Messages

1

[Max] Resolved Bugs / Re: Internal error

« on: 2018-05-19, 19:43:48 »

I've got the same error. It happens when I'm trying interactive rendering. I think one of models gives this error. I can send it to you via email. Just PM me yours. It happens only with lastest daily build.

Regards,
Pavel

2

[Max] Daily Builds / Re: Daily builds version 2

« on: 2018-05-17, 18:08:59 »

Hello,
I've found a very interesting feature in corona roadmap - "reworking tone mapping"
But I can't find any info about that in forums.
Can somebody explain in two words about this? (or any link will be appreciated.)

Thanks!
-Pavel

3

[Max] General Discussion / Re: No corona vs redshift comparison so far?

« on: 2014-06-20, 21:28:51 »

If you talking about Redshift then it has a nice out of core architecture that provides to render very large scenes with lot of textures. If you talk about others(Octane, iray, arion, e.t.c.) then I simple can't render big scenes with them because of very slow speed. Yes, boxes with one HDR light they render faster then Corona or vray but when you add more lights and increse scene complexity you will have very slow(but true brute force) render process. I don't want shitty unbias render with no visual difference from render with point cloud or HD cache solutions... OCtane dev team makes out of core for their renderer but feature developement speed in Otoy is too slow... Also Otoy provides some cloud compute solutions. what do you think for octane dev team is in priority?  fast renderer-few cloud users or slow renderer-large cloud user base? ;)
I also saw some very nice images from Corona ;)

4

[Max] General Discussion / Re: No corona vs redshift comparison so far?

« on: 2014-06-18, 22:01:07 »

Good idea!, but this apearse like 3th option.

Seriously, between this 2 options, what you do you think is better for professional purpose now.

Of couse i'd like to get some license of corona, Im waiting for you ...

If yo work in archviz then of course 2xCPU is better than GPU workstation. Simly because of:
1)Heavy for GI scenes
2)Archviz needs more realistic results
3)You have many renderers for CPU and for 3ds max no one normal for GPU

If you want to render spheres or boxes. or spheres and boxes. or spheres and boxes in room with 4 walls and one light source (like most of gpu render developers) then buy only one titan and one cheaper for display
I think you can get very comfortable solution with gpu renders today only if you do animations in maya/softimage an renders with redshift. Redshift is not so realistic like corona but in animations its rely doesn't matter.
After compositing in Nuke you can get very nice results:)
-Pavel

5

[Max] General Discussion / Re: No corona vs redshift comparison so far?

« on: 2014-06-16, 19:08:24 »

Well, until nVidia comes with mainstream Maxwell card with 8GB vram (some 880ti maybe? ) I remain quite sceptical. But maybe I just really need to see myself :- )

So their out-of-core streaming enables pretty much unlimited texture amount ? Did it also bypass the texture amount limit CUDA previously had (and which still seems to be case for Octane or not?)
Hi-res textures are pretty much the biggest memory eater in my scenes. Few 4k maps to start with and it starts to pack.

16mil. polies for 3GB vram is nice, but 16mil. is still nothing. How does it go around displacement ?

One guy from their team replied to my cgarchitect post about my thoughts on GPU rendering. He seems quite nice and humble, but I still don't believe his claims much :- )

There is no texture count or resolution limit in Redshift. I often use many hires (6k) textures with Redshift.
But the main question still here: why you need it for? If for archviz then I don't see problems with corona+3ds max.

You simple can download free demo and test by yourself.
I also have Octane render license (standalone + 3ds max)  and I whant to say for all peoples who want to migrate from corona to octnae - DON'T DO THAT :)
Corona is MUCH faster(mostly because of HD cache) even if you compare 4xTitan vs my six core i7 Corona don't has limits in memory or textures, and has more ftatures
Did you know that Octane 2.0 is slower by 15-20%? :)
But yes... Octane is very realistic... Not like maxwell but very close. Maybe because of spectral rendering...
Thanks!
-Pavel
P.S. I will no longer apologize for my terrible English:)

6

[Max] General Discussion / Re: No corona vs redshift comparison so far?

« on: 2014-06-16, 16:13:06 »

Redshift has out of core architecture so it fits high amount of polys/textures in 3 gb of ram. I used 16 000 000 tris without a problems
I compare Corona render on Intel Core i7-4960X Extreme Edition overclocked to 4.5 ghz CPU vs 2x GTX 780 3gb
I never can take Image in 2k with Corona without noise if my render times is less than 1:40 or 2 hours BUT render result is more realistic(for me)
But when I need speed. or when I render video - Redshift wins.
So I prefer Corona for stills and quality of shading and redshift for video or situations where I don't need very realistic result
I think we(professionals) don't need to compare cpu vs gpu but we need to compare tasks what you want to do with.
So
Redshift has very high speed GI, hair rendering, volumetric rendering, camera dof(with redshift I forgot about shitty DOF in post), motion blur and overall it is amazing in workflow when you speak about speed but shading realism is poor for architectural rendering(for me)
So I use Corona for stills and architecture. And I will buy Corona for that tasks ;)
I would like to see Corona on something like Xeon Phi or Caustic cards (with open rl) ;)
For me GPU is easy to upgrade solution. CPU for me is solution for different tasks(like water and cloth simulation, hair sim, fast anim. playback e.t.c.)
So I love Corona and I love Redshift :)
Thanks!
-Pavel
P.S. Sorry for my English again  ;)

7

[Max] General Discussion / Re: No corona vs redshift comparison so far?

« on: 2014-06-15, 15:11:25 »

I'm a redshift consumer.
I use it in Maya and it is very fast.
For exemple my works:
https://www.redshift3d.com/cms/ce_image/made/cms/assets/user_gallery/Spalnya_R1_1200_900.jpg
https://www.redshift3d.com/cms/ce_image/made/cms/assets/user_gallery/Image4_1200_900.jpg
https://www.redshift3d.com/cms/ce_image/made/cms/assets/user_gallery/Image1_1200_900.jpg
https://www.redshift3d.com/cms/ce_image/made/cms/assets/user_gallery/Image3_1200_900.jpg
Every image takes from 10 to 15 min render time on 2xGTX 780
All images was rendered with Brute force+poind cloud GI (something like in Corona path tracing+HD cache)
For me Redshift is much faster than Corona but I like Corona materials and lighting. So for me Corona is more realistic solution because of materials.
Thanks!
-Pavel
P.S. Sorry for my bad English ;)

8

Gallery / Re: Classic interior

« on: 2013-04-30, 18:56:52 »

Good.
I think gold should be more reflective.
and may be the chandelier should not be so overexposed.

9

Gallery / Re: Small bedroom for friends)

« on: 2013-02-25, 23:49:34 »

Sorry, I use a translator from google because bad know English. :)
I wanted to ask what algorithms were used? Pt+Pt or Pt+HD cache

10

Gallery / Re: Small bedroom for friends)

« on: 2013-02-25, 22:04:35 »

Good work!
how did you get rid of the noise from direct light sources?
What been used rendering engine?
thanks!
Sorry for my bad English

11

[Max] Feature Requests / Re: Which 3D soft to integrate into next?

« on: 2013-02-23, 17:57:15 »

Fabric engine stage might be something worth checking out for you :)
It looks like a really excellent scene assembly and lighting tool currently under development.

http://fabricengine.com/creation-modules/stage/

You might find it interesting considering it is meant to work with both maya and softimage as well as other apps.

But as I understood it is standalone...

12

[Max] Resolved Feature Requests / Re: DR rendering, BB rendering and Clipping plane

« on: 2013-02-20, 13:09:38 »

by clipping plane you mean minimal/maximal intersection distance?

I think that's what he meant. On the attached file is very small room closet, but with clipping planes was possible to make such renders

13

Gallery / Re: interior in classic style

« on: 2013-02-12, 10:27:12 »

thanks for the tips Chakib
I used the Z channel and eyeon fusion to create DOF.
Corona DOF really much more accurate but I do not have either the patience or faster processor for use. :)
Sorry for my bad English

14

[Max] Resolved Feature Requests / Re: direct light sampling

« on: 2013-02-11, 20:43:25 »

You are right. Mesh light actually faster than the corona light object. I thought that this is the same but with a more convenient parameter setting. With a mesh lights noise is indeed less. Thanks for help!
Sorry for my bad English

15

Gallery / Re: interior in classic style

« on: 2013-02-10, 21:32:37 »

The models you used (did you make them?) are very realistic and detailed but something is wrong with the overall rendering, the setup looks unnatural and plastic-like (like in games). I think the most important thing you should change is the difference between indoor and outdoor brightness (example: the shot where you can see some plants in the background).  Some shaders look like plastic. And those curtains are definitely wrong - I think you should use a different model if you can, not just texture.

Yes I have noticed that after rendering a slider - highlight compensation :)
Most models decor were ready, I just cleaned them and reconfigured materials
I'll try to find time to correct the errors and re-render scene in a higher quality.
Thanks for your comments