vray and corona

[mitviz]

Geez man ...look at this paragraph and at the paragraph at the beginning of the thread.
I took time to read the entire thread and i see that its been proven that corona na vray have a very similar output.
So why do you start with some other stupid requests like the corona has its own scatter?
SO what? When you have perfect FP!!!
Id rather have Vlado focusing on Vray than adding functionality that is sortdd by. Very good plugin which in fact works like if it was made for vray by default.
WHy dont u just stop and go on with it or go and use Corona for gods sake if its so simple.
I tried it and i actually think its not.
Its not been around so long as vray and it will get more complicated as its users start requesting more functionality.
I absolutely love the VRay is working right now but if you want my two cents i would improve:

-
simplified matting and sorting out problems in alpha shadow noise that i produced by default setting
-
Option for vray to show the materials in material editor like corona does. For example when youre setting up a sss material you have no idea what youre material is looking like unless you render it. I know this can be done otherwise by using some scripting and calling external material preciew scenes but having a solution within vray would be nice. Now that vray is by default in progressive, it could work or am i mistaken?
-
Could vray start making toasts please? And cofee perhaps..that would be quite handy

simple answer, because i can! simple renderer just came up having so much functionality and simplicity and soon i bet it will have all features vray does have, its how it works, FP..hmm its kool but why not have one software do more things? am free to make my suggestions and like i stated, i use both! people always hate to hear the truth and it does hurt i know but it has to be said. the requests are not stupid, only the one who thinks its stupid. Vray is really packed with features but how many people use even half of them? most things are very specific and if your not doing a certain thing you don't even need to use it so i guess people like you requested some and sorry the thread got so long and has so many views but why do you think its so? people just want to know, most threads here i never even bother to go to the first post if i dont like the topic or if its of not interest but i see you went to the first post means you want to know, its in the back of everyone's mind who's thinking and curious so i just posted something some others are afraid to post, simple, should i explain more? and the two renderers are similar but not the same, please ask people who have used both on large projects so far if you know any

[PIXELBOX_SRO]

says the person who has no idea about the existence of Backburner here:
http://forums.chaosgroup.com/showthr...ering-software

perfect chance for you to brag to Vlado about a missing feature in vray.

[mitviz]

says the person who has no idea about the existence of Backburner here:
http://forums.chaosgroup.com/showthr...ering-software

perfect chance for you to brag to Vlado about a missing feature in vray.

never had a reason to use it, never had a tonne of images to spit out from different files before either, most of my time has been spent just modeling so hope you get that, am more into rendering these days and if you read the thread fully i have used backburner but never took the time to go into it fully, is that a crime? and i think you should lay off on the disrespectful stuff, its childish and i would rather be the one who looks stupid and ridiculous and asks or say something than sit down and take what's coming

[PIXELBOX_SRO]

So why dont you take time to really learn vray to find out its actually where it is because its capable of doing much more than Corona is?
U have to understand it captures a lot wider segment of the market as Vlado has tried to explain.
I am happy about the added funcionality here and there it makes my life a lot easier in so many ways.
Of course some of the stuff is obsolete from todays perspective...most of the softwares are like this.
If you knew how to setup IR map well you woudl be able to get rid of the blotches and render close to BF quality in smaller times....have a closer look at it and youll be happy its still there.
With Vray you have a robust tool that can do shitloads of stuff Corona can only dream of....yes it will get there but rest asured it will not happen any time soon (or maybe yes but not stable enough)

I can imagine that if youre a typical archviz guy, Vray might be a little too complicated and its easier for you to use Corona.

i have one area which i would be curious to ask Vlado about when it comes to comparing the two engines as described here:
http://forums.ronenbekerman.com/show...t=2641&page=17
i ve read the whole thread there and it seem there is a difference in how Corona handles the translucency/glossies when rendering tree leaves.

[padre.ayuso]

I think you both have given your views and should lay off the comments against each other. Otherwise, I guess you are both right about your preferences. But lay off the spitting fight against each other, not needed in a public forum.

[mitviz]

So why dont you take time to really learn vray to find out its actually where it is because its capable of doing much more than Corona is?
U have to understand it captures a lot wider segment of the market as Vlado has tried to explain.
I am happy about the added funcionality here and there it makes my life a lot easier in so many ways.
Of course some of the stuff is obsolete from todays perspective...most of the softwares are like this.
If you knew how to setup IR map well you woudl be able to get rid of the blotches and render close to BF quality in smaller times....have a closer look at it and youll be happy its still there.
With Vray you have a robust tool that can do shitloads of stuff Corona can only dream of....yes it will get there but rest asured it will not happen any time soon (or maybe yes but not stable enough)

I can imagine that if youre a typical archviz guy, Vray might be a little too complicated and its easier for you to use Corona.

i have one area which i would be curious to ask Vlado about when it comes to comparing the two engines as described here:
http://forums.ronenbekerman.com/show...t=2641&page=17
i ve read the whole thread there and it seem there is a difference in how Corona handles the translucency/glossies when rendering tree leaves.

then i guess you didn't read most of what i really did post but quick to pull the trigger , i know how to use vray so much so i taught people how to use it, been with it since ASGVIS days, so i doubt there is anything you know that i don't to say that i should learn vray more and like i said so many times, i use both vray and corona, on a daily basis and corona is fast getting there, exactly how fast, you need to follow the forums to know for yourselves, when many people want something they give it to them and in short periods of time so no one will have long to waite, it think these guys have been watching vray and know what they need to do, so its not long before they do drop the bomb and start pushing out some massive features buts its also a small team of guys and already alot they have accomplished when you look at it and corona is being used on some large projects and commercials from what i have seen over there on the forums just if your not there then you will miss it.

[AlexP]

Okay,

I've made some example of how for example V-RayMTL could be cleaned up without losing most of it's functionality. I basically divided it to the two areas - basic and advanced. Basic contains all the daily bread knobs and buttons, and advanced contains all the fakes, legacy stuff and specific things that you touch only rarely, or change only once. Basically things that you do not tweak when you do look development.

Here is the result:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]30106[/ATTACH]
Left is current state, right is my proposed mockup. It shows both all of the UI, and also collapsed version that would make it easier for new/migrating users to get hang of the material.

Only thing I've removed is Fog units system scaling, and I've dared to change Fog multiplier to distance. I think Fog in V-Ray MTL should start to use distance value like pretty much every other renderer has instead of the current potato multiplier? I mean... what's 5 of Fog? 5 units of fog? I can easily estimate how can fog with distance of 100 centimeters look. It even works the correct way in VrayScatterVolume material, so I really think some unification is in order. It's also not uncommon that I have to use values like 0.00001 and even go to my 3ds Max settings and increase spinner precision to be able to input that. Happens especially in larger scenes, with meters as system units for example. With that established, I also removed the Fog system units scaling value, which would become redundant.

This is cool, but I would even lose Translucency for example to the advanced tab.

Maybe have the a bump map slot in basic as well, its usually the only reason I have to scroll down to maps is to add a bump/normal map - bit of a pain (small annoying things)

[LudvikKoutny]

This is cool, but I would even lose Translucency for example to the advanced tab.

Maybe have the a bump map slot in basic as well, its usually the only reason I have to scroll down to maps is to add a bump/normal map - bit of a pain (small annoying things)

Well, Vlado somewhere mentioned he would add Thin mode to the translucency, which would allow you to make materials like leaf or paper without need to use 2sidedMTL setup. In that case, translucency would become a lot more relevant. Also, it is a lookdev thing, so it should stay at the fingertips

Secondly, I think whole SSS and translucency component of VRayMTL could be improved. I personally would like to see VrayMTL use the same thing VRayScatterVolume uses. Fwd/Back and Scatter coefficient replaced with simple phase function, and also using optimized scattering that ScatterVolume uses, which is much faster. That, combined with Fog that is based on real scene distance, rather than potato multiplier, would make SSS/Transluceny in VRayMTL a lot more usable I think. Right now I avoid using it as much as I can, because even though I already sort of know how it works, it's still quite PITA to tweak and also really really slow to render

[rivoli]

Actually I take that back, our love is unconditional.

it certainly is, as love's supposed to be

[PIXELBOX_SRO]

Secondly, I think whole SSS and translucency component of VRayMTL could be improved. I personally would like to see VrayMTL use the same thing VRayScatterVolume uses. Fwd/Back and Scatter coefficient replaced with simple phase function, and also using optimized scattering that ScatterVolume uses, which is much faster. That, combined with Fog that is based on real scene distance, rather than potato multiplier, would make SSS/Transluceny in VRayMTL a lot more usable I think. Right now I avoid using it as much as I can, because even though I already sort of know how it works, it's still quite PITA to tweak and also really really slow to render

+1
SSS is stil very hard to work with and quite complicated to understand too

[Moriah]

Okay,

I've made some example of how for example V-RayMTL could be cleaned up without losing most of it's functionality. I basically divided it to the two areas - basic and advanced. Basic contains all the daily bread knobs and buttons, and advanced contains all the fakes, legacy stuff and specific things that you touch only rarely, or change only once. Basically things that you do not tweak when you do look development.

Here is the result:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]30106[/ATTACH]
Left is current state, right is my proposed mockup. It shows both all of the UI, and also collapsed version that would make it easier for new/migrating users to get hang of the material.

Only thing I've removed is Fog units system scaling, and I've dared to change Fog multiplier to distance. I think Fog in V-Ray MTL should start to use distance value like pretty much every other renderer has instead of the current potato multiplier? I mean... what's 5 of Fog? 5 units of fog? I can easily estimate how can fog with distance of 100 centimeters look. It even works the correct way in VrayScatterVolume material, so I really think some unification is in order. It's also not uncommon that I have to use values like 0.00001 and even go to my 3ds Max settings and increase spinner precision to be able to input that. Happens especially in larger scenes, with meters as system units for example. With that established, I also removed the Fog system units scaling value, which would become redundant.

In my opinion that looks really good and well organized! Only thing i think i would change is the BRDF type and tail as the first thing on top of the diffuse. Then leave the fix dark glossy and soften parameters on the advanced tab.

[LudvikKoutny]

In my opinion that looks really good and well organized! Only thing i think i would change is the BRDF type and tail as the first thing on top of the diffuse. Then leave the fix dark glossy and soften parameters on the advanced tab.

People really use those? :O From what I've tried, they make things look different, but not better or worse, just different. I never could utilize these parameters to get more realistic material, or material matching closer to the photo reference for example. It affected GGX look in some way indeed, but not in any meaningful way that would actually make the material appear better/more realistic.

[Moriah]

People really use those? :O From what I've tried, they make things look different, but not better or worse, just different. I never could utilize these parameters to get more realistic material, or material matching closer to the photo reference for example. It affected GGX look in some way indeed, but not in any meaningful way that would actually make the material appear better/more realistic.

If you're talking about about the dark glossy and soften, well I don't think many people do, i personally don't, that's why it should be left in the advanced tab just in case. But changing BRDF and having control of the GGX tail for me is very common, and since it affects the material completely, should be the first thing to show up in my opinion.

[LudvikKoutny]

If you're talking about about the dark glossy and soften, well I don't think many people do, i personally don't, that's why it should be left in the advanced tab just in case. But changing BRDF and having control of the GGX tail for me is very common, and since it affects the material completely, should be the first thing to show up in my opinion.

I meant soften and tail. I don't think having tail falloff in the basic would be a big deal. It's just that there is sort of simple material standard, that every new/migrating user can pick up quickly. BRDF falloff modification doesn't fall into that standard. It's very uncommon concept that BRDF itself has any bias option, so it could make the material appear a bit more complicated at the first glance. I personally never used tail falloff ever since I did some experiments and found out it does not help to create more realistic materials, nor does it help to better match materials to photographic references. It seemed like a pure placebo setting. But then again, I would not be against it if it was in up there in Basic section.

[Moriah]

I meant soften and tail. I don't think having tail falloff in the basic would be a big deal. It's just that there is sort of simple material standard, that every new/migrating user can pick up quickly. BRDF falloff modification doesn't fall into that standard. It's very uncommon concept that BRDF itself has any bias option, so it could make the material appear a bit more complicated at the first glance. I personally never used tail falloff ever since I did some experiments and found out it does not help to create more realistic materials, nor does it help to better match materials to photographic references. It seemed like a pure placebo setting. But then again, I would not be against it if it was in up there in Basic section.

Yeh i guess it comes to personal preference now

So i made a mockup for the dark version of the log window. I will make for the vraylight later today or tomorrow morning...

Left is current one, middle is my proposal for colored version, and right for a more integrated and less distracting version.. Also i matched 3dsmax 2017 colors... But more blueish or orangish looks good too.



edit: also i added some indentation for better readability