ArtRage 5 Product PageArtRage Lite Product PageArtRage for iOS Product PageArtRage for Android Product PageArtRage  Android Oil Painter Free Product PageArtRage  Free Demos Page

Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Optimization of Artrage drawing engine, like Photoshop CS6

  1. #1

    Smile Optimization of Artrage drawing engine, like Photoshop CS6

    Hi guys,

    To begin with, thank you for a sterling product. I've been a faithful user of Artrage since it's first release and prefer it immensely over the cluttered and somewhat temperamental Painter.

    However, after downloading and trying out the Photoshop CS6 Beta yesterday, I have to take my hat off to Adobe for finally optimising a product that was becoming very bloated with marketing-friendly features, but with an engine that constantly made my computer feel in need of an upgrade. Somehow, the new brush engine, along with rotation, zoom and transform features have made my 4 year old iMac feel brand new again.

    My question, which I'm sure you may have already guessed is this. Are we likely to see any speed boosts of this nature in the future, for this version or future versions of Artrage? I'm a software dev myself (although involved in the non-technical areas) so I'm well aware of the time (and money) it takes to make improvements like this. I'm certainly not about to abandon Artrage in the near future, but it does feel much chuggier next to Adobe's next behemoth.

    Please don't take these comments as any form of criticism. Think of it more like a question from a curious customer.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    3,140
    The complexity of the paint simulation means that ArtRage is generally going to run slower than applications that just apply flat pixels to flat surfaces. The rendering process isn't where the speed hit happens because the renderer is already highly optimised for speed (turning off the lighting in ArtRage makes little difference to speed), but when you paint we're tracking a large number of physical parameters that require data storage and manipulation.

    This means that the sort of acceleration you can get when you're just working with colour is much harder to produce - Hardware doesn't contain convenient shortcuts for physical volume tracking simulation and paint density displacement. That's not to say that further optimisation won't occur, but it's not quite as simple as it is in apps that deal with flat colour results.

    Hope that helps explain things!
    Matt
    ArtRage UI
    Ambient Design.

  3. #3

    Talking

    Thanks for the in depth reply, Matt. Explained in those terms I can understand completely. I guess Artrage just never suffered from the sort of bloat and lack of optimisation that weighed Photoshop down from the start. I guess I'll just have to upgrade this old iMac at some point, for future releases then.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Ambient Design
    Posts
    3,504
    One thing we aded in Artrage Studio and Studio Pro 3.5 was multiprocessor support, so if you have a version earlier than 3.5 I'd definitely recommend downloading the latest version from our member area at http://members.artrage.com

    If you already have ArtRage 3.5.4, this feature is enabled by default, but you can check in Edit -> Preferences -> Multithreading to make sure it's checked just in case. This also means that you will tend to see performance increases on systems with more processor cores. I hope that's of some help anyway!
    Dave
    Resident Bug-Hunter
    Ambient Design

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4
    Wondering if it is possible to parallelize algs on GPUs? using shader/cude etc..

    Quote Originally Posted by MattRage View Post
    The complexity of the paint simulation means that ArtRage is generally going to run slower than applications that just apply flat pixels to flat surfaces. The rendering process isn't where the speed hit happens because the renderer is already highly optimised for speed (turning off the lighting in ArtRage makes little difference to speed), but when you paint we're tracking a large number of physical parameters that require data storage and manipulation.

    This means that the sort of acceleration you can get when you're just working with colour is much harder to produce - Hardware doesn't contain convenient shortcuts for physical volume tracking simulation and paint density displacement. That's not to say that further optimisation won't occur, but it's not quite as simple as it is in apps that deal with flat colour results.

    Hope that helps explain things!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Ambient Design
    Posts
    3,504
    Quote Originally Posted by hurtmeplenty View Post
    Wondering if it is possible to parallelize algs on GPUs? using shader/cude etc..
    Basically the renderer isn't the most demanding part of the simulation, it's the calculations required for the natural media effects, for which the GPU isn't really appropriate. The algorithms for stroke calculation are already parallelized, this is part of what our multiprocessor support does.
    Dave
    Resident Bug-Hunter
    Ambient Design

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •