Announcement

**stephan_MA** · 15-07-2003, 02:22 AM

hi! i worked with fr first. most of my work are architectural renderings.

i think, fr is far more complicated, the settings are strange and the speed is not even comparable to vray.

in interior renderings vray is more than 2 times faster with less or no artifacts and easier to handle.

for me it was the perfect choice.

and: the feature list is only a promise. cebas never released stage 1 and they still have nothing to offer than promises.

have a look at the fr forum: 80% questions are like: my image is black, where do i switch on gi, not as professional as vray forum.

in fact i changed my renderer because i discovered that the level of discussion in the two forums was so different that i thought to myself: vray people can really think about getting their images to a pefect quality, while fr people just try to red rid of really bad artifacts(as in my case)...

but decide for yourself!

regards
s.wolf

**flipside** · 15-07-2003, 03:30 AM

Yep, for the support only I would go for Vray! The chance that stage1 will be a superior renderer that stands out for from the rest is pretty small I think...

In some areas I liked the fact that fr was very complicated, because you can control really everything, but sometimes this works against you of course.

It's indeed very difficult to get artifact free images with stage0. But some users seem to forget that with low vray settings you will not have artifacts like in fr, but you will have a blurred non detailed GI, which is as bad as as artifacts imo. I don't agree that vray is so much faster for interiors, but the difference is extreme for outdoor renders and especially product renders (where you don't need many bounces calculated, most rays fly up in the sky anyway).

Also if you set GI settings to your liking, and then you render a zoomed shot on something in the room for example, you don't need to change all the GI settings again. In fr you have to alter the sample distribution again and again and again, and this takes a lot of time! With vray you can set you properties to high quality values and you can almost be sure that the GI will be good, without hours of tweaking. This is where the biggest speed advantage is imo.

What I like most with Vray is it's AA settings. In fr you need supersampling to get good AA on metals or glass etc, and this is very very slow...

So, go for Vray!

regards,

flipside

(ps if you're not convinced, visit the fr forum and feel the aggressive atmosphere there... You'll be back here before you know it!)

**Da_elf** · 15-07-2003, 03:44 AM

id also like to point out that stage-1's glorious feature list makes fR look like its at the level that vray was about a year ago. We had motion blur and displacement since the beta testing days of vray. So by time stage-1 is out vray will have gone to the next level thus leaving fR 1 year behind again

**yog** · 15-07-2003, 04:25 AM

I don't want to get into program wars, but I would just like to point out that there are several of us ex-FR users on this board, but not too many ex-Vray users on the FR board.

And as others have said, support is a major consideration when it comes to purchasing software, and in this regard Cebas aren't even in the running.

BTW - if you do want a side by side comparrision from a person who has used both, PM me privately. This forum has a good rep for being very civilised, and I wouldn't want to tarnish it.

**fisch** · 15-07-2003, 04:58 AM

fR has a written documentation, where they explain every single spinner and checkbox. A feature I miss with VRay for quite a while.

my 2 cents

**shytigercp** · 15-07-2003, 05:13 AM

RE

I went from Mental ray to Brazil to FR...and landed here. I have ridiculous deadlines and vray makes me appear very fast.

ST

**Long John** · 15-07-2003, 07:58 AM

stage-0 is no opponent.

and when stage-1 is out vray will be at v3.0.

**Syclone1** · 15-07-2003, 05:32 PM

Heres a thought, log into the fR or Brazil forums and ask how they compare to V-Ray and see how long your account lasts

-dave

**Basse** · 16-07-2003, 12:49 AM

I first sat with mental ray, very good render but it's GI solution were too slow (this was the 2.1 version)

Then it was beta build of brazil, well rember that I had problems optimizing the settings for a fast GI solution.

Remember I saw Vray but unfortunely misstook it as a "wanna-be-good-render" as Virtual Light.

After that I tried out fR stage-0. I was a big fan of fR for quite some time. Then I got Brazil 1.0 and liked it alot better than fR after a while. It has alot more stuff in it than fR. Just the whole thing with all the material was really nice.

Well after a while I saw more and more stuff made with Vray popping up everywhere so I decided to take a closer look.....man I was wrong when I took it as a "wanna-be-good-render". The first thing I noticed when I loaded Vray as a current render was all the settings in the renderglobal....which I took as a VERY good thing. Started making som test and was VERY pleased with the result. Sat down with it for a couple of days and decided to compare them all (Brazil, fR and Vray). Now, you can test renders like these in several ways but I just tested the GI speed, quality and the ability to optimize for a quick render if needed.

Conclusion:

Speed:
1. Vray
2. fR
3. Brazil

Quality:
1. Vray/Brazil
2. fR

Optimize settings:
1. Vray
2. Brazil
3. fR

Finally, I recently left max for maya (please don't ask me why) and was looking up if there would be any version for maya. Splutterfish says on their site that they probably will in the future. Don't think for a sec that Cebas would release fR for maya. And Chaos Group has written on their site that it will come a version. I sended them a mail about it and I got a reply saying it's in developing.

There you have it.

Announcement

FR / VRay Comparision

FR / VRay Comparision

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment