I have prepared a tutorial (for TC Platinum v19 only) and ePack file describing a procedure. I hope that helps.
If you would like to answer for some questions. If I know ...   

Majo

EDIT: Add new test  ePack file for TC Pro 2017 and higher - I tried set up materials as in old drawing (the wood texture is changed, I can not find original texture from old drawing)

I have prepared a tutorial (for TC Platinum v19 only) and ePack file describing a procedure. I hope that helps.
If you would like to answer for some questions. If I know ...   

Majo

next attachment

Thanks Majo!

Thanks for the tutorials. Much needed on my end.

How can I open the Red files?

Rudl

You can download the zip file right click windows can open it.Than open the files in v19.2.I don't see a way to open red files

How can I open the Red files?

Rudl

Hi,

The Red files Material You can´t open, only edit / modify over RedSDK Editor for materials.
See the attachment.

Majo

I tried to make the first step of your tutorial, but with right click on the material, the Redsdk Editor is grey.

I tried to make the first step of your tutorial, but with right click on the material, the Redsdk Editor is grey.

1. download attachment "Tutorial_render scene with RedSDK.zip" and unzip this file
2. in the directory you must have 5 files - one .tcw and four .red ( not leave the file. tcw from this folder )
3. open the file "Tutorial_render_with_RedSDK.tcw" in TurboCAD v19 or v20
4. now you have in "materials palette" -> in category Tutorial_render_RedSDK four materials Red
( you can also select for example the door -> right mouse click over the materials palette and select -> Find Material of Selection )
5. now you can edit/modify .red materials

If you can create new RED materials, you see this link -> https://turbocaddoc.atlassian.net/wiki/display/TC19UG/Creating+RedSDK+Materials

I try this file testing on three PC's in the TurboCAD v19 too v20 and they work OK.

Majo

Majo
Thanks for taking the time to making these tutorials quite beneficial.

much appreciated

w.d.

Majo
Thanks for taking the time to making these tutorials quite beneficial.

much appreciated

w.d.

You're welcome

Majo, thanks for the tutorials.

I have prepared a tutorial (for TC Platinum v19 only) and ePack file describing a procedure. I hope that helps.
If you would like to answer for some questions. If I know ...   

Majo

Hi Majo,

Thanks for the tutorial. A good cabinet should not stand idle. It is perfect for storing a variety of items. I could not resist and decided to try a glass, self-recursion and other interesting effects  

Vlad

Hello Majo,

I have not been able to figure out how to open the .red files in your zip package. I would appreciate your help.

paradisca1

Pls ignore my last question. I did not read far enough.
paradisca1

Many Thanks Majo!

This is the closest to a rendering benchmark discussion as I have found on this forum (because two people said how long it took), so I opened the file in TCPro Platinum 21 and saved it as a JPG on my system to see what I'd get.

My system (old and about to be replaced) is as follows:
CPU: i5-2500K @ 3.30GHz (quad core, if anyone is interested)
RAM: 2GB
Video Card: GeForce 7600GS
System Drive: Samsung SSD 840 120G
Windows 7 Pro (32-bit)
Motherboard: ASUS P8P67

I verified that the RedSDK settings were identical, selected View_1 (which is slightly different from what Majo posted) and got the following in 291 seconds.

Oh, yeah... the time is for rendering to the saved file (which was specified to be the same dimensions as the one Majo posted), not the generation of the render in the window (I used a small window to minimize that rendering time, which is not included in the total).


Jeff

Jeff,

I built this computer just over two years ago and it's been great for the work I do. Multi-threading is such a blessing. Do you remember the days when it was nearly impossible to stop a rendering you had started in TC without closing down the program? The 64-bit version has put an end to "out of memory" errors as well.

TC Version: TC Pro Platinum 21.2

Render Time: 91 seconds

CPU: Core i7-3930K CPU @ 4.20GHz (6 core with 12 processing threads)
RAM: 32GB 1333 DDR3
Video Card: FirePro V5900
System Drive: Crucial M4 256GB SATA III SSD
Windows 7 Pro (64-bit)
Motherboard: BIOSTAR TPOWER X79

Hi,

I tested too and my result is (TC Version: TC Pro Platinum 21.2, resolution 805x786)

Render Time: 124 seconds if I did render with the assistance QualityRender,
but if I did render with the assistance Render Style - Global Ilumination with HDR and The Time is 88 seconds

CPU: Core i7-4770 CPU @ 3.40GHz (4 core with 8 processing threads)
RAM: 16GB DDR3
Video Card: Nvidia GeForce GTX 760
Windows 8.1 (64-bit)

Majo

I have a new system (i7-5820K with 16GB and a GTX 970).  Haven't played around with Overclocking, yet, so this is a 'stock' system.

With the same settings (View_1, Quality Rendering, Global Illumination Fine setting and an 805 x 768 image size), my new time is 81 seconds to create a JPG.

When I set Advanced Mode with Global Illumination Fine Tone HDR, it saved in 59 seconds.

I should point out that I received a warning that the RedSDK drivers have not been modified for the GTX 970 video card (it's too new), so a 'generic' driver was used, so performance may increase in the future.

****** Added Text ******
Did a bit of math and noticed that the vastly improved graphics card didn't contribute that much to my improved timing.  The decrease in processing time, if only due to the increase in the number of cores over my original system (12 cores vs 4 cores, both @ 3.3 GHz), would have resulted in 97 seconds.

My actual time of 81 seconds is a further 16% reduction, but at a cost of 229% over the original graphics card.  On the other hand, my new processor was actually cheaper than the one it replaced.

CORRECTION: I have since noticed that TurboCAD Pro Platinum V21 does not make significant use of hyperthreading, with most of the rendering taking place in 1 of the 12 processor cores.  As my new cpu has the same clock speed as my previous system's cpu, that means the ~3.6x improvement in rendering speed is due entirely to my graphics card.

****** End of Added Text ******


CPU: Core i7-5820K @ 3.3 GHz (6 core with 12 processing threads)
RAM: 16 GB DDR4-2133
Video Card: Gigabyte GTX 970
Windows 7 Pro (64-bit) SP1


Jeff

Jeff


As I understand it RedSDK utilises the GPU/CPU for the GI phases. The raytracing final phase is handled by the CPU only.

I could be corrected though...

I upgraded to TurboCAD 2015 yesterday and just re-ran Majo's tutorial to get a new benchmark.

I am pleased to note that Windows Performance Monitor shows that all 12 cores ran at 100% (after some spotty startup) and my new result is now 33 seconds.

This is 2.45 times faster than 64-bit V21 with the same hardware (aka a 59.3% reduction).

Way to go, IMSI (and RedSDK, which is probably supporting my new video card directly instead of generically).


Jeff

      I too ran the tutorial in TC 2015, to explore whether or not I should upgrade my system.
      I didn't make any changes to the materials, just loaded the drawing, adjusted the view, and used Red SDK Advanced Render, Quality, Global Illumination Fine Tone HDR. My on screen resolution is 1920 x 1080, render time was 67 seconds. If I saved to  805 x 768 JPEG, the time was 19 seconds. This was the total time going from wireframe to Advanced Render. How can that be? I didn't think my 2 year old system would result in those times.
     I monitored my CPU and verified that all 8 threads were at 100%. The GPU load top out at 80% during the ray tracing sequence. One thing I noticed is that when using Quality Render, Global Ill. Fine, my time was about the same. During this render, TC reports 8 threads. The same thing happens in Adv. Render, Global Ill. Fine Tone HDR, but TC reports 2048 threads(!?).
     I tried doing the same with Anti Aliasing set midway to 4x. It didn't seem to affect the times in Quality Render, but would
not render with Advanced Render.
     Bottom line is I'll stay with what I have. I don't do much in the way of rendering anyway.

To get consistent times, I am only counting the time to save to JPEG (805x768 @ 100% quality setting).  Rendering to a full-screen window on a 1920x1200 screen takes a bit longer (43 seconds), but everybody can run different window sizes (my video card supports Ultra HD, just at a slower frame rate), so that is not a good basis for comparison.

I think your advantage is that your video card (GTX 660) is well-supported by RedSDK.  My GTX 970 may not be completely supported, yet.  The 2048 threads you saw listed are probably the CUDA cores in your graphics card (I see the same number).


Jeff

   Jeff, I think I was mistakenly comparing my times in TC 2015 to your times in TC v21.  But I see your times improved greatly with and upgrade to TC 2015. This is probably due to the use of Hyper Threading and an improved Red SDK engine.
   Now I realize that a difference of 34 seconds for this tutorial may not seem like a big deal, but a 50% reduction in render times for large drawings will be a significant improvement. I imagine those who have render times in the hours may have a different view on upgrading their systems.
   Later, as time permits, I will run the tutorial with TC v20 Plat to compare times with TC 2015 on my PC. This should verify what you stated about TC v21 to TC 2015.

  The 2048 threads you saw listed are probably the CUDA cores in your graphics card (I see the same number).

   This is probably true, but the GTX 660 has only 960 CUDA cores, so I think the number reported is some multiple of that or erroneous.

I have re-done the benchmarks with Pro Platinum 2017.

The results are different than I expected.  Earlier, it seemed apparent that 2017 made the leap to using the CPU under Quality renders and the GPU when choosing the Advanced renders, but observation of the CPU and GPU did not reveal any differences, and the render times were identical for the same type of render.

As before, I am only counting the time to save to JPEG (805x768 @ 100% quality setting) so that we can all get comparable timing.

Sure seems odd that 2015 provided results slightly more than half the time (33 seconds instead of 60 in 2017).  I wonder what the explanation for this is (did I make a mistake?).


Jeff

Jeff,

Tomorrow I will look on it detailed. I mean that in last version RedSDK 4.2 are bigger changes (mainly in the materials) opposite previous version.
The base file is very, "very", "VERY" old! 

Maybe is time for "new" version 

In the first post is new file for the testing since TC 2017

link to the ePack file -> http://forums.turbocad.com/index.php/topic,8615.msg49989.html#msg49989

And around the Render Times and comparison with olders versions.
I have a clue that in version TC 2016 was changed preset values for Qualuty Renders Fine and Standard.

Thanks,Majo  beautiful work

I needed to adjust exposer in (ARS Default-Majo) TM to get nice ground.


  My speed tests don't compare to all you users with super duper rigs but it does work.
It's like an old boat that still floats 

Fantastic! Thanks Majo!!

Great update Majo...

My test:
View = Det_1 (Hinge Closeup)
Render Style = Advanced - Default_Majo_HQ
Save as PNG/Setup/Output Range = View, Save with current render/Use Render = ticked
Size of Rectangle (Logical pixels) = 800 high x 800 Width
Tile Area (HeightxWidth) = 4
Palette/Bits Per Pixel = 24

Rendertime = 880 Seconds

I dont touch anything, view etc, just "out of the Box" and render

Size window 1383 x 799 px
Q, GI Standard = 19 sec
A, Default_Majo = 69 sec
A, Default_MajoHQ = 162 sec

Torfinn

Setting like Darrel's = 499 sec

Torfinn

As always, I timed a Save As to an 805x768 JPG.

Quality, GI Fine: 54 seconds
Advanced, GI Fine: 54 seconds (puzzling, as there were differences in GPU-Z's Sensor page display)
Advanced, GI Fine HDR: 59 seconds

Quality, GI Standard: 12 seconds (significantly less computation time and a barely different result)

Still, a lot longer than 2015.


Jeff

TurboCAD 2017 @ maximized screen
(3840×2160 pixels, rendering area 3274×1739)

View_1
Quality RedSDK, Global Illumination Fine = 83s
Advanced RedSDK, Default Majo HQ = 157s

Det_1
Advanced RedSDK, Default Majo HQ = 558s
Save As PNG — 800×800 pixels = 94s
Save As PNG — 8000×8000 pixels = 7028s

My 2 bits

TurboCAD 2017 @ maximized screen
(3840×2160 pixels, rendering area 3274×1739)

View_1
Quality RedSDK, Global Illumination Fine = 83s
Advanced RedSDK, Default Majo HQ = 157s

Det_1
Advanced RedSDK, Default Majo HQ = 558s
Save As PNG — 800×800 pixels = 94s
Save As PNG — 8000×8000 pixels = 7028s

My 2 bits

John,
Please, Can you post Det_1 -> Save As PNG — 8000×8000 pixels = 7028s?
Thanks, Majo

Here are the three images zipped up and placed in Dropbox. 16MB won't make it here.    Tutorial_render_with_RedSDK_v2017.zip

Here's an picture of a section from all three, showing the differences when I push the smaller two to match the big one. It's best to view this in a new browser Tab.

Here are the three images zipped up and placed in Dropbox. 16MB won't make it here.    Tutorial_render_with_RedSDK_v2017.zip

Here's an picture of a section from all three, showing the differences when I push the smaller two to match the big one. It's best to view this in a new browser Tab.

Many thanks John!

Det_1
Advanced RedSDK, Default Majo HQ = 558s
Save As PNG — 800×800 pixels = 94s
Save As PNG — 8000×8000 pixels = 7028s

My 2 bits

I'm jealous of your system.  My time to save the 8000x8000 PNG was 17,061 seconds (run overnight).  That's 4.74 hours for those of you who were inclined to pull out a calculator.


Jeff

Quote from: John R on June 10, 2017, 10:18:34 PM

Det_1
Advanced RedSDK, Default Majo HQ = 558s
Save As PNG — 800×800 pixels = 94s
Save As PNG — 8000×8000 pixels = 7028s

My 2 bits

I'm jealous of your system.  My time to save the 8000x8000 PNG was 17,061 seconds (run overnight).  That's 4.74 hours for those of you who were inclined to pull out a calculator.


Jeff

Nothing all that great, other than being a dual-processor this time around.

System Summary
OS Name   Microsoft Windows 10 Pro
System Manufacturer   Dell Inc.
System Model   Precision Tower 7910
System Type   x64-based PC
Processor   Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2650 v4 @ 2.20GHz, 2201 Mhz, 12 Core(s), 24 Logical Processor(s)
Processor   Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2650 v4 @ 2.20GHz, 2201 Mhz, 12 Core(s), 24 Logical Processor(s)
Installed Physical Memory (RAM)   64 GB

Display
twin Dell 2715Q monitors

Name:   NVIDIA Quadro M2000
RAM:         4GB
Resolution   3840 x 2160 x 59 hertz
Bits/Pixel   32

Nothing all that great, other than being a dual-processor this time around.

System Summary
Processor   Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2650 v4 @ 2.20GHz, 2201 Mhz, 12 Core(s), 24 Logical Processor(s)
Processor   Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2650 v4 @ 2.20GHz, 2201 Mhz, 12 Core(s), 24 Logical Processor(s)
Installed Physical Memory (RAM)   64 GB

Name:   NVIDIA Quadro M2000

I see three distinct advantages:
1) 48 logical processors vs my 12
2) 64 GB RAM vs my 16 (borderline... I don't think I used up all system RAM on these renders)
3) Quadro M2000 vs my GTX 970


Jeff

I did two 8000 x 8000 renders and there is one significant difference in the result (attached are miniaturized detail shots).  The GI Fine image took 17,061 seconds while the GI Standard took 2,277 seconds.

The GI Standard image is darker than the GI Fine.  What explains this?

I don't see any other significant differences, other than the 87% reduction in processing time.


Jeff

re: …The GI Standard image is darker than the GI Fine.  What explains this?

I suspect that RedSDK GI Standard doesn't use many of the options that GI Fine does. I'm sure Marian or Darrel could elaborate on why this occurs. I like LightWorks.

RedSDK should really be used with the "Live" tone mapping controls which are only available in the Advanced Render Styles. I never use the Quality render styles for final renders as we have no control over the render once it's complete.

GI Standard in has less GI calculations, Rays fired, light samples etc. than GI Fine.

Sometimes we need to do "The Switch". 

RedSDK should really be used with the "Live" tone mapping controls which are only available in the Advanced Render Styles. I never use the Quality render styles for final renders as we have no control over the render once it's complete.

GI Standard in has less GI calculations, Rays fired, light samples etc. than GI Fine.

Sometimes we need to do "The Switch". 

Daz,  or Majo
why does the wood material appear blurry in Majo's (a little) redsdkk render and especially Jeff's. I mean, I see this often in redsk, there's like a "haze" of something. I become more aware of it when I use and compare it to lightworks. I understand that you really can't compare the two render engines, just wondering if you see it as well and that it's standard in redsdk. Redstuff is high quality,especially with metals and glass but I can't shake that 'hazy feeling" 

Dean, can you post the wood material setting for Lightworks? Thanks

And I know that the Wood Texture is not "in the best" quality for detail like this.

Dean

Had a play with using the Sky Shaders to get more light in the renders.

Used tone mapping to get this.
Like Majo says the wood texture is quite blocky for the close up (see second attachment showing the actual texture at a similar zoom level and the close up_

Dean, can you post the wood material setting for Lightworks? Thanks

And I know that the Wood Texture is not "in the best" quality for detail like this.

Majo, see attachments
I used your "wood jpg".
Wrapped filter image_color 240,230,208
Phong reflectance
St layout

Daz,
   That looks better. 
Majo, being that this is a redsdk  'Tutorial" maybe a high quality image should be supplied.

> as always  thanks for sharing your knowledge.

At the request of Jeff, I gave the file in the first post a try.

• Quality Render RedSDK GIF — 79s
• Advanced Render RedSDK GIF HDR— 143s
• Advanced Render RedSDK Majo_HQ — 130s

Rendered at full resolution; 3840×2160.

• Hardware vendor: NVIDIA Corporation
• Renderer: Quadro M2000/PCIe/SSE2
• GPU chipset: nVidia G400
• Driver version: NVIDIA Forceware 385.41
• OpenGL version: 4.5.0 NVIDIA 385.41

That's considerably faster than with my GTX 970. 

Quality Render GIF — 376s
Advanced Render Majo_HQ — 634s

I don't have the same size monitor, so I rendered a smaller image on screen and then Save(d) As to PNG (with the larger resolution specified in Setup) to get the resolution that John R generated.  I can imagine that, if he had saved to the resolution that Majo used in his original images (800x800), he would have been done in a very few seconds.

John is the first with a Quadro card to post a benchmark here, but it's enough to make me consider one for my next system build.


Jeff