Comparison Chart

[glorybound]

Since V-Ray and Corona are in bed together I would love to see a comparison chart. I do architectural visualization stills, using DOF, Motion Blur, Environment Fog, Displacement... what would be the best solution for me? I am sure anyone new to the scene would ask the same thing.

[Pixelcon]

I think the best thing for you would be to try it for 45 days free. Or wait a bit until they have some proxy/plug-in compatibility which is really the major thing holding me back from switching.

[glorybound]

I think the best thing for you would be to try it for 45 days free. Or wait a bit until they have some proxy/plug-in compatibility which is really the major thing holding me back from switching.

I tried it, used it on several project and it worked. I just don't want to get into a project and find that it doesn't do something that I need it to do. So far I used it on a couple interiors. I purchased the Corona version of The Siger Studio's SIGERSHADERS, thinking why wouldn't I use Corona on at least my interiors, but I defaulted back to V-Ray and canceled my Corona subscription. Instead of the wild west approach to doing things it would be nice to have a comparison chart. Trial and error is always expensive.

[Pixelcon]

There are enough high-end viz companies out there using it with few, if any problems. I would take that as a good enough indication of it's capabilities.

You could see it as expensive trial and error, or as a time-investment into workflow R&D that might pay off.

[VelvetElvis]

I would just wait and see how this pans out. If you use Corona, stick with that. If you use Vray, stick with that. The announcement was just a few days ago, no need to get all worked up about which software to choose from at this moment. This is software, not the latest cellphone.

Corona is very artist friendly and a lot less mired in technical speak like Vray still can be, *ahem* Vray lens effects. Other than that, they are both great engines. It comes down to the user's ability to create images. That and price. Corona is way less expensive than Vray is, at least in terms of initial investments.

[glorybound]

I think waiting is probably good and we can assume change takes time. It is still all a little strange. I am assuming this has all been thought through, but for the end user, it is a mystery. I mean, if Corona is a lot less expensive and it is good enough for most arch-viz guys, 3/4 of V-Ray's user base might opt to go with Corona to save money. From what I read Corona isn't actually less expensive, it is just broken down into a subscription.

[rivoli]

3/4 of V-Ray's user base might opt to go with Corona to save money.

you assume that almost everyone using vray does arch viz, but it may just not be the case.

[glorybound]

you assume that almost everyone using vray does arch viz, but it may just not be the case.

Yep, just an assumption. However, based in the gallery forum, the number is pretty high.

[rivoli]

yes, but I wouldn't take the forums let alone the gallery as reliable indication of how vray is actually used out there. I guess the majority of people and companies using vray simply don't post anything here.

[glorybound]

Sure, that's a fair statement. I suppose if you are losing your arch-viz base, it makes sense to acquire the company taking it. It's like having a hole in the bean bucket and gathering those beans back up. That, to me, makes good business sense.

[iancamarillo]

I was tepid about switching completely over to corona, especially when animations were involved. Surprisingly, it was hassle free. I like Vray because I've invested in GPU and totally see the potential in that workflow. But when I need to get ALOT of frames fast, it's hard to not use corona because of the simplicity of the UX.

[glorybound]

I guess I forgot Corona isn't GPU based, which confuses things further. How can GPU not be the future? It'll eventually have to be GPU, however, I heard their argument about not being interested in the GPU route and they don't believe it is the future.

[vlado]

We will work on more precise comparison charts soon. For now, there are a few things that V-Ray does somewhat better (displacement), the bucket sampler also offers deep support and Cryptomatte support; V-Ray also has features like the V-Ray Clipper, VRayFur, Alembic support, MDL/OSL/GLSL support, the VRayVolumeGrid, UDIM and tiled texture support, VRScans, extended OpenEXR output, rendering Max's point particle objects and many others. V-Ray may also tend to be somewhat more memory efficient (the V-Ray proxies offer true on-demand loading of geometry). Adaptive lights might also be an advantage for scenes with a lot of light sources. And GPU support, of course.

Best regards,
Vlado

[vlado]

I guess I forgot Corona isn't GPU based, which confuses things further. How can GPU not be the future? It'll eventually have to be GPU, however, I heard their argument about not being interested in the GPU route and they don't believe it is the future.

For the moment, we plan to experiment with rendering Corona components with V-Ray GPU and see where that takes us.

Best regards,
Vlado

[iancamarillo]

Whoa!!! Great!