Author Topic: Vray Next vs Corona 4  (Read 27632 times)

2019-05-04, 01:11:29
Reply #15

dfcorona

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 290
    • View Profile
Since you guys are avid Vray users, what is going on with Normal maps? Do they not work correctly or am I doing something wrong? Below is two renders one is Vray and the other is Corona, you can see how much more realistic Corona handles the Normal Maps. Especially in the Stucco.

Vray I'm using the Vraynormal map node.

EDIT: Okay so the stucco looked more correct when I imported the Normal map as gamma 2.2 or automatic, which makes no sense because all other renderers look correct when It's imported as Gamma 1.0
« Last Edit: 2019-05-04, 01:34:16 by dfcorona »

2019-05-04, 12:35:13
Reply #16

kosso_olli

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
To me the normal issue seems to be related to the red and green channels, and/or gamma. There is a little tip here by Vlado, which should give you a hint. It seems the Corona version is the correct one, but I think it can be fixed.
If you could share the scene I could help you out.
Also, do you have any issues with the glass in this particular setup? Looks good to me!
The V-Ray guy checking out Corona...

https://www.behance.net/Oliver_Kossatz

2019-05-04, 17:23:15
Reply #17

dfcorona

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 290
    • View Profile
To me the normal issue seems to be related to the red and green channels, and/or gamma. There is a little tip here by Vlado, which should give you a hint. It seems the Corona version is the correct one, but I think it can be fixed.
If you could share the scene I could help you out.
Also, do you have any issues with the glass in this particular setup? Looks good to me!
I had to flip the Green channel to get correct.  Played with both gamma and channels, still get weird results. Let me package the scene it's about 500MB. Glass no, in Vray I always do reflect back side and turn up the reflection/refraction depth to 25. I do notice sometimes that the glass doesn't behave correctly still, but then all of a sudden it will render correctly, almost like a bug or something, but it's random.

Attached is something interesting, render comparing Corona and Redshift.

Corona render: 26min 36sec, was only maybe 1/4th done with rendering so expect 1-1.5 hours render.  But Corona also ran out of Ram gave me info about needing more ram in pop-up message.

Redshift render: 5min 44sec, Render was complete.  Had no message or issue with Ram let alone Vram.

2019-05-04, 17:28:07
Reply #18

kosso_olli

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
You can tell that Redshift does heavy clamping by looking at the highlights in the glass. In the Corona version you get glare through the refraction, in Redshift you don't. It is one of the engines which cut many corners to gain render speed. You decide if that's the right way...
The V-Ray guy checking out Corona...

https://www.behance.net/Oliver_Kossatz

2019-05-04, 17:34:06
Reply #19

dfcorona

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 290
    • View Profile
You can tell that Redshift does heavy clamping by looking at the highlights in the glass. In the Corona version you get glare through the refraction, in Redshift you don't. It is one of the engines which cut many corners to gain render speed. You decide if that's the right way...
That might have to do with the fact that Redshift transparency and reflection refraction depth is not high, nor can it be set higher. This is going to be fixed with 3.0 and suppose to be even faster doing it.  Also Redshift uses 4.0 Max subsample intensity, I can try changing that to 25 like corona and see what happens.

Vray scene: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PjdcY9oQFshSPGCEBuSRspLgie9Xbkd-/view?usp=sharing

2019-05-04, 17:46:40
Reply #20

dfcorona

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 290
    • View Profile
You can tell that Redshift does heavy clamping by looking at the highlights in the glass. In the Corona version you get glare through the refraction, in Redshift you don't. It is one of the engines which cut many corners to gain render speed. You decide if that's the right way...
Okay here is a new render at 25 subsampling intensity.  Looks good to me now and the weird thing is it actually rendered faster, 5min 24sec opposed to 5min 44sec.  What do you think?
« Last Edit: 2019-05-04, 23:53:31 by dfcorona »

2019-05-07, 05:03:44
Reply #21

dfcorona

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 290
    • View Profile
kosso_olli, Did you figure out the Vray normal issue?

2019-05-07, 10:24:53
Reply #22

kosso_olli

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
I tried to download your scene, but it seems I have to request permission for this?
The V-Ray guy checking out Corona...

https://www.behance.net/Oliver_Kossatz

2019-05-07, 15:44:17
Reply #23

dfcorona

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 290
    • View Profile
I tried to download your scene, but it seems I have to request permission for this?
sorry, you should have permission now.

2019-05-07, 18:40:05
Reply #24

kosso_olli

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Yes, I have.
But sadly I can't open the file, because we are still on Max 2017. We do not use any newer version in production, because we do not update yearly for pipeline integrity.
Most recent version I have installed would be 2018. Can you save with backwards compatibility?
The V-Ray guy checking out Corona...

https://www.behance.net/Oliver_Kossatz

2019-05-07, 18:45:05
Reply #25

danio1011

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 361
    • View Profile
Also, do you have any issues with the glass in this particular setup? Looks good to me!

I actually see a lot more detail in the Corona glass, in the highlights but especially in the darker areas.  The VRay glass just looks 'duller' to my eye.  Maybe just a tonemapping thing?

2019-05-07, 23:58:36
Reply #26

dfcorona

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 290
    • View Profile
Yes, I have.
But sadly I can't open the file, because we are still on Max 2017. We do not use any newer version in production, because we do not update yearly for pipeline integrity.
Most recent version I have installed would be 2018. Can you save with backwards compatibility?
Here is 2017 version:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aeA5Z8rfh0U2_iBp6PuOYU15N3UrT8AZ/view?usp=sharing

2019-05-08, 08:58:42
Reply #27

kosso_olli

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Yes, I have.
But sadly I can't open the file, because we are still on Max 2017. We do not use any newer version in production, because we do not update yearly for pipeline integrity.
Most recent version I have installed would be 2018. Can you save with backwards compatibility?
Here is 2017 version:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aeA5Z8rfh0U2_iBp6PuOYU15N3UrT8AZ/view?usp=sharing

Erm, I still can't open that one up. The last file from your download, vray material tests 2017.
Did you make sure you saved with backwards compatibility to Max 2017?

The V-Ray guy checking out Corona...

https://www.behance.net/Oliver_Kossatz

2019-05-08, 16:54:34
Reply #28

dfcorona

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 290
    • View Profile
Yes, I have.
But sadly I can't open the file, because we are still on Max 2017. We do not use any newer version in production, because we do not update yearly for pipeline integrity.
Most recent version I have installed would be 2018. Can you save with backwards compatibility?
Here is 2017 version:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aeA5Z8rfh0U2_iBp6PuOYU15N3UrT8AZ/view?usp=sharing
Dammit, I saved as 2017 then I archived it to zip. Unless 3dsmax resaves as 2020 when it archives.

Erm, I still can't open that one up. The last file from your download, vray material tests 2017.
Did you make sure you saved with backwards compatibility to Max 2017?

2019-05-09, 11:56:17
Reply #29

^Lele^

  • Users
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Quote
Reflect on backside was on (I always toggle this to evaluate results with glass).

You also need fog to be active to be able to get (total) internal reflections.
Quote
I would also imagine that Grant would be aware of those settings, too, when making his comments that so closely aligned with our impressions
I wouldn't assume.
What you describe in the above is pretty much the definition of "confirmation bias".