renderer or Arnold, but those are progressive buckets. They run around the screen so fast that loading and unloading parts of scene at such pace is probably not possible at all. The reason those interactive renderers use buckets to render frame is probably just because it's simpler to execute adaptivity.

I agree to some extend.
The name RT has been released like 6 years ago when the initial wish was to get a real time active shade renderer.
Now, specially with GPU, RT can be used as production renderer pushing all the "real-time" world to the side.
For the GPU, it's even more important as RT is the ONLY way to get GPU rendering with Vray.
That being said, this raise the question : is it still exactly the same purpose as 6 years ago?

If not, well, then things changes and evolve with the growth of the baby and so does the boundaries that where laid down initially.

For me, bucket rendering has a huge advantage in what I see visually when working.
I love to be able to see the "final" noise I entered in the settings and be able to lay down few buckets here and there in portion of the image (using mouse track) while I'm working on something else. When I come back, push few buckets here and there again, etc
I have the true final noise I would have for my renders, and this is really important for me.

This can't be done in progressive

On a side note, bucket rendering is sexy

Stan