It would be very useful for recreating scenery and exteriors. In my case, I am dedicated to the recreation of soccer stadiums and formula 1 circuits. It would be very useful.

Capturing the location to place my models in the middle.

Not being able to see them up close would greatly reduce production time.

Hi Kirgman.

Are you contemplating the possibility of incorporating Gaussian splatting in future versions of Centileo?

Quote

Kirgman wrote: jiv21 , hi! I have fixed the slowdown, now the new version is even slightly faster on your scene. The issue was in the fact that you configured the stadium scenes with many collections of Mograph multi-instances. In 0.68 they were built as a single union collection. In earlier 0.69 they were built separately because of new shader flexibility. Now the flexibility and performance considerations are combined efficiently. Thanks to your bugreport the renderer has become even better! Thank you very much! Btw, this is Juventus stadium. But I want to say Forza Inter! I am fan of Inter for 26 years already.

What good news.

Thanks for the explanation. I'm not a programmer, but I remember commenting that maybe that was the problem.

I work with several 3d software packages and render engines and in the end one encounters many issues that tends to narrow down where the problem could be

You are right. It is the juventus stadium “Allianz Stadium”.

I hope that sooner rather than later juventus will come back to delight us with the successes of the past.

Thanks again.

Mail sent. Good luck with the scene and I hope it doesn't take too much of your time to find the problem.

On another hand, I would appreciate it if you do not share or make the scene public.

Apologies for the wrong file name.

Hi Kirgman.

I have already adapted the scene by removing my tool and eliminating everything that can reduce the size of the scene but it doesn't eliminate the problem.

I have removed all unused materials, alembics, Xpresso, user data, etc.

Still the loss of performance is still occurring. The time is 1.25 in Centile 0.680 and 2.26 in Centile 0.697.

Although the images show a different time (1.45/2.48) the difference is still 1 minute.

As soon as you provide me with a contact email I will send you a link to download the scene.

I am using cinema4D 2024.5. If you use version 2025.0.1 you will get an error because one of the components of version 2024.5 is no longer in 2025.0.1. You must delete it or else it will not let you save any changes you make in the scene.

Hi kirgman.

The scenes are very large because they use recurring resources such as seats, trees and HD animated characters, and the project can reach 60GB.

On the other hand, it has an integrated tool for the creation of stadiums that I have been developing for a year and a half. So in order to send it to you, I would have to remove the whole part of the tool. Then I would remove all the characters to check if the loss of performance is still occurring and thus do not create a project so large to send it.

I beg your patience because right now I am closing a project and the number of hours I dedicate daily does not leave me time for anything else.

What I can tell you is that I make an intensive use of cloners in all its modalities. Instance, render instance and multi instance. In case you have any idea.

I usually use normal maps. I do not usually use relief maps and on rare occasions displacement maps.

As soon as I have some time available I will send you a scene.

Thank you for the clarifications.

Attached is the Centileo configuration.

Thanks again Kirgman.

I am quite busy at the moment finalizing a project. But as soon as I have a moment, I'll check a scene for you to study it.

Comment that the performance problem has been reproduced in each and every one of the scenes I have created. So that is the reason for my first question in the forum. If I had detected that it only affected one scene, I would have thought about it before publishing in the forum (sowing the doubt).

I respect your work very much.

Hi Kirgman.

Thanks for your quick interest.

While it is true that the render quality improves in 0.697 with respect to 0.680, I leave you some sample images in which the loss of performance (in some cases) reaches twice the time.

I noticed the performance loss immediately with version 0.690 and the situation has been repeated in all intermediate versions up to 0.697.

I also observed some time ago that when exceeding the resolution of 4000X2000, not always, but it can be the case that the engine makes errors in part of the image. At the moment, it always happens on the right side.

In my case I have to render about 50,000 images on average.

Therefore the importance of what I am saying. A difference of 5 seconds between one version and another, implies almost 70 hours more rendering time.

It is an eventuality (relatively assumable) but above that ....

I'm sorry I can't share the scenes so you can investigate it.

In the name of each image you will find the resolution and the Centileo version used.

The computer configuration is:

AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D
Nvidia RTX 4090
128 GB DDR5 at 6,400Mhz running at 3,600Mhz
MB MPG X670E CARBON WIFI

I have another station of similar characteristics with the same results.

I would like to know the experience of other users if the same thing happens to them as to me.

From version 0.680 onwards I have experienced a considerable performance drop of around 30% in render speed and in some scenarios even 40%.

Forcing me to give up the following versions since the speed/quality ratio was the main virtue for which I chose Centileo for my projects. And with this loss it is no longer an attractive option in favor of other options.

Is the same thing happening to you?

On the part of the creators of Centileo, any explanation that justifies it?

Thanks in advance.