Fstorm render

[Donfarese]

Can you also post the hardware used for these renders?

Best regards,
Vlado

Oh geez, sorry Vlado it's really late here. loosing it...lol

Win 10
3dsmax 2017
3930k
32GB Ram
Titan X only card

Vray RT is using 100% of the card, I'm trying to figure out how to get Redshift to use 100%. Gonna have to ask them in there forums. Also I'm fairy new to Redshift so I'm still learning how to set it up, I just found a better way to set things up so below are new renders from Vray and Redshift

Vray 3min 59sec

Redshift 3min 20sec

[^Lele^]

Well, the vray scene loads with redshift here.
However, the above are NOT valid comparisons, and you can tell visually.
RS is clamped to 5 bounces of GI, and to a 2.0f clamp of subsamples and secondaries.
If you used the LC for V-Ray , you're asking it to calculate 100 bounces of GI, and if you left it at defaults, you only clamp secondaries at 20f (ten times higher).
Add speculars, of any of the BRDFs they implement, without clamping, and you will see the reasons why they default to such an aggressive clamping: their actual scene sampling sucks, and that's the ugly patch all over it (perhaps V-Ray 10 years ago. Maybe. But no, never quite to this degree, not even at the times of switching from qmc do dmc.)

I wanted to write this yesterday, but refrained: please, ensure you are doing it right before you post something for others to look at.
It's not a contest of offended pride to be healed (i know to many of you i must represent the definition of fanboy, but it's not my job description, believe it or not.), it's an analysis made on strict scientific bases, or nothing at all worth wasting time on.

In fStorm, i cannot get ANYTHING to work unless i clamp it as it comes by default (it literally blows up in my face), so i don't know what all the ravings are about.
What's unfathomable is personal bias, what i follow is data.

[Moriah]

I'm trying to figure out how to get Redshift to use 100%.

Trying putting the "Ray Reserved Memory" to 3000 or so, should improve the usage.

@Lele, i agree with what you're saying, but on the other hand, from an artist's perspective, data doesn't matter THAT much, what matters is the final visual representation, and if you can get something "similar" (doesn't matter if it has GI clamping, or 432432 bounces, or whatever..) within a shorter render time and having flexibility regarding settings and quality, that's what matters the most sometimes (at least for me since i'm a user with access to limited hardware power)...
You're saying that RS has heavy GI clamping, and Vray has not. So ideally, we could have the ability to clamp the GI in Vray GPU, so we can get a faster render time even if we have to sacrifice quality... Same in RS, don't quite know if they have that option, but if they don't they should give us the option to not clamp even if it takes longer but in the end looks better.

[Ivan1982]

Can you save vray test scene for max 2015-2016?

[^Lele^]

@Lele, i agree with what you're saying, but on the other hand, from an artist's perspective, data doesn't matter THAT much, what matters is the final visual representation, and if you can get something "similar" (doesn't matter if it has GI clamping, or 432432 bounces, or whatever..) within a shorter render time and having flexibility regarding settings and quality, that's what matters the most sometimes (at least for me since i'm a user with access to limited hardware power)...

So you're willing to compromise, severely so, on quality (see your above diffuse renders: the blackness got every single slightly shaded area. Fine by you, fine by me.) for the sake of argument?

You're saying that RS has heavy GI clamping, and Vray has not. So ideally, we could have the ability to clamp the GI in Vray GPU, so we can get a faster render time even if we have to sacrifice quality... Same in RS, don't quite know if they have that option, but if they don't they should give us the option to not clamp even if it takes longer but in the end looks better.

Because, you see, while you CAN clamp V-Ray (go ahead. i shall not do that to it. guts churning at the thought.), and get quicker rendertimes, you cannot unclamp RS, and when 15 bounces of GI are too few, you're done for.
When you're using IES lights and trying to sell an accurate lighting distribution in your scene, you're (by default) screwed, or if the intensity of something has to be above 1k float (lights, probes, you name it), you're screwed, and so is your lighting distribution.
If you need reflective GI caustics well resolved and contributing to your lighting, all you'll get will be fireflies, unless you clamp hard and clamp early.
When you want to comp, you're by default outside of linearity within the radiometric equation itself because of all the clamping, so you guessed it, you're screwed as far as LWF comping is concerned.

It's not faster, it's ridiculously more messy to set up and get results from, it's severely more limited in features, it's broken in a number of places, but you like it.
What can i say, go ahead.

peace out. ^^

[Donfarese]

Can you save vray test scene for max 2015-2016?

Here is the scene in 2105, 2016, 2017.

[vlado]

Also I'm fairy new to Redshift so I'm still learning how to set it up, I just found a better way to set things up so below are new renders from Vray and Redshift

You should also set the "Max Secondary Ray Intensity" in Redshift to something like 20 (up from the default 2), because the image comes out (wrongly) way too dark. Or alternatively, in V-Ray, set the "Max ray intensity" to 2.0 to match the GI noise levels that Redshift is dealing with. However in the Reshift render there are also artifacts on the curtains - unfortunately I don't know enough about Reshift to tell you how to fix them.

Best regards,
Vlado

[Donfarese]

You should also set the "Max Secondary Ray Intensity" in Redshift to something like 20 (up from the default 2), because the image comes out (wrongly) way too dark. Or alternatively, in V-Ray, set the "Max ray intensity" to 2.0 to match the GI noise levels that Redshift is dealing with.

Best regards,
Vlado

Yeah I did that Vlado, honestly didn't really look or render time any different. You can try yourself if you want that's why I uploaded the scene for everyone. Like I said my concern really isn't with speed, Vray RT is really fast just like Redshift.

[Donfarese]

So you're willing to compromise, severely so, on quality (see your above diffuse renders: the blackness got every single slightly shaded area. Fine by you, fine by me.) for the sake of argument?

Because, you see, while you CAN clamp V-Ray (go ahead. i shall not do that to it. guts churning at the thought.), and get quicker rendertimes, you cannot unclamp RS, and when 15 bounces of GI are too few, you're done for.
When you're using IES lights and trying to sell an accurate lighting distribution in your scene, you're (by default) screwed, or if the intensity of something has to be above 1k float (lights, probes, you name it), you're screwed, and so is your lighting distribution.
If you need reflective GI caustics well resolved and contributing to your lighting, all you'll get will be fireflies, unless you clamp hard and clamp early.
When you want to comp, you're by default outside of linearity within the radiometric equation itself because of all the clamping, so you guessed it, you're screwed as far as LWF comping is concerned.

It's not faster, it's ridiculously more messy to set up and get results from, it's severely more limited in features, it's broken in a number of places, but you like it.
What can i say, go ahead.

peace out. ^^

Hey Lele, I always respect you for your knowledge and help. Don't ever hold back what you think that's the way people learn, even if it's the hard way. But my issue is not with speed, Both Vray RT and Redshift are fast, if I was only concerned with speed I'd just Use IC + IPC in Redshift and render in 1/5th the time of Vray and Cleaner. The major issue I find with RT is not getting what you expect, as far as shader or features, Don't get me wrong it's amazing, but with say Octane render, or Redshift when I'm creating I usually get the look I was after, or am able to render what I need. I've had quite a lot of issues rendering scenes with RT or not being able to render scenes in RT, and I put them in the forums in the past. Below is one example of a very quick render of a material, the Redshift version is exactly the look I was trying to get, the Vray version I couldn't get it to look right. Maybe I'm just bad at Vray

[bardo]

For me...it's seems that the material proprerties are different...how you can compare them?
What do you like? a more reflective material with an higher IOR in fresnel reflection with more roughness (Vray one) or a lower IOR fresnel reflection with less roughness (RS one)?

If properties are comparable, probably the shader model is different...becasue it's clear that are 2 different material.

Really, it's difficult to understand the point...

[vlado]

@bardo We did have some issues with bump mapping in V-Ray GPU specifically. There are no issues on the CPU though.

Best regards,
Vlado

[Ivan1982]

Thanks for files.

I don't know how did you get those times in vray, it is around 5min 10sec and proportionally higher in Redshift but faster than Vray. Titan X shouldn't be that much faster than 1080.

Around 1min30sec for 6x1080.

You have introduced VrayRT before redshift(not sure about Octane) but lost 3-4 years doing basically nothing to move your GPU_RT up to priority ladder, even though it was clear GPU will be future and now it looks like you are finding million excuses on every forum thread vray vs any other GPU engine.
You should admit to yourself that there is few render engines out there that are more advanced(finalized), much faster, with more supported features out of the box(i am talking features of render engine itself, not 3rd party plug-ins) today is Fstorm, tomorrow who knows, Should you be in phase Company vs "little guy"?

I am using Vray for 10 years and i will continue using CPU version as long as it is viable investing lot of money for 5-10% performance increment every 3-4 years(yea you have to like Intel) and as long as perf per $ is ok. You need to come to your senses, this generation of GPUs is 50% faster than previous, much more cost effective and more promising, i think people are interested about what you will do with GPU version, as they do not want to give 3k$ for one xeon when they can buy 5-6 top GPUs for that money.
No one is asking here for one click "photoreal" solution or to be fastest... but currently GPU_RT shouldn't be called rendering solution without *. Don't act surprised when people start talking how is something better than vray right now, most of the people are not rendering grey interiors for sake of benchmarking, they do not want to talk on forums how MSI is set on 20, explaining difference between QMC vs DMC, clamping, sub pixel and all kind of other technical stuff while not being able to render volumetrics, or if bump on their material looks awful... I would never imagine that would be that hard to implement feature simple as directional light(maybe i am wrong but that looks like simplest stuff to do), even if that makes it slower than competition at least it will be supported, you can always tweak it later, it is much better than to end up in situation not being able to use it at all, like now.

Having about 10 render engines that are not compatible will make future years problematic in terms of investing in hardware, software and knowledge i just hope we won't end up in situation, one render engine for refraction, one for reflection, one for diffuse one for volumetrics and so on... that would be absurd.

*not complete solution

[Donfarese]

For me...it's seems that the material proprerties are different...how you can compare them?
What do you like? a more reflective material with an higher IOR in fresnel reflection with more roughness (Vray one) or a lower IOR fresnel reflection with less roughness (RS one)?

If properties are comparable, probably the shader model is different...becasue it's clear that are 2 different material.

Really, it's difficult to understand the point...

The point is Bardo that when testing with other GPU Renderers most all of the results match the Redshift version, and that is the look I was trying to get, I didn't just add materials and say what ever it look like I'm going with it.

[Donfarese]

Hi Ivan1982, I'm thinking your issues with the 1080 is just that, it's the 1080 and it's not really fully supported correctly in most or all GPU renderers until the DEV's get there hands on Cuda 8.0. I could be wrong though.

I do agree with you that I hope they focus more on Vray RT now. But you always have Vray CPU which is a really great renderer.

[Donfarese]

These actually look pretty damn close if not identical with the Normal map I applied, but as you can see as another issue I run into is when you feed Vray RT a Bump or Normal map you also run into these weird sharp shadowing a lot of times on the objects.