Loading...
> >

IRAY Render Issue

MaverickMaverick Posts: 16
in Daz Studio Discussion

Hello everybody

I run into a problem, I can't explain. I'm working with DAZ-Studio 4.15.0.30 and I rendered an Object in IRAY and discovered a strange regulat pattern appearing suddenly in the render, while the original Texture has no pattern at all. As well I found, that some conturs are very blury (no, it can't be only the resolution of the texture, since I went from 4000pixels wide to 8000 and it didn't really improve) and some parts are smeared and have awful artifacts. after a long search with out a real usable outcome, I tried a simple render in 3Dlight just to see what's going on there and there I found all to be looking way better. Then I did a render in Blenders cycle and it looked way better as well. Is there someting I can adjust in the IRAY Uber shader to get rid of that awful quality and those raster pattern or can it be, that there is a bug in IRAY?

Can anybody help me to solve this problem?

Thank you in advance




 

IRAY-RENDER.jpg
2526 x 1266 - 122K
3Dlight-RENDER.jpg
2525 x 1268 - 356K
Cycles RENDER.jpg
1472 x 1091 - 88K

Comments

  • Richard HaseltineRichard Haseltine Posts: 100,837

    What went from 4,000 pixels to 8,000? Upsizing an image won't add detail that wasn't there to start with. How big are the maps, and in the Advanced tab of render Settings what are the thresholds for the two compression methods?

  • charlescharles Posts: 846

    Like Richard said, you probably have your Texture Compression set to default, I have mine at miedium 6000 and High 10000  to eliminate any such issues of compression.

     

  • SpaciousSpacious Posts: 481

    You would probably get a better result if you shrank the textures down to 2k rather than trying to enlarge them to 8k, because the iray texture compression would not kick in as much.

  • MaverickMaverick Posts: 16

    Richard Haseltine said:

    What went from 4,000 pixels to 8,000? Upsizing an image won't add detail that wasn't there to start with. How big are the maps, and in the Advanced tab of render Settings what are the thresholds for the two compression methods?

    Thank you for your reply

    OK, first the map was 4000x520 and the UV-Map looked like the first image attached. Then somebody told me, that this might be a UV-Issue (Stretched UVs) and so in the discussion I decided to do the UVs for the Fuselage again and rearranging them, so they now look like the second picture and are now 4096x4096.
    Now it looks a wee bit better, but still the smears and the artifacts and the grid like spots.

    The medium Threshold is as it ever was (I never changed anything there - actually didn't even notice there where these Tabs (oops)! So they are Medium at 512 and high at 1024
    What do there values mean at all? Is there a description of the advanced settings anywhere? Possibly I colud optimize these settings  anyway to get the best in quality or speed out of my RTX 3060 TI.


     
     

    First UV-Layout.jpg
    3072 x 400 - 232K
    New UV-Layout.png
    4096 x 4096 - 2M
    After the rearrangement of UVs.jpg
    1386 x 1141 - 95K
  • MaverickMaverick Posts: 16

    charles said:

    Like Richard said, you probably have your Texture Compression set to default, I have mine at miedium 6000 and High 10000  to eliminate any such issues of compression.

     

    Hi Charles

    Oh, wow that hit the target!!!
    With these settings, everything is gone and the Render is smooth and fine...
    What does that now mean? Does now everything use more VRam because the textures aren't compressed or is this just compressing less strong?

    Now it looks great. Probably I could have spared me the work of remapping (lol).

    Thank you for your help.

    After setting the Advanced Options.jpg
    1350 x 1169 - 87K
  • Richard HaseltineRichard Haseltine Posts: 100,837

    Yes, it will use more emmory - but the compression used is fiarly harsh, especially at the higher level. It might be better to use lower-resolution maps, if possible, now you know how to beat at least one of the problems. (UVs are not a set scale, they are relative - (0.25, 0.33) is half way across and a third up the map, regardless of its absolute size).

  • MaverickMaverick Posts: 16
    edited February 2022

    Thanks for your reply, Richard.
    So if I got you right it doesn't matter, if the Map is  square or if it is 5 times longer than high? But why do people then say, you need to verify if your UVmaps are fine or not by using a checker pattern texture? I did this verification and got a "stretched texture (See first picture in the attachment). Actually I wasn't surprsed of course, cause the checker pattern was square and the UV was a laying rectangle (Picture 2 and 3). So probably really just the settings for the compression would have done the job (as the 3Dlight render and the Cycles render prove). But many people say a good UVmapping looks like picture 4 when a cheker texture is applied to it...
    All a bit confusing...

    Post edited by Maverick on
  • MaverickMaverick Posts: 16

    Oops, clicked the wrong button..
    here comes Picture 4

    Good UVMapping.jpeg
    653 x 500 - 97K
  • Richard HaseltineRichard Haseltine Posts: 100,837

    It is assumed that square maps (with a size that is a power of two) will be more efficient than others. Checking for stretching does tend to assume that the map is square if using built-in tools, but you could use a non-square map laoded as a texture - the object is to make sure that, whatever aspect ratio is being used, there ar no (or at least, as few as possible) areas that are stretched or compressed relative to other parts of the map.

Sign In or Register to comment.