2 Replies Latest reply on Nov 17, 2012 11:48 AM by Rick Gerard

    Computer power: Computer games vs After Effects

    EmberBen Level 1



      I've got a i7 hyper threading laptop with 20gb of Ram.


      I have After Effects CS6 and it works fine.


      I've also got the game Call of Duty Black Ops 2, this too plays beautifully on all the highest settings.


      What I want to know is why I have to wait so long for AE to render - just now I'm rendering a 20 sec ray-traced composition of a projector, screen, some text and lights and it's going to take 12 hours.


      Yet a game like Call of Duty, and other games back to the late 90s such as Quake, will render full resolution 3D graphics instantly.


      Why do I have to wait 12 hours for a graphic that is not much of an advance than something that could have been in Dire Strait's Money for Nothing video?


      Would love to know the answer!



        • 1. Re: Computer power: Computer games vs After Effects
          Mylenium Most Valuable Participant

          Yet a game like Call of Duty, and other games back to the late 90s such as Quake, will render full resolution 3D graphics instantly.


          But do you know how many artists spent months and years creating those graphics so they can be rendered in realtime? You know, baking color textures to simulate shading and lighting effects, baking normal maps to simulate fine details on low resolution meshes, pre-computing lighting caches for environment lighting, pre-running dynamic simulations, spend eons in the game's level editor to plug it all together and optimize it.... In short: It's apples vs. oranges. Games are built on illusions, not exact math or physics. 90% of a game is just a pretty facade. That's why Hollywood films are not made with game engines, too. Completely different priorities and disciplines. As for AE's renderer - yes, it's terribly slow even compared to other offline software renderers. But anybody serious about 3D would know how to use a 3D program, anyway or at least use plug-ins like AtomKraft or Element 3D. At best, the raytrace 3D is useful for what it's being demoed over and over again - cheesy 3D text. That may be good enough to impress people who don't know any other 3D programs, but it's nothing to write home about. anyway, feel free to explore otehr options. Even the Cycle's renderer in the free Blender has GPU acceleration and beats AE by a mile...



          1 person found this helpful
          • 2. Re: Computer power: Computer games vs After Effects
            Rick Gerard Adobe Community Professional & MVP

            One more thought. Games are written specifically for GPU acceleration based on polygon models driven by low resolution meshes. Pixels are only positioned. AE calculates every single pixel in every single layer. Really apples and oranges here.


            AE's 3D Ray Tracing engine is slow, but it's completely different than an open source 3D renderer like Blender's Cycle. It has a long way to go. AE is so much faster than it used to be. It's so much more powerful than it was just 4 years ago that I'm amazed. I'll live with the render times because I can do things with AE that would cost me ten times as much to do on another platform. Until I can charge 10 times my current rate for production or I have the workload to demands 10 times the output I'll be content to let things render overnight. If the client needs them right now, we'll go to a production facility that's running something like Nuke, Flame, Inferno... frankly, I would much rather let them worry how to pay for the workstations.

            1 person found this helpful