It’s a good example, and one which has been actively worked on for the past two years.
It won’t, as we stated a few times, arrive before the new VFB will.
We’re uneasy releasing tech which can easily break (resolution times number of LightSelects.) for the inattentive (or simply very loaded) user, and that is why to this day we warmly suggest doing it in post.
To ameliorate the issues, the amount of ancillary tech needed is a *lot* more than slapping images in a framebuffer, hence the wait.
Besides this, then, what else do you find lacking?
I’d ask you to reply in a new thread, however, as this has veered off course enough from the original title (for which the answer is “no, we won’t globally move to sub-only licensing.”).
Thank you !
Someone said it before but just to make it clear I don’t mind subscription as OPTION which can be very handy sometimes. for example to rent couple of licenses for a big project .
the thing is right now I’m mostly don’t use Vray unless my clients forced me to do it ,so paying for something that I don’t use regularly is a bit hard fro me .
I’m still on 3.6 but I’m really looking forward to see the enhanced IPR ( that we have seen in Maya) and updated the VFB I will upgrade right away .
OT (Sorry I couldn’t resist ) :
Yes me and almost 70% of people that I know/teach/work with did the jump to Corona for simply 2 reasons IPR and VFB features ..As Bobby said just visit sites like Behance and you will see how much people( in Archviz specifically) did the move . not only the new comers are using it, but also people with more than 10 years experience did the move too (Peter Guthrie , Pikcells …and many others ) so it is not just a trend or to look cool by using the new tech ;).
I did write long thread months back in the general section about that, but unfortunately there was no answers form official support .
I can confirm this here as well..
In Italy many people in the arch vis industry has made the transition.. Corona literally did take over this industry here
Usually number one reason I always hear from people who moved to Corona is that it allows them to achieve this kind of results easier than Vray
Things like this for example,
Many of these people use Vray as well and can achieve nice results with it, but asking them why they prefer Corona, they say that it is easier to achieve this kind of works. But in Vray, they will rely on a lot of post production to achieve similar results..
All renders in the link below are without any post work in photoshop, http://www.brugerstudio.com/portfoli…ialline/?id=59
Maybe the XYZ Gamut that Corona uses or probably Corona has better bump mapping/displacement or their light mixer.. I haven’t used Corona much to tell the difference
What I can say is that the new updated bloom and glare in Next for Maya is very nice and the updated IPR/undersampling is way faster/better than 3.6
features like debug shading and how IPR/denoising works directly in viewport are handy features, no other engine has..
The IPR in Maya and Modo are way better than Max’s in many things.. No idea why Max has a completely different IPR(CPU) compared to Maya or Modo unlike the GPU IPR which is very similar..
Talking to more Corona users, probably the new VFB and an IPR similar to what Vray for Maya has will bring back many people.
For XYZ Gamut, I’m not sure if it makes any difference, but Vlado probably has convincing reasons for not adapting this into Vray
About Bump/displacement quality, I will need to test this in Corona to see if it is any better than Vray.
I don’t use corona but could it be that the switchers are mostly guys who render stills only?
I render 100% animations and I don’t really care about vfb cc. That bit Vray offers is enough to roughly simulate what I’ll do later in post.
And I wouldn’t even consider doing the post before I render an animation and would then have to stick to what I get at frame 500 with the post work I did for frame 0.
That only seems to make sense for stills. Or am I wrong here?
The light mixer sounds handy though.
Our numbers paint a very different picture.
It’d seem our customers are less vocal about what they use, or less prone to image sharing.
Regardless, confirmation bias is around any corner, so hey, peace and love and happy renderings, whichever you prefer to use.
And let’s close the OT here.
Makes sense because many of these people who made the transition still own Vray..
Back to the OT,
I bought Vray for Maya in early 2014 and since then I have had free updates to 3.1,3.2..etc/technical support for over 4 years, which is really generous of Chaos Group.
But, I think this licensing model probably hurts development of products like Vray for Modo which has smaller userbase. Unlike, Max, Maya and Sketchup plugins that have thousands of users..
Something like Redshift licensing is probably more fair for users and development. So users will still be able to have their perpetual licenses, but for new updates and technical support there is 250/year maintenance plan(anyone have the choice to pay or not pay for maintenance)
This way plugins like Vray for Modo will not get starved for long periods of time, depending on how sales are going.
Also this way, there will be no high upgrade fees for big updates like Next.
My judgement is from Experience in this industry, Majority of archvis jobs here now involve Corona.. I don’t know all studios around but this is what I deal with
And assuming that people who made the transition still have their Vray licenses is very logical. There will still be jobs based on Vray and also considering older Vray projects/assets for people who made the jump.
“It’d seem our customers are less vocal about what they use, or less prone to image sharing”
I don’t really think this is the case. Many people did jump to Corona for its better/reliable IPR, Post processing tools and interactive light mixer.
While talking about messing with Vray settings more in Vray compared to Corona makes 0 sense, myself and other people above talked about Corona’s IPR being faster and more reliable compared to Vray’s IPR. I have posted examples of post processing/interactive light mixer in Corona VFB, for Vray it will require a lot of post work in PS to get similar results. This is basically why people do prefer Corona in Archvis(even if Vray has more features)
And it is been almost one year since we saw the first VFB 2 demo video.. Until now there haven’t been any updates or ETA on when this will arrive.
This is really the point of this debate, but you are only considering the sales data you have..
Once Corona and V-Ray Next, become virtually interchangeable, for instance, being able to load and render a scene or individual model, from either render engine, then how will that affect those that have switched, will it decrease the number going from one to the other, will you see those that switched going back to the one they know best. Who knows, I sure don’t. I have tried both myself, but still prefer V-Ray Next.. Anyway, this is not what the OT was about, the discussion is whether Chaos Group are considering changing their licencing of V-Ray. I for one prefer it as it is right know and if it’s true, that Vlado also prefers it the way it is at present, I can only hope it is how it stays, at least for the foreseeable future… until I retire hahaha
You can believe pigs fly, and they still won’t (unless you’d decide to qualify tossing them off a tall place as “Flying”. With what’s been shown so far, that’s clearly not out of the question.). We have both numbers to look at, and we speak daily to both client bases, carefully listening in (clearly, privately.).
Only a few users took, and take, the dichotomic approach, and they have been proven well wrong before (when the narrative was that of a fierce fight we were sorely losing. And it really was not. Not a fight, we weren’t losing a thing. Look what happened then. We were good friends before, we’re good friends today.). Stop spreading false narratives: the forum is public, and your attitude is seriously poor, and borderline damaging if one was to take it out of context.
Your aggressive attitude is well out of place as well: unless you have shown you can do better, you’d better not judge the work of others (chripes, you don’t even have the list of features of the VFB2. No one outside the company does. Let alone a grip on what it’d take to code them.).
I think i warned you enough, and kindly enough: i won’t do that again, and proceed to ignore you henceforth.
Good luck with life.
Corona's IPR being faster/more reliable than Vray's is not a false narrative. This is a fact!
Vray's IPR(CPU) in Next for Maya is better than Vray's IPR in Max. But still Maya's IPR(CPU) doesn't use light cache, so adaptive lights algorithm is not used and even the new adaptive domelight relies on the information from light cache..
Also, Interactive lightmixing/Post processing and tone mapping tools in Corona's virtual frame buffer are miles better than what the current Frame Buffer in Vray offers. This is huge in Archvis
This is what really matters in this debate, which you have been ignoring.
If someone doesn't think so, I can make a new thread about this and we can debate these differences to the smallest of details.
The feedback about Vray's IPR and tone mapping tools, that you have been ignoring so far are nothing new. People have been talking about this in other threads and how it affects their workflows
I don't really care what others said.. Prove me wrong on the points I talked about above. I didn't trash or slag Vray in any way. I've shared my personal thoughts based on experience in this industry.
I mean I didn't rely on presumptions in my argument like what you did.. Quote
Also, I use Vray GPU in Maya for many projects, and I've been on Vray's side plenty of times. This is an example,
You have been ignoring my points throughout the debate anyways and being a customer I will continue to share my feedback with Chaos Group whether you like it or not.
Vlado, Blagovest, Alex, Andrey and all other devs have been always considering feedback. They never said "unless you have shown you can do better.."
the New VFB was promised to arrive at a later service pack to Next and after 11 months of the first Demo, it is quite expected that myself and others ask about updates or ETA
You did represent CG throughout this conversation and I really don't need to comment on your attitude. I've shared a link to this discussion in our Vray chat on Skype and on my personal account on facebook. Many people have a different view on who's attitude is "Seriousely poor and borderline damaging"
Everything that is requested by our users is considered. @Muhammed_Hamed - some of the things you are asking for are already implemented and you will see them in Update 1, the rest are on the way. Every feature in this rendering business can look very similar in different render engines, but in fact it’s implementation could be way more complex between them. We are trying to please our users and that requires making it the V-Ray way - fast; having in mind all industries; to work for the guy with 1 WS with the same convenience as for a studio with 10000 machines and heavy worflows.
Sorry for how this came out Peter..
I always appreciate how Chaos Group consider their users feedback, you guys have been very good at this.
unfortunately, This is the first time I get Otoy’s kind of attitude, ignoring facts and saying sh*t like this,
..
What Myself and some people said above is very true! And hopefully Chaos does consider this feedback, although it is not the first time this has been discussed here on forum
I don’t know where M.Max and Glorybound are based in, but I can confirm this is the case in the Archvis market here as well.
I own 12 Vray licenses, 3 of which are Vray for 3Ds max, I also have over 25 universal render nodes and 2 VRscans licenses.
I do understand that development takes time and I’m more than happy with the amount of updates Vray GPU for example has had recently compared to competition.
But for the VFB 2, it is been 11 months since we seen the first Demo, so it is quite expected that myself and others ask for updates or ETA(I talked about how this will massively affect people doing Archvis work)
And the way that Lele approached this above, was just bad .. similar to what Otoy usually handles their users’ feedback.
You must be confused: i have absolutely nothing to rebate on the finer points (which i covered earlier, in part).
My only gripe is with your sweeping, and false, statement that V-Ray for max lost market share in archviz.
To quote the statement entirely:
I can confirm this here as well..
In Italy many people in the arch vis industry has made the transition.. Corona literally did take over this industry here
For the last time: this is inaccurate, false, and casts a very poor light on the company, and more specifically on the VMax team, which is undeserved, as the claim is utterly unsubstantiated.
For every feature you say to be poor, there is another which is better, and required time and effort. That the choice of priorities may not conform with your desires may be a fact, but in no way it’s qualifiable as poor because you say so.
The feedback about Vray's IPR and tone mapping tools, that you have been ignoring so far are nothing new. People have been talking about this in other threads and how it affects their workflows
read above.
I don't really care what others said.. Prove me wrong on the points I talked about above. I didn't trash or slag Vray in any way. I've shared my personal thoughts based on experience in this industry.
I mean I didn't rely on presumptions in my argument like what you did.. Quote
That was a joke. Inho got it right, you didn’t. I’ll try and get better percentages in the future, lest my comedic career suffers.
Also, I use Vray GPU in Maya for many projects, and I've been on Vray's side plenty of times. This is an example,
I’m glad you like some Chaos’ products.
My first point above stands. I’m glad it’s not often you use such sweeping statements to define the effort of others.
You have been ignoring my points throughout the debate anyways and being a customer I will continue to share my feedback with Chaos Group whether you like it or not.
Vlado, Blagovest, Alex, Andrey and all other devs have been always considering feedback. They never said "unless you have shown you can do better.."
the New VFB was promised to arrive at a later service pack to Next and after 11 months of the first Demo, it is quite expected that myself and others ask about updates or ETA
You did represent CG throughout this conversation and I really don't need to comment on your attitude. I've shared a link to this discussion in our Vray chat on Skype and on my personal account on facebook. Many people have a different view on who's attitude is "Seriousely poor and borderline damaging"
To each their character, and role.
I have freedom of speech, and complete responsibility should i mishandle the chance.
I speak for myself, of my own volition, and in no instance in the debate with you i claimed to be the company’s voice: i merely pointed out that you were debating figures (Market share, dev timings, and so on) you couldn’t possibly have knowledge of.
Having argumented extensively enough, and precisely enough, i’ll retire to other pastures.
p.s.: Facebook/Discord is the right place to share your personal thoughts, it being the metaphor for a bar. It’d be nice to stay closer to ascertained facts in here, however. It is a moderated forum, after all, if loosely so.
p.p.s: One could do worse, to infer numbers, than checking the respective forums’ stats. It’d paint a vastly more accurate picture than that hear’n’say may ever do.
One thing to remember is that even though your thoughts and comments are your own, like it or not you are still representing CG and seen as a voice of CG despite the small disclaimer in your signature
You should probably be using “I think” more than “we”.. I won’t bother convince someone who doesn’t even do Archivis, on the tools that we use. You are probably the only one in this thread who doesn’t do archvis.
Yes Vray has more features and I mentioned this above. Corona having faster/more reliable IPR , better post processing tools and interactive light mixer.. this is what really matters for archivs and this why many people made the transition
http://www.brugerstudio.com/portfoli…ialline/?id=59
Every single render here is without any post work in PS, this is what Corona’s Frame buffer can achieve, but like I said, you don’t even do Archvis to argue that “for each feature in Corona, there is another better in Vray”
I'm talking about the Archvis market in a very specific place and I detailed the differences between Corona and Vray in Archvis.. I stated that I might not know every studio here, but I stick to my quote
*In Italy many people in the arch vis industry has made the transition.. Corona literally did take over this industry here*
M.Max did talk about this as well in, he is based in a different area.. He has been teaching Archvis to thousands of students in the past years and he really knows what he talked about..
Yes me and almost 70% of people that I know/teach/work with did the jump to Corona for simply 2 reasons IPR and VFB features ..As Bobby said just visit sites like Behance and you will see how much people( in Archviz specifically) did the move . not only the new comers are using it, but also people with more than 10 years experience did the move too (Peter Guthrie , Pikcells ....and many others ) so it is not just a trend or to look cool by using the new tech
.
So, talking about my experiences in the market based on facts is not sweeping or slagging to Vray. Reaching out to others at Chaos, people seem to be reasonable and understanding thankfully..
Such 2 poor arguments from you really. My talk about people who transitioned to Corona is based on my practical experience in the heart of this industry.. I have talked about why people prefer Corona FOR ARCHVIS in details.
You argued that for each poor feature in Vray there is another that is better in Corona.. Thing is that you don't even do archvis and I would kindly ask you to list the Vray features that you think would matter for Archvis, more than a faster/reliable IPR and Corona's frame buffer.
Also talking about dev timings and priorities, I know that Vlado Nedev was working on the new VFB, who has been also working on Vray for Modo and Project Lavina. Vlado Koylazov talked about this in details in one of the CG garage podcasts, and in Siggraph Vlado mentioned the VFB 2 is coming later to Vray Next
Again, after 11 months of the the first Demo of the VFB2, it is quite expected that myself and others ask when this will arrive. Not sure how this is related to sweeping Vray or judgin works of others, but you got triggered somehow quote
Then you talked about this forum being moderated, not for sharing personal thoughts lol ..
This must be the most ridiculous argument I have ever seen in my time here on the forums.
By the way, I have little to complain about. Especially, I don’t get why people are hating IPR so much. I use it for several hours a day, and it very rarely crashes. Granted, some more speed would be nice, but that already took a big step forward with Next.
And yes, I did try Corona. It does have its advantages (dome light with great ground projection features!), but it just is not as fast as V-Ray for final frame rendering.
Just speculation, but I suspect a lot of people tried it in older versions, and have lasting bad first impressions. I’ve only given it a second chance recently myself, which turned out to be a good idea.
I have to throw a spanner in the works: I would actually say my images from Corona do converge faster in a different sense. I have a free corona material library, and in my opinion a more intuitive general material workflow which saves me a few hours per week of scene setup time. I have an IPR that is vastly more responsive and user-friendly than Vray (the reason I made the switch after many bitterly frustrating projects using activeshade or vray IPR) and a VFB that allows me more fast,flexible, creative control (read: filmic controls, and LUT opacity) which saves me a LOT of time in ‘look-dev’ (arguably the part of my job which is most susceptible to time loss or gain. So in this sense I would argue, for my situation, the images do “converge” sooner when I use Corona.
I have to say that Corona is doing nothing to make me want to go back. IPR responsiveness is something I never knew I would be so quickly indoctrinated by…
I will say that I do use Vray on certain occasions such as work that involves photo backplates or scenes I know will require very efficient memory usage, but coming back to Corona is like slipping into a warm bath.
Saying Corona’s IPR is better/faster, doesn’t really mean Vray’s IPR is bad. It is sad that the feedback turned into some kind of rant in this thread
In Next, Vray’s IPR (CPU) works nicely.. not the same level of the current IPR in Corona, but I do believe that Vray will get there eventually.
Still a bigger deal about Corona is their Frame buffer.
The moment Vray gets the VFB2 with better tone mapping controls/interactive light mixing and few features Vlado Nedev showed here,
This will be a massive game changer in Vray’s worklfow..
But again, no idea when it will arrive..It is been 11 months since the first demo was released and there haven’t been any news or ETA so far
