Playback in a ~3840x2160 viewport in "rendered" mode is perfect (obviously). But here is an even simpler example project: seconddemo.blend My example project provided in the original report is already quite simple: a few Suzannes rotating. After looking further, I think it has less to do with the render engine choice and configuration, and mostly to do with between-frame time, specifically the writing of the output files. Thanks Germano - I hope you have some time to take a closer look at this - IMO this is a significant regression from 2.79. So maybe workbench is extremely low compared with the old OpenGL? It can't be only that because workbench in viewport is faster than in the render animation. not change the times, so the problem must be a problem of render system, it cant be a problem with editor because if you render without any image editor in the screen or viewport the problem is the same.Įdit: The problem is correlated with resolution, because the time to render change with resolution at linear factor. This same scene in 2.79 needs only a few miliseconds.Ĭhanging the format, video or image, or it is 8bit, 16bits, OpenXR, PNG. You can pick a scene with no objects, only a camera, do a workbench render at 4k and time to made any frame will be 0,27 seconds (in my system). Also the editor doesn't respond to user interact at same speed like 2.79 render.īut I think that is a problem of the render system itself. In 2.79 when you render the same scene at 4k with OpenGL it is near to realtime But when you render with 2.80 and workbench, that must to be the replace to OpenGL render, at same resolution it go really slow. After try the test scene that user provide the problem is clear.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |