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.

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.

Thank you for the clarifications.

Attached is the Centileo configuration.

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.

Quote
jiv21 wrote: 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.

Hi Jiv21, I have tested the scene with heavy use of normal maps and get the adequate slowdown of 5% compared to 0.68 because of more correct precise computation of bump map and normal map. So now we need to explore the scene itself that reports this. There are some extra candidate idea but need to check it using your resource.

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.

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.

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.