Why is VaM rendering much faster than Daz3d (and other 3d modeling software)?

[haroldwithlove]

I understand they are not essential comparable and this is a truly layman's question, but the rendering in VaM is like a real-time VR immersed with all kinds of animations, while in Daz3d you have to wait a couple of minutes only to generate just one picture. Of course, VaM seem to utilize more RAM, CPU and GPU and doesn't have many 3d modeling functions for non-human assets.

Off-topic: I wish a software like VaM could be the future of 3d modeling. Mouse and keyboard are painful to use for many 3d modelling process...

 

[Juno]

Vam doesn't render in the same sense as Daz or blender etc. They use raytraced\pathtraced rendering which is very accurate but awfully slow as its done on a pixel by pixel basis where as Vam is a rasterized render which is much faster to render allowing "realtime" rendering.

 

[lolmao500]

VAM and Daz3d/rendering software aint the same level of quality.... Maybe one day we'll get real time 8K raytraced rendering at 200 fps but we're still not there yet and wont be for another 10 years.

 

[haroldwithlove]

VAM and Daz3d/rendering software aint the same level of quality.... Maybe one day we'll get real time 8K raytraced rendering at 200 fps but we're still not there yet and wont be for another 10 years.

I personally don't really see the rendering quality difference between VaM with Daz unfortunately (with my own eyes, not in the sense of CG technology)... I think many photos people posted here (4k 8k ones) for VaM have really high quality.... Do you think you could make it clear why they are not the same level of quality?

Examples

1657201885.jpg

hub.virtamate.com

99.jpg

hub.virtamate.com

 

[Juno]

I guess its a matter of approach to rendering, Rasterisation which is whats in use by Vam is essentially the product of 20 years of faking 3d images to look realistic but its all done on a face by face basis in that each polygon is treated like a surface and the system lights this surface then it will apply the textures etc and eventually you get a pretty image which is rendered very quickly but isnt physically accurate in that ambient occulsion and bounce lighting dont happen at all they are faked via texture.

Path traced (raytracing) rendering which is what Daz and all the other suites render images by raytracing light rays to emulate how light really works in reality on a pixel by pixel basis and is very physically accurate but this takes a lot of time as each ray that is traced will bounce and naturally occlude and you need to render millions upon millions of rays over a large image to get a decent image. Its a progressive process where the longer it renders the better the image so you essentially just keep rendering rays till the image gets to a decent quality as its built up over time which gives a very physically accurate image in the end.

Lots of us still get raytracing to work in Vam using the RTGI shader for reshade or the ssrtgi filter in nvidias settings but its never going to be real raytracing like a proper renderer.

That said I love vam for CG images as its immediate feedback since its realtime, I can see exactly what effect a change in lighting or camera exposure etc will have, I can tweak my reshade profile to sort out white and black levels or saturation etc. If I were using Daz id have to make a change wait a few hours for a render to find out I need to tweak somthing and repeat for days to get a single image.

 

[SlimerJSpud]

Before Iray in DAZ, you had your choice of shadow mapped or raytraced for rendering. Shadow mapping involved a pre-render step where the program figured out where the shadows should be and then rendered the image using those shadow maps so it didn't have to rayrtace them out. Raytracing was ungodly slow if you had real reflection or refraction going on. With Iray and HDRI lighting in DAZ, you can get fairly high quality renders with little effort in much less time, but that's way too slow for a game engine. This is a game engine. They have to take shortcuts to get the frame rate up so it's usable in real time. Here's a simple example: Depending on scene lighting, you can see light on someone's back teeth when their mouth is almost closed. That's not realistic. It looks like old Poser renders in that regard. BTW, Iray is using GPU if you have an Nvidia card. The cloth simulation in VAM is much more efficient than dForce in DAZ. Yes, it does some unnatural things, but it gets the job done, with some limitations. DAZ Studio and Blender are much more photorealistic, but they have their limitations too. VAM is also way better than some of the older sims like TK17.

 

[TommyTomahawk]

Realtime rendering in video games =/= renderers like Iray and Cycles. The former are built to run smoothly first, look good second (which is why VAM looks like DAZ3D renders from 2009), the latter focuses all of their power on a single static image (or series of images/frames to render a video). This creates unparalleled image quality. Though obviously, in a picture or movie, the observer can't look around or move around - which is why realtime renderers still exist.

The holy grail is realtime raytracing.