SOLVED Viewport supersampling performance

Hello,

Occasionally we have reports about the performance impact of increasing Viewport Settings Supersampling, a very popular feature to increase quality when working with hair strands.

One tester made this video comparing Maya and C4D. Even without Redshift, enabling Supersampling on an empty C4D scene decreases the performance rapidly.

None: 1000 fps
2x2: 66 fps
4x4: 16 fps
8x8: 4 fps
16x16: 1 fps

Is there something we can do to make supersampling usable or is this a bug?

Thanks,
Roger

Hi roger, thanks for reaching out to us.

With regard to your observation I confirm that the reported behaviour is indeed linear except for the first entry: to give you a measure of the constant performance scale just multiply the pixel supersampling by the fps:

  • 2 * 2 * 66 = 264
  • 4 * 4 * 16 = 256
  • 8 * 8 * 4 = 256
  • 16 * 16 * 1 = 256

Finally, if you still think of a performance drop or a bug, please report to https://www.maxon.net/support.

Best, R

Thanks @r_gigante.

@r_gigante I just want to let you know the tester's feedback...

I don't understand what they mean! Because in Maya - I use 16x16 supersampling in AA options and everything is smooth like in cinema4d with 16*16 supersampling. But! In Maya I have 120-200fps 😃 Why in Cinema4d - I have 1 fps with the same quality? 😃 Why? Can they explain this? Do they check my video with Maya's performance? 😃

The video he mentions is this one, the other I sent was missing the Maya comparison.
Our plugin is also available for Maya, so it's impossible to avoid comparisons.

And I have to agree with this one. If the 16x16 Supersampling is mathematically impossible to work with, it shouldn't there. And how can others do it?
I think there must something wrong with the viewport Supersampling.

Hi Roger, thanks for the follow up.

I'm not here to discuss performances comparisons and again if you think there's a bug to report I again suggest the user to communicate with Maxon Support but I think it's fair to compare not only settings but also the final visual appearance.
Looking at the video posted and making screenshots of the different moments I think it's clear that numbers say something but appearance on screen says something different. IMHO it looks like as Maya without AA is more under-sampled than Cinema 4D without anything, as well as Cinema 4D AA-16 looks more over-sampled than Maya AA-16.

FPS_Hair_Comparison.jpg

We found another AA option on Settings, Viewport Hardware, that performs much better than the View Settings Supersampling, probably using a different technique.

Thanks.