Issue was caused by the precision issues which made sdivm by 1 under
it's actual value. We can try to do some eps magic, but from the tests
on laptop and desktop doing integer division is not slower than using
floats here.
Thanks for Aldo Zang for the help with the fix for the panorama/fisheye
depth of field calculation and the overall math.
Reviewed By: sergey, dingto
Subscribers: juicyfruit, gregzaal, #cycles, dingto, matray
Differential Revision: https://developer.blender.org/D753
Now we build 2 .cubins per architecture (e.g. kernel_sm_21.cubin, kernel_experimental_sm_21.cubin).
The experimental kernel can be used by switching to the Experimental Feature Set: http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Doc:2.6/Manual/Render/Cycles/Experimental_Features
This enables Subsurface Scattering and Correlated Multi Jitter Sampling on GPU, while keeping the stability and performance of the regular kernel.
Differential Revision: https://developer.blender.org/D762
Patch by Sergey and myself.
Developer / Builder Note:
CUDA Toolkit 6.5 is highly recommended for this, also note that building the experimental kernel requires a lot of system memory (~7-8GB).
It can be helpful in some cases and it works properly, so no need to hide it behind the experimental flag anymore. It's only enabled for the CPU though.
Limitations:
* Smoke/Fire rendering is *not* supported on GPU yet, that is also documented here: http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Doc:2.6/Manual/Render/Cycles/Materials/Volume
* Decoupled Ray Marching is also not supported yet, so no Equi-Angular and MIS sampling yet.
Note for Builders and Developers:
* Make sure to use the CUDA Toolkit 6.5 from now on. 6.0 might still work, but can cause slower renders.
This was originally caused by a6ae12a where i didn't foresee unclear distinguishing
between empty and non-synced meshes will give issues for the viewport. They're the
same for final rendering, but for viewport we need to be accurate here.
That was only needed in the beginning, when we did not had support for tangents. It's time to clean some of the defines up, it's getting a bit too much.
* __VOLUME__ is basic volume support with Emission and Absorption.
* __VOLUME_SCATTER__ enables volume Scattering support.
* __VOLUME_DECOUPLED__ enables Decoupled Ray Marching.
This problem was introduced in 983cbafd1877f8dbaae60b064a14e27b5b640f18
Basically the issue is that we were not getting a unique index in the
baking routine for the RNG (random number generator).
Reviewers: sergey
Differential Revision: https://developer.blender.org/D749
Operators' poll func might be called from anywhere in Blender, so they should
not make any assumption about available context. material, lamp and world
are specific to context from Properties space...
It now uses the tile size to split the job. For CPU this may add
overhead, but for GPU this is highly needed.
Reviewers: sergey
Differential Revision: https://developer.blender.org/D690
* Don't compute expf() for every step, instead sum the intermediate values and calculate it every N (8 for now) steps. This helps a few percent (~5% on a cube with wave texture) in my tests here.
Root of the issue goes back to the on-fly normals commit and the
latest fix for it wasn't actually correct. I've mixed two fixes
in there.
So the idea here goes back to storing negative scaled object flag
and flip runtime-calculated normal if this flag is set, which is
pretty much the same as the original fix for the issue from me.
The issue with motion blur wasn't caused by the rumtime normals
patch and it had issues before, because it already did runtime
normals calculation. Now made it so motion triangles takes the
negative scale flag into account.
This actually makes code more clean imo and avoids rather confusing
flipping code in mesh.cpp.
We can't really make CPU and GPU results look the same in all possible
circumstances, but here we can make them look close enough to each other
by making it so sobol pattern for bounce number is the smae for both
CPU and GPU.
This makes CPU and GPU render results look the same with low number of
samples, high number of samples was never an issue.
In collaboration with Sergey Sharybin.
Also thanks to Wolfgang Faehnle (mib2berlin) for help testing the
solutions.
Reviewers: sergey
Differential Revision: https://developer.blender.org/D690
