Submission wizard speed limit

As anyone reading the forums has probably seen, there have been much debate about the filter submission wizard, that rejects filters for being "too slow".

There have been several filters rejected due to speed lately, and the only thing they had in common is that they're all VERY high quality
They are above your avarage filter in terms of realism.

Now I really don't think it's fair of FF inc to reject a good filter due to it's render speed, when FF inc does absolutly NOTHING to improve the render engine, or the custom memory manager that can't handle more than 1.5 GB of ram, which is well below the standart for computers these days.
Also there won't be any CUDA, OpenGL or any other hardware acceleration solution, as admitted by FF inc.

Here are some of the things that have been said in the forums on that matter:

Quote

Fr om Steampunk Panel by Mongoose King Mongoose King: Super non-funs! The grunge panel got rejected for being too slow. Morgantao: Also, it's kinda stupid if you ask me to reject a filter for speed... Some people have faster computers, some have time to waste, and in any case, the speed issue is a FF inc. problem to solve (CUDA anyone?). You can't reject filters for being slow and then do NOTHING about speeding things up! SpaceRay: YES, I agree, it should be leaved to the FF user to decide if it is too slow or not. Or they could accept it BUT put a warning sign telling, "This filter could be probably very slow in your computer" or anything else that could let you know BUT do not reject it. YES, is true the problem probably is NOT ONLY that the filter itself is slow, is ALSO that the FF Engine can´t make it run faster, and is NOT optimized for getting the most of todays much powerful computers in a good way. Yes I know that it can use ALL the CPU cores available, BUT only uses 1,5 GB RAM and can´t use any of the Graphics cards features for getting faster graphics. CUDA Anyone ? Do not expect to be for FF, as they have already said that it will not be possible to use it because on how FF has been built and developed. Morgantao: Yeah I know they won't do CUDA or OpenGL or anything else for that matter. That's why I think that FF inc. shouldn't reject filters for being "too slow". As SpaceRay said, you can have a warning on the filter page that it's a "go to sleep and come back in the morning to see the results kind of filter". It's like having a multi million dollar, state of the art highway with a minimum speed of 50 mph, but for bicycles only. Last time I checked, not many cyclists go 50 mph, so it's a very lonely ride. Either let cars drive on the road, or lower the minimum speed lim it. Another analogy would be those rediculously expensive cars that go fr om 0 to 60 mph in 4 seconds, have a top speed of 260 mph, ceramic breaks, carbon fiber body, 2 turbo chargers, 3 litre engine and no turn signals, so they are not road legal and you can drive them on a closed track only. Unless FF dev team is gonna fit turn signals on the program, it's gonna remain an expensive heap of last decade coding.

Quote

From Suggestion to give to new filters a Speed render level rating or mark Skybase: I guess filter authors can mention that it IS a slow filter in the description. Morgantao: Why leave it to the author? Think about it. If the submition wizard can REJECT a filter for being "too slow", it can instead let it through and add the warning on it's own. Seems like a much better solution. The author gets his filter in the library, the user can see the warning and decide for himself whether the outcome is worth the waiting time. Skybase: nobody's computer's the same. GMM: I expect that a 50-core CPU would render any library filter in a desktop resolution in a few seconds. Who cares if the filter is made of slow components if it renders subjectively fast? Morgantao: ANOTHER reason to remove the speed lim it on the filter submition wizard! GMM: New CPUs hit the market faster than filter authors start constructing more complex filters. Morgantao: As true as that may be, every now and again we can find on the forum a filter that was rejected due to render time. SpaceRay: FF INC WILL NOT BOTHER TO OPTIMIZE THE SOFTWARE RENDER ENGINE AND GET BETTER RENDER SPEED THINKING THAT SOON CPU´s WILL BE FASTER AND DO NOT WANT TO SPEND TIME ON THIS? Or I am wrong ?

Sorry for the long post

OK, that's good to know.

In that case, maybe the submission wizard can have a mention of this along with the rejection message, or better yet, a "Send to support team instead" button.

The message should say something like:
Your filter takes longer than usual to render. Please try to optimize it for faster render speed. If you feel you can't optimise it any more, feel free to contact the support team for further amnual evaluation.
And the buttons should say: [OK] and [Send to support team]

Quote
SpaceRay wrote: is good to suggest to optimize it first, and then after if not possible contact FF team.

Yeah, just because you CAN ask the FF team to manually put the filter in the library doesn't mean you SHOULD.

Nobody wants half-assed filters that are slow because the author got lazy., And I'm sure the support team has better things to do than looking at rejected filters all day.

Authors should do their best to optimize their filters. If you don't know how:
1) Look at the wiki and the forum posts about this.
2) Ask on the forum, or even post the filter on the forum for the masters of the universe (of FF) to have a look at it.
3) If all else fails, contact the support team.

But the point remains - The wizard should let the author know that it's possible to contact the support team.

Quote
Skybase wrote: Actually I've been wondering... what's the limit? I usually don't upload super heavy filters so I really don't know.

Very good question.

How is defined the speed limit ?

How is it measured ?

Where is the line that you can´t cross to be able to submit your filter to the library?

And more important is to know the limit to optimize your filter to be able to meet the requested speed limit.

Quote
Skybase wrote: How is it measured ? <--- render time for full composite with anti-alias or not depending on preset settings. (as far as I understand it.) If you're rendering a surface filter I'm assuming it just auto renders AO and Reflective AO by default.

Thanks for this answer, but I also wonder if the speed test limit is measured in the 600x600 default resolution or they make a higher reolution test ?

Because on many filters the 600x600 can be fast and useable but when you want to rise the resolution to a slightly higher level it gets MUCH slower.