TurboCAD Forums

The Ultimate Resource for TurboCAD Knowledge

Register
 
All posts discussing pricing or where to buy TurboCAD will be deleted.

RED technology Questions
Read 6461 times
* October 19, 2009, 05:34:27 AM
(1)Will Redsdk technology be incorporated in the next Version of TC?After reviewing the photo gallery this is some impressive renderings.This would bring whole new photo real appearance to TC.(2)Since most PCs come with integrated graphics will the software accept this type of graphics rather than a graphic card ? instead of shutting down.(3) what type of graphic card is recommend?

http://www.redway3d.com/pages/index.php
« Last Edit: September 24, 2011, 05:34:21 PM by wd »

Logged
Even a mistake may turn out to be the one thing necessary to a worthwhile achievement Henry Ford
If I have ever made any valuable discoveries it has been owing more to patient attention than to any other talent Isaac Newton
I have not failed Ive just found 10,000 ways that won't work Thomas Edison


October 19, 2009, 10:06:37 AM
#1
We are incorporating Redway technology into Turbocad to drastically improve the overall performance of the application.  We are not going away from lightworks, so photo realistic rendering will still be dependent on Ram and processor.  The Redway announcement was very premature we will have any new hardware requirements posted when whatever version Redway will be in is released. 

Logged
Rip Fowler
IMSIDesign LLC


* October 19, 2009, 11:24:27 AM
#2
Our plan is that TurboCAD 17 will include the Redway engine, and barring technical obstacles, we will use it for wireframe and draft render modes.

Redway allows us to make use of more of the processing resources available on a PC and if you have a multi-core CPU, you may be able to see some performance improvement. If you also have a modern graphics card, you may be able to see significant performance improvements. Without a modern graphic card, the performance may be flat or improve somewhat due to some internal optimizations that we have made.

We are currently evaluating a range of ATI's FirePro graphic cards, from the lower end V3750 to the high end V8700 and once we have a more complete picture, I will post the results here.

Initial Results
One of my large 2D test files contains a floorplan of a large hotel complex. On our test machine the existing GDI based wireframe rendering gave me one frame roughly every two seconds (0.5 frames per second) when I zoom or pan the image. Using the same file I get one frame every 25 ms (40 frames per second) using an ATI FirePro V7750 card. The test ran at a resolution of 1680x1050. In this case I got an 80 fold improvement.

With less powerful graphic cards that we have in the office I've seen performance improvements of 10x or more.

Perspective
Even a 10x improvement on .5 frames per second give 5 frames per second and changes TurboCAD from very irritating to use on a large drawing, to something that is very usable for the same drawing.

Disclaimer
These are very preliminary results and they may change as our implementation matures.

Mauritz

Logged


* October 19, 2009, 01:37:16 PM
#3
Redsdk is a C++ programming toolkit dedicated to image visualization. Redsdk renders any kind of 2d draft, real-time 3d image and photo-realistic 3d image using a single integrated API.

Why only DRAFT ? It says it is able to do photo realistic !
Why goiing halfway over the bridge ?
Ain't it more risk to have 2 x render engines in one program - more chrashes as you flip from Draft to Quality etc ?
What will guarrantee this not happening ?
Why one engine on High Tech to LOW RENDER STD which is able to handle the MUCH NEEDED HIGH TECH part on the Quality / Photo Realistic side ?
Gosh - will never understand it - the Lightworks handles the "stupid" stuff" OK not the side what we want or need ??????
Can it not rather done in a 180° think desicive pathway ?

Regards
« Last Edit: October 19, 2009, 01:49:22 PM by triplex »

Logged


* October 19, 2009, 03:11:34 PM
#4
Why only DRAFT ?

There are fundamental differences in the approach to draft rendering and photo realistic rendering (PRR).

In draft rendering you are more interested in the geometry of the object. In PRR you want an image that typically shows the object in its intended environment.

In draft render mode you typically expect interactive graphics, in PRR users are willing to wait a significant amount of time to produce that rendering that is just right.

PRR requires environments, shaders, materials and more. For each of these you need a dedicated editor. It is a massive undertaking.

Redway shines in its abilitities to do interactive work their roadmap includes support for sophisticated shaders.

LightWorks shines in the PRR results that are physically correct,  include support for HDRI, ambient occlusion, IES light sources and many more.

I'm not sure what you mean with 'the Lightworks handles the "stupid" stuff" OK not the side what we want or need'. One of the biggest limitations that we have had with the current version of TurboCAD is the ability to work interactively with files containing a large amount of 2D entities, or 3D wireframes. The Redway implementation is in response to many users experiencing issues navigating large files.

Mauritz

Logged


* October 19, 2009, 03:12:24 PM
#5
Thanks Rip and Mauritz. Forgot to mention I realize its in the preliminary state and if it possible can some side by side comparison screenshots be offer in the forum at your leisure? Or YouTube Video would be helpful.

Thanks
W.D.

Logged
Even a mistake may turn out to be the one thing necessary to a worthwhile achievement Henry Ford
If I have ever made any valuable discoveries it has been owing more to patient attention than to any other talent Isaac Newton
I have not failed Ive just found 10,000 ways that won't work Thomas Edison


* October 20, 2009, 05:03:21 AM
#6
TX Mauritz for replying:

"Stupid stuff" : the draft that Lightworks handles rather not bad, the problem is that the users's wants all in all through the complete spectrum - top to bottom - end. No compromises and willing to pay the price.

I suppose you guys knows best but if I look at "RED" then it can do all and better than Lightworks.

I suppose for IMSI, the problem is to do the "script" totally from "fresh" and do a once for all good job and finish the duck off completely. I suppose finances kills a rather good transitition phase off to a half-bred of what could have been excellence for once and all.

You must remember, the clientiele gets fuzy these days - they want except engineers dwg a good "PPR" with it too. High tech have it's advantages but on designer's it puts another kinda stress. Do not disregard the selling point of a "PPR" for the designer. A well balanced presentation with a PPR can these days means that you wins or lose a contract. So yes, you have your viewpoint, the designers of exceptionally large dwg's have their's. But the designer's have the money that you want - deliver and you will get it.

TC's BIGGEST problem and it looks like it will be so for a loooooooong time to come., their price. It is hopelessly too low for what it can do and with that said I "imply" not enough resources in finances to do a "decent" thing for those looking but not taking on TC because of doiing it always "halfway across the bridge" typo stuff. I believe TC is a bit insecure in the range it is, and need to do that "jump" but ....too scared. Probably a financial / business risk analysis that tells IMSI that.

The thing is that TC can get to the top - it have it - but, but, but - these kinda things kills it off. Anyway TC v16 is a great program all in all.

There is current simple and stupid stuff that can enhance productivety excessively buut for an unknown reason TC just do not adress it - success starts at basics and is always forgotten. If that can be rectified it will be great - that alone will sell TC as an easy to use and productive unit - IMSI underestimate how designer's talk with each other and compare production times. Desicions for buy or disregard is very much on that but I guess in a company nobody want to do the "dog" work anymore.

And get this "write window" to move downwards as you type please - you cannot see at the lower end all the mistakes. Typo of an irritating issue in IMSI!
« Last Edit: October 20, 2009, 05:13:49 AM by triplex »

Logged


* October 20, 2009, 10:20:58 PM
#7
Why only DRAFT ?

There are fundamental differences in the approach to draft rendering and photo realistic rendering (PRR).

In draft rendering you are more interested in the geometry of the object. In PRR you want an image that typically shows the object in its intended environment.

In draft render mode you typically expect interactive graphics, in PRR users are willing to wait a significant amount of time to produce that rendering that is just right.

PRR requires environments, shaders, materials and more. For each of these you need a dedicated editor. It is a massive undertaking.

Redway shines in its abilitities to do interactive work their roadmap includes support for sophisticated shaders.

LightWorks shines in the PRR results that are physically correct,  include support for HDRI, ambient occlusion, IES light sources and many more.

I'm not sure what you mean with 'the Lightworks handles the "stupid" stuff" OK not the side what we want or need'. One of the biggest limitations that we have had with the current version of TurboCAD is the ability to work interactively with files containing a large amount of 2D entities, or 3D wireframes. The Redway implementation is in response to many users experiencing issues navigating large files.

Mauritz

Mauritz:

I sorta agree -- kinda...

Using the PRR to render a Kitchen while using the PRR within Furnituremaker is quite  painful -- a lot of clients would walk away before the 5 minutes is up.

Depends on the use I guess.

But I see you point about making if faster to assess work while you draw.

Logged
WillR
SW:TC 21 Pro Platinum, FM15, 20 Pro Platinum 64 Bit, also V 19.1 64Bit & 32 bit 17.2 and 18.1; Furniture Maker 14 and 10. HW: Vista 64 Ultimate, AMD 1090 (6 core) 8GB memory Plus also an AMD  8 core systemFX


October 20, 2009, 11:09:19 PM
#8
IMHO, I think RedSDK should be implemented fully and Lightworks abandoned 100%. The money saved on Lightworks can go towards RedSDK. I also don't see that resources should be an issue because IMSI is dividing their resources by developing products like DoubleCAD, FloorPlan and TC when in fact all could be integrated into one super program by combining all resources. RedSDK seems like a far better product than Lightworks so I kindly ask Mr. Botha to reconsider full RedSDK implementation.

Logged


January 26, 2010, 02:18:53 PM
#9
It seems, there comes a new generation of renders which work with the GPU.  Please take a look at octane render.

Rudl

Logged


January 26, 2010, 02:27:26 PM
#10
That looks really good. I think that will be the future of rendering. Also I think it will be cheaper in future for upgrading a computer. All we need to change now will be the graphics card. I think I'm going to get it. It doesn't look bad for 99euros.  :)


Logged


* January 26, 2010, 02:42:57 PM
#11
It sounds like IMSI's plans (in this case) are in accord with my needs - thanks!

JoeM

Logged


January 27, 2010, 09:38:29 AM
#12
It seems, there comes a new generation of renders which work with the GPU.  Please take a look at octane render.

Rudl

Do we know that Octane Render will work with TC?   Would we have to export to a certain file format to get it to work, do you think?

I glanced at their website--it sounds interesting.  Exclusive GPU-based rendering (including multiple GPUs).

Logged
Josh T.
meatballrocketry.com
TC Pro 18.2 & Platinum 2016


January 27, 2010, 01:45:44 PM
#13
Octane is a stand alone renderer. Which means you can use any program you want as long as it exports *.obj files. TC does export *.obj files so it should work with it. Download the demo and give it a try. :)

Logged