Author Topic: Corona Vs FurryBall  (Read 13325 times)

2014-03-20, 20:04:50

ericspl

  • Guest
Dears, we're testing here at work the FurryBall more than one year.

The team(furryball) released a benchmark speeds in site.

link:
http://furryball.aaa-studio.eu/aboutFurryBall/compare.html

They even publish the scene for download.
http://furryball.aaa-studio.eu/files/Compare_indirect.zip

I downloaded the scene and redid it in Corona, with a time render about 15 minutes
without noise.

C this!

Eric Ferreira

« Last Edit: 2014-03-21, 15:30:00 by Keymaster »

2014-03-20, 20:21:21
Reply #1

Coronaut

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 131
    • View Profile
There is no caustics...

2014-03-20, 20:28:27
Reply #2

ericspl

  • Guest
Guys, i uploaded image with incorrect gama.

Below, the correct gamma, sorry!

Eric

2014-03-20, 20:29:56
Reply #3

ericspl

  • Guest
Coronaut, i render this scenes with the same specificatios of the furry benchmark.

without caustic.

Thanks a lot!

2014-03-20, 20:44:00
Reply #4

romullus

  • Global Moderator
  • Active Users
  • ****
  • Posts: 8898
  • Let's move this topic, shall we?
    • View Profile
    • My Models
I wonder why people bothers to do such comparisons again and again, when it proves absolutely nothing?
I'm not Corona Team member. Everything i say, is my personal opinion only.
My Models | My Videos | My Pictures

2014-03-20, 20:48:06
Reply #5

Coronaut

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 131
    • View Profile
Ok, i didn't say anything bad.
I know there is no caustics... :)
I just want to say for the record... all that GPU based renders... well too bad i am not playing any games as my cards sitting idle most of the time... somehow it reminds me of dry cooker, easy fat away, butt former... they have something and it's usually not enough and i did end up with one of those GPU renders and just using it for studio shots, it is very fast for exteriors also, but hell it is hard to fit all that assets in memory... Win/lose situation.

2014-03-20, 20:50:35
Reply #6

maru

  • Corona Team
  • Active Users
  • ****
  • Posts: 12828
  • Marcin
    • View Profile
Keymaster enters in... 3.... 2... 1.....
Marcin Miodek | chaos-corona.com
3D Support Team Lead - Corona | contact us

2014-03-20, 21:32:21
Reply #7

Polymax

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 830
  • CG Generalist
    • View Profile
    • maxkagirov.com
Corona - the best rendering solution!

2014-03-20, 22:27:44
Reply #8

juang3d

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 636
    • View Profile
I'm a big fan of GPU render engines, my main render engines are iRay and Arion, in fact the second one is the first one becuase it has a pretty neat production toolset... But... That said...

Men... Corona is the best and faster render engine I faced in my life, it can lack a few features because it's in development but anyways, so far, is the best render engine, the fastest and the one that gives me the better quality.

BTW it is now my main production render engine of course!

I would like to know the render times for Furryball in that computer, you can't compare CPU render engines like mental and vray in an OLD fashioned i7-930 with a GPU render engine using a Titan, one of the most modern GPU's in the market... It's a bit biased... Also the mental ray one is very bad configured... I'm sure of that...

Ericspl, what is your CPU?

Cheers.

2014-03-20, 22:35:36
Reply #9

Ludvik Koutny

  • VIP
  • Active Users
  • ***
  • Posts: 2557
  • Just another user
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Trust me guys... you do not even want to waste your time with furryball comparisons. They got like the most arrogant developers humanly possible ;)

2014-03-20, 23:52:32
Reply #10

ericspl

  • Guest
My computer is a I7 3930k,

Render with 15 minutes, 100% without noise, with 4 minutes, the imagem makes better than FurryBall, but a litthe bit noise!


2014-03-21, 01:13:39
Reply #11

cecofuli

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 1577
    • View Profile
    • www.francescolegrenzi.com
http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=87&t=1121380

(<__<)'

and this page is completely wrong, misleading and, I might say, deliberately wrong, apt to mislead

http://furryball.aaa-studio.eu/aboutFurryBall/compare.html

How can VRay 3.0 render this stupid scene in 50 minutes!!! Please! with BF+BF, I think, can be render in 10-15 minutes at 960x400px!
But, we already talked about that on CGTalk. So, I don't want to waste me time here, again...
« Last Edit: 2014-03-21, 01:21:41 by cecofuli »

2014-03-21, 02:35:55
Reply #12

Ondra

  • Administrator
  • Active Users
  • *****
  • Posts: 9048
  • Turning coffee to features since 2009
    • View Profile
Keymaster enters in... 3.... 2... 1.....
Sorry man, I was too busy headbanging at a Gamma ray gig \m/ :D

About the comparison: just read the thread cecofuli linked. I usually easily keep my cool when it comes to competition. I admire VRay and Arnold for doing the ice breaking in the field, I was pleasantly surprised with redshift (even though I did not see anything recently). I love interactive rendering of Octane in 3dsmax.

But I always fucking lose it when I read anything from furryball. The thrashing of competition. Claiming ugly '90s-style images are photoreal. The "I aint gotta do shit, GPU solves everything for me" attitude. The broken english. The outright lies. Vray taking 50 minutes in this scene is utter bullshit and everyone including the furryball-guys knows it. If I was Chaos Group, I would sue them for false comparative advertising.

I was able to render it in Corona in 5 minutes with better quality than furryball. Of course they refused to put it on the page. Yet they claim they will put any result users send them. Vlado was able to do similar result.
Rendering is magic.How to get minidumps for crashed/frozen 3ds Max | Sorry for short replies, brief responses = more time to develop Corona ;)