vray and corona

[joconnell]

How about Turtle render, "Fast GI it had...." ( in Yoda's voice)

Entropy and blue moon rendering tools

[snivlem]

I rmember upgrading from scanline to brazil. Was amazed at GI at the time. I just did like test renders with cubes and spheres the whole day.

[PIXELBOX_SRO]

Man you're old...Actually I did the same exact thing. I caught final render at its end of day same as brazil. Actually final render is still around......no one hears about it anymore though but apparently its still being used.

Thats surprising, i havent checked for ages....if only i did not delete my old renderings, we could all have some fun...its was like kids drawing compared to what we do now ...Those days of Caligari Truespace and Lightwave LOL
Sorry for OT btw

[AlexP]

Man you're old...Actually I did the same exact thing. I caught final render at its end of day same as brazil. Actually final render is still around......no one hears about it anymore though but apparently its still being used.

Wow Final Render, thats a blast from the past! I dont remember it being too bad actually.. but then I went from Scanline to FR and then to the mighty Vray

[LudvikKoutny]

Wouldn't that only be because the lack of ram on the 970. I use RT CPU & GPU, GPU is faster by like 10x.

That depends on many factors, like:

- Cycles is not V-Ray GPU. So experience may vary there.
- I am comparing CPU and GPU of the equal price bought at same time and at a time both were latest tech, so it's a good base for comparison. If you have say 4core i7 2600k and comparing it to Titan Z, then indeed GPU will be vastly faster, but it was also more expensive and eats a lot more power
- AFAIK when Cycles runs out of GPU memory, it doesn't start to out-of-core, it simply refuses to render with error message, so I would have noticed that.
- And as I mentioned, it heavily depends on scene complexity. Teapot on a plane kind of scene (a simple car exterior/studio scene for example) will indeed render a lot faster, but try some complex scene with forestpack foliage or something like that Something that pushes GPU to its limit in terms of memory and performance
- And lastly, yes, I did not deny that actual rendering performance will likely be significantly better than the CPU version, just that feedback speed (update latency) won't be magically better on GPU. If you compare V-Ray RT CPU vs GPU - yes, the noise will clean faster - but no, the camera/object transformation/material/environment change updates won't be any faster.

TL;DR: How much is the renderer interactive has nothing to do with GPU at all. CPU is as good for rendering interactivity (updating scene on the fly) as the GPU. But if you have hybrid renderer, like V-Ray, that has both CPU and GPU options, then CPU is a lot more suitable choice, because it allows for 1:1 feature parity. And when rendering interactively, knowing that what you are tweaking will be exactly 1:1 to final production render frame is IMHO a lot more important than performance.

[samuel_bubat]

Oh yeah the good old days I found an image from the last millenium. Povray anyone ? This is the second image I rendered after playing half a year with cubes, spheres, various modellers like moray and render settings.The first one was a spaceship. I can´t find this image anymore. but I remember it was pretty terrible At that time I didn´t even think of making 3D my profession.


Those are two images comparing Brazil alpha with Final Render. Those "lighting around the corner" images were nearly as popular as the "I can render 10 gazillion instances" images, these days.


First I went with Final Render. While Brazil was capable of the more detailed GI, Final Render was faster. Brazil without a big Render Farm was pretty much a pain. Than Vray hit the stage. I was still with Final Render for quite some time. The main reason for me to test Vray was one missing feature in FR. Light through Glas without caustics. While testing I discovered the incredible speed advantage. So from that day I never used FR again. Vray at that time in general had a lot less features compared to FR.

Now back to Vray vs. Corona. I think it´s a pretty esoteric discussion. And we had similar discussions before. I remember Maxwell and those Flashlight images. Something that no one ever would consider to sell to an archviz customer. That´s why it probabely never was done before in Vray. But people very all about how realistic Maxwell can render. Once a renderer uses an algorithm that relies on physical light distributions it´s purely up to the artist. No matter if it´s Metropolis Light Transport, Pathtracing Brute Force and any other imaginable method. Even way before those renderers existed people made damn realistic pictures with Lightscape. The discussion should focus more on speed, usability, flexibility, feature range and support ! Now let me come back to the Car comparission from some pages before. I agree that Corona is a Lexus but Vray is not a tank. Vray Is a Mercedes S-Class. It was there way before the Lexus. You can clearly see where the Lexus got it´s design from. The costs are nearly the same, they have similar features. But if I had the choice I would always go with the S-Class. Now let´s wait and see if there comes a renderer stepping up as a Tesla....

[racoonart]

[Can be deleted, missed some pages of this thread and was replying to a very old post, sorry]

[Pixelcon]

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.

This is, for me, is the area I struggle with most with Vray. Didn't Vlado once whisper sweet nothings about a specific MTL just for leaves? Might have been a dream....

[voltron7]

Or walk into a Mercedes Benz dealership and tell them that BMW rocks....

But BMWs do rock

[vlado]

This is, for me, is the area I struggle with most with Vray.

There are no technical differences in how the two engines handle thin translucency as far as lighting calculations go, but there is a slight difference in the way the BRDFs are layered. In 3ds Max 2017, you can try the Physical Material, which is supported by V-Ray and has a "thin translucency" option. If that works for you, we may consider adding it to the VRayMtl material.

Also, I don't think that any real-world tree looks like in that picture... leaves are not *that* translucent. I specifically took the time to take a lot of pictures and compare.

Best regards,
Vlado

[LudvikKoutny]

There are no technical differences in how the two engines handle thin translucency as far as lighting calculations go, but there is a slight difference in the way the BRDFs are layered. In 3ds Max 2017, you can try the Physical Material, which is supported by V-Ray and has a "thin translucency" option. If that works for you, we may consider adding it to the VRayMtl material.

Also, I don't think that any real-world tree looks like in that picture... leaves are not *that* translucent. I specifically took the time to take a lot of pictures and compare.

Best regards,
Vlado

Actually, many of the images on the internet look fairly close to that picture, for example

http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/apple...n-57589650.jpg

https://runningmad.files.wordpress.c...5/p1010784.jpg

http://imgc.allpostersimages.com/ima...ous-leaves.jpg

https://wallpaperscraft.com/image/su..._2560x1600.jpg

That being said, I agree that there's not that much different with the actual translucency component in VRayMTL. The problem I think is mainly the reflection conservation issue and generally clumsy two material workflow

EDIT: BTW I would love to try Physical Material in 2017 with V-Ray. I even sent you a mail, but no reply :/

[joconnell]

I rmember upgrading from scanline to brazil. Was amazed at GI at the time. I just did like test renders with cubes and spheres the whole day.

Yep. When mental ray 2.1 came out I'd a glass sphere casting a caustic as my desktop for about a year.

[Pixelcon]

The problem I think is mainly the reflection conservation issue

This is a better way of saying what I'm getting at. It does feel to me that when using a 2sidedmtl, one must balance reflection and translucency settings quite precisely and then tweak things in PS to get the desired effect. I sometimes wish I could push these translucency 'effects' further even if it breaks the laws of physics or whatever. Perhaps a set of spinners like 'MOAR REFLECTION' and 'BUT MOAR TRANSLUCENCY' plus 'MEGA LEAF GLOW BOOST'...

[LudvikKoutny]

Perhaps a set of spinners like 'MOAR REFLECTION' and 'BUT MOAR TRANSLUCENCY' plus 'MEGA LEAF GLOW BOOST'...

That would be a very unfortunate way of solving it

[Pixelcon]

That would be a very unfortunate way of solving it

Could be done as an april fools day joke...