bug [Perfomance Issue] Power-Smooth Tool

[artofcharly]

Hi @AndrewShpagin

Please check this issue with a perfomance on PowerSmooth Tool

Steps - import model, select 2K Texture, paint wtih a big radius. And you will see bad FPS = 1-3, with small radius it 70-100FPS

I tested it on 3080 with 16Gb VRam and the latest build - 3DCoat-2022-46

For example in Mudbox 2023 - everything is fast, even with a very big radius... and 4K Texture. If needed - I will record a video example with it perfomance.

Video with an issue:
 

Thank you and have a great day
Best regards,
Andrew.

 

 

Plane.fbx

Edited September 15, 2022 by artofcharly

[artofcharly]

Hi @AndrewShpagin

Here's how it works in Mudbox. I created an 8K layer and as you can see, even with a very large radius - FPS = 60. So we draw and blur in RealTime.

Video:

 

 

If you watch again that video I uploaded earlier - you will notice that with a large radius in 3D-Coat - we see lags and freezes or 2-5 fps while using Power-Smooth.

Thank you and have a great day
Best regards,
Andrew.

 

[artofcharly]

Any news @AndrewShpagin?

[artofcharly]

Any news @Andrew Shpagin ?

[AbnRanger]

4 hours ago, artofcharly said:

Any news @Andrew Shpagin ?

I raised the same issue with Andrew a few years ago, using Mudbox as an example in the same way. A new GPU brush engine has supposedly been in the works, in the paint workspace, but there were a few issues that had to be dealt with before it could be made available in a public build. I know the developer working on it, was asked to do some other things in the app since...like adding GPU acceleration to some of the Voxel Brushes (that had been notoriously sluggish....even though they were CPU multi-threaded). It made a huge difference in those brushes. Hopefully, the new GPU brush engine for 3DCoat will have the same kind of impact. I think Mudbox's paint engine is GPU accelerated to some degree, and perhaps Substance as well.

Nevertheless, one reason why the performance is so different when using large brush radiuses, is that 3DCoat stores 4 maps for every layer, whereas Mudbox only paints one at a time. Still, I hope Andrew can dig deep into this topic and find some ways to optimize the large brush performance and the Sliders (color, depth, glossiness and metalness), even with CPU multi-threading.

[artofcharly]

On 11/24/2022 at 9:48 PM, AbnRanger said:

I raised the same issue with Andrew a few years ago, using Mudbox as an example in the same way. A new GPU brush engine has supposedly been in the works, in the paint workspace, but there were a few issues that had to be dealt with before it could be made available in a public build. I know the developer working on it, was asked to do some other things in the app since...like adding GPU acceleration to some of the Voxel Brushes (that had been notoriously sluggish....even though they were CPU multi-threaded). It made a huge difference in those brushes. Hopefully, the new GPU brush engine for 3DCoat will have the same kind of impact. I think Mudbox's paint engine is GPU accelerated to some degree, and perhaps Substance as well.

Nevertheless, one reason why the performance is so different when using large brush radiuses, is that 3DCoat stores 4 maps for every layer, whereas Mudbox only paints one at a time. Still, I hope Andrew can dig deep into this topic and find some ways to optimize the large brush performance and the Sliders (color, depth, glossiness and metalness), even with CPU multi-threading.

Thank you for your message. Even we will have 4 different layers(spec,gloss, roughness and etc) - the perfomance is fast in Mudbox... I hope we can do the same in Coat.. Otherwise, there's just no point in this mode... If everything will be so slow...

[AbnRanger]

1 hour ago, artofcharly said:

Thank you for your message. Even we will have 4 different layers(spec,gloss, roughness and etc) - the perfomance is fast in Mudbox... I hope we can do the same in Coat.. Otherwise, there's just no point in this mode... If everything will be so slow...

Yes, I agree with you, although I do think Mudbox would not perform quite as well if it had to paint Color, Depth, Glossiness & Metalness. I would hope that Andrew could optimize the performance (especially with large brush radius'...it is actually very good, in my experience, when a medium radius or smaller is used) to where it works more efficiently, even with the CPU engine. Perhaps there is some sort of software "stress test" to see exactly where the bottleneck is occuring, when large brushes are used. 

 

[artofcharly]

23 hours ago, AbnRanger said:

Yes, I agree with you, although I do think Mudbox would not perform quite as well if it had to paint Color, Depth, Glossiness & Metalness. I would hope that Andrew could optimize the performance (especially with large brush radius'...it is actually very good, in my experience, when a medium radius or smaller is used) to where it works more efficiently, even with the CPU engine. Perhaps there is some sort of software "stress test" to see exactly where the bottleneck is occuring, when large brushes are used. 

 

I'm just a creative person, not a programmer =) So I don't know about any software tests, it's already @AndrewShpagin can only understand this video and test it =) My point is just to show how it works in other software. Why does it work faster? I don't know. I'm telling you, I've already tested several layers in 8K and it's the same. Mudbox has the ability to draw on different layers.

[AbnRanger]

3 hours ago, artofcharly said:

I'm just a creative person, not a programmer =) So I don't know about any software tests, it's already @AndrewShpagin can only understand this video and test it =) My point is just to show how it works in other software. Why does it work faster? I don't know. I'm telling you, I've already tested several layers in 8K and it's the same. Mudbox has the ability to draw on different layers.

I wasn't implying that you were a programmer in any way. I was just using the video as an example, to point out that hopefully Andrew can use a tool to help him identify where this bottleneck is. I made the same case to him a few years ago, that you are making now...so, we are in agreement. However, back then, Mudbox did not have the ability to paint different maps simultaneously. I don't think that is changed, but feel free to inform me if it has.

If you wanted to paint color, you had to do that one channel at a time. The paint stroke (in Mudbox) might be fast (with a huge brush), but the whole painting process is not. It's terribly inefficient and tedious. In 3DCoat, you can paint with 4 separate channels (Color, Depth, Glossiness, Metalness) in one single stroke. In Mudbox, if you could paint 4 separate maps/channels simultaneously, at 4K+, you would definitely notice some performance dropoff, compared to painting one at a time. So, while I totally agree with your point about large paint brush radiuses in 3DCoat...in general, I was just trying to say that in fairness, comparing the speed between the two applications is almost comparing apples to oranges. Yes, they are both fruits and both have Vitamin C, but that is about where the comparison ends. Same thing applies with comparisons between painting performance in 3DCoat and Mudbox.

3DCoat has a much heavier load to carry (painting with 4 simultaneous channels = 4x 4K/8k maps + live PBR materials and Viewport rendering) than Mudbox. Sure, Mudbox might be fast painting one 4k or 8k color map with a huge brush, but what about painting a Glossiness Map, then a Metalness Map, and then a Normal/Displacement Map? How long would it take you to create full PBR textures this way? About 4x as slow as doing the same in 3DCoat, at least. In 3DCoat, you can paint PBR textures of a model in a single click (FILL BRUSH). In Mudbox, you cannot come even close to this; and when using a medium sized brush radius, 3DCoat's painting performance seems very robust. It just appears to drop off dramatically when very large brushes are used. Please make sure to send support an email about this topic, as Andrew is usually too busy to read through threads like this.