Messages

196

[Max] General Discussion / Re: Vray Next vs Corona 4

« on: 2019-05-04, 17:34:06 »

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

197

[Max] General Discussion / Re: Vray Next vs Corona 4

« on: 2019-05-04, 17:23:15 »

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.

198

[Max] General Discussion / Re: Vray Next vs Corona 4

« on: 2019-05-04, 01:11:29 »

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

199

[Max] General Discussion / Re: Vray Next vs Corona 4

« on: 2019-05-03, 21:12:16 »

Yes vrays supported features are amazing. Wish they would develop faster with gpu though, development on that is so slow.

200

[Max] General Discussion / Re: Vray Next vs Corona 4

« on: 2019-05-03, 17:57:17 »

Erm, as I said, besides the BMW, all images are full cgi exteriors.

I guess I'm looking at this from more of a Archviz point of view.  I understand that the motion blurred exterior of the mazda is cgi, but hard to tell anything form well all the blurring. The cream side car is only 3 elements in the exterior where the rest is a photo. They look good, but when you have all elements of a full cgi archviz project, things seems to start looking well CGI.  I think the best is to have the same archviz project rendered in both, I'm trying that now and hopefully be pleasantly surprised by Vray, but so far not exactly convinced.

201

[Max] General Discussion / Re: Vray Next vs Corona 4

« on: 2019-05-03, 16:43:38 »

Those are hard to tell anything because Photo-scanned objects can look just as real in a game engine. I'm talking full scenes interior and exterior, the majority of them don't look as realistic as corona.  Like I said I cannot pin it down to Lighting, Shaders, or possibly tonemapping.  I know that I've heard a lot of people also complaining how vray handles Bump mapping, so maybe it is a shader issue.  But I have to say again it's IPR and render speed is pretty amazing.

202

[Max] General Discussion / Re: Vray Next vs Corona 4

« on: 2019-05-03, 16:17:00 »

Thank you kosso_olli for your info and pictures.  I agree that Vray can render cars realistically.  But find some interiors or exteriors with different materials and vegetation.  They seem to always show a plasticy look from Vray to me, now that we are use to the realism of say Corona and Fstorm. There might be a handful of them that look so good I can't tell there Vray. Every time I see a render from Vray now I can tell it is Vray, it has a flat plastic feel. Characters and cars always seem to come out good.  I think one major issue with Vray is how it handles Vegetation also, It always seems to feel less quality than other renderers.  I had to take a break because of work but I want to get back to my testing between the two.

203

[Max] General Discussion / Re: Vray Next vs Corona 4

« on: 2019-05-01, 18:04:03 »

Yes Redshift for Archviz, It's super fast and never had a issue with vram.  It is missing some key features though but that is being resolved a lot in version 3.0 that's coming soon. It can handle massive scenes.  I always run into vram issues with Fstorm, especially with exterior vegetation, and it has no OOC.  Nvlink will help but i still see it having Vram issues even then with very large scenes.

204

[Max] General Discussion / Re: Vray Next vs Corona 4

« on: 2019-04-30, 22:15:36 »

That was great danio1011, thanks for your experience. This is what I'm kinda finding also. I am now putting together a scene with Vray Next and then will remake it in Corona. Vray Next GPU is very fast, which is nice but it also is so slow in development. Missing many features you can get with say Redshift.  IPR if it's Vray CPU or Gpu seems much snappier than Corona and I've noticed that issue too with Forest Pack. But the scene I'm putting together with Vray the render is just getting that plastic feeling. Before I rendered with materials I did both scenes in vray and Corona with override shader and the lighting between both where quite different, this is an exterior scene. I know what your saying about depth, Corona feels like the scenes have actual depth where Vray Next feels flat. I also would like to use Next GPU for certain types of animations but the quality just leaves me kinda disappointed so far.  I'm not done with my own internal testing but will see what comes of it. 

I've tried Fstorm while nice I always hit Vram issues, so it's only ever good for small scenes. Octane does better but is limited in shaders and ALWAYS crashes over all the years we've owned it we were never able to use it for production once except one still that had it crashing all the time also, We've owned from the beginning and own the latest versions also.  For GPU nothing really beats Redshift.  Would love to hear more from others.

205

[Max] General Discussion / Vray Next vs Corona 4

« on: 2019-04-28, 00:14:18 »

Wanted to get you guys opinions on Vray Next since most of you came from Vray or still use it but also use Corona.  We own Vray 3x version and Corona among other renderers.  We are going to keep using Corona but might use Vray Next for animations. Had some observations and questions.

We just used Corona 4 nightly for an animation, render quality, user interface & user friendliness is fantastic. Render times get to be quite large compared to Vray Next that we tried for a few small tests, and that can really add up for animation.  Vray Next IPR seems much more responsive and final rendering seems to be much faster.  But my question is about quality, many Corona renders look very realistic compared to Vray.  Not sure if this changed with Vray Next, but I can't place my finger on if it's Coronas lighting or shaders.  Seems to have more depth and reflective properties seem more natural. Like I said we had only limited time with Vray Next trial, so for those who use both would love to hear your opinions or even see you comparisons.

206

News / Re: render4you.eu now supports Corona renderer

« on: 2019-04-28, 00:00:31 »

We just used Render4you on an animation project, fantastic prices and support.

207

Hardware / Re: Threadripper 2990WX

« on: 2019-04-21, 16:08:05 »

Here is something new.

Thermaltake Releases Threadripper-Specific Floe Riing RGB 360

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/thermaltake-flow-riing-tr4-rgb-360,39124.html

208

[Max] General Discussion / Re: AI super-resolution speedup

« on: 2019-04-16, 16:50:06 »

Here is another version if this helps. It's at 12.0 Noise Limit, 8min 7sec no denoise and 8min 2sec with denoise.  Don't ask me how it rendered faster with denoiser, That wasn't the first render with no denoise.

209

[Max] General Discussion / Re: AI super-resolution speedup

« on: 2019-04-16, 15:40:02 »

Here is an example, with 7.0 noise limit and Intel denoise, did a fantastic job and kept all detail especially in grass and vegetation.  Only added 10sec. onto a 21min render, but saved at lease a third of time rendering. These are of course straight out of VFB.

Sorry, i don't get it. The two images are almost identical. Denoiser didn't do anything there, just added another 10 seconds to your rende time.

Lol, you really don't see the difference? Denoise in production is only meant for the last 10% of noise left. But that last 10% a lot of times can mean 1/3 the render time. I can definitely tell the difference between the two and if we did not denoise the renders the animation would be a mess with dancing noise.

210

[Max] Daily Builds / Re: High quality image filtering playground!

« on: 2019-04-16, 00:47:15 »

I've tested so far and found the quality to be just about equal but the render time to go up a LOT!