Poll

3 features you want the most:

Geopattern-like tool ("texturing" objects with geometry)
35 (12.2%)
Cryptomatte (masking workflow)
20 (6.9%)
Sketch/Toon/Stylized shader
14 (4.9%)
Curvature map
11 (3.8%)
Dedicated CarPaint Shader
3 (1%)
Dedicated fabrics shader
16 (5.6%)
Render-time booleans (cut/slice objects)
11 (3.8%)
Adding own materials to Corona Material Library
15 (5.2%)
Lightmix extended to materials, textures, ...
19 (6.6%)
VR Scans compatibility
3 (1%)
Interactive rendering in 3ds max viewport (with gizmos, object selection, manipulation, ...)
7 (2.4%)
Rendering memory usage improvements
8 (2.8%)
Speed of rendering improvements
29 (10.1%)
Speed of interactive rendering improvements specifically
25 (8.7%)
GPU/Hybrid rendering
48 (16.7%)
Stability improvements (bug fixes)
7 (2.4%)
Improvements to caustics
17 (5.9%)

Total Members Voted: 123

Author Topic: The most wanted feature?  (Read 354839 times)

2021-11-01, 21:35:28
Reply #960

GraceKellyPerfect

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 24
    • View Profile
I don't agree that without GPU rendering there is no future. Especially since CPU market is starting to be super sompetitive again which means better products for consumers. Intel is finally awakening with Alder Lake and AMD is showing no signs of stopping either. Also, Apple M1 is pushing both of these to get better/competitive (especially Intel).

But most importantly, as explained by Corona team, CPU is capable of producing more beautiful/realistic results than GPU at cost of speed. I choose quality over speed and in my opinion Corona render is pretty fast given the results it is producing.

As for adding support for other software, I would rather have them focus on existing two and continue rapid increase in quality of Corona Render

2021-11-02, 14:23:41
Reply #961

agentdark45

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 577
    • View Profile
I don't agree that without GPU rendering there is no future. Especially since CPU market is starting to be super sompetitive again which means better products for consumers. Intel is finally awakening with Alder Lake and AMD is showing no signs of stopping either. Also, Apple M1 is pushing both of these to get better/competitive (especially Intel).

But most importantly, as explained by Corona team, CPU is capable of producing more beautiful/realistic results than GPU at cost of speed. I choose quality over speed and in my opinion Corona render is pretty fast given the results it is producing.

As for adding support for other software, I would rather have them focus on existing two and continue rapid increase in quality of Corona Render

I don't agree with this at all, speaking as someone that's used Corona for years, and FStorm for several months (commercially). Take a quick browse on the FStorm Facebook group for an idea of render time vs quality. Unfortunately Corona isn't coming close any more.

Secondly, the cost to performance (coupled with convenience factor) is definitely skewed in GPU rendering's favour, given that we now have 24GB GPU's (roughly equivalent to 128gb-256gb of system ram imo due to how efficient ram usage is with FStorm + the option of memory compression). What's more convenient/cheap; building out multiple 3990x machines and dealing with DR annoyances vs. simple dropping in as many 3090's as you need in any machine with lots of PCIE lanes. Another negative of CPU rendering, having to build an entirely new system every time a new socket/platform gets released, or being potentially rugged in the future by workstation only platforms i.e. Threadripper pro as your only upgrade path.

I don't want to sound like an FStorm fanboy, but I'll go with whatever software gives me the most benefit. It's a shame to see the Corona devs dig their heels in on the CPU/GPU debate when there IS a clear current and future benefit to GPU/Hybrid rendering.
Vray who?

2021-11-02, 14:33:09
Reply #962

lupaz

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 678
    • View Profile
I don't agree that without GPU rendering there is no future. Especially since CPU market is starting to be super sompetitive again which means better products for consumers. Intel is finally awakening with Alder Lake and AMD is showing no signs of stopping either. Also, Apple M1 is pushing both of these to get better/competitive (especially Intel).

But most importantly, as explained by Corona team, CPU is capable of producing more beautiful/realistic results than GPU at cost of speed. I choose quality over speed and in my opinion Corona render is pretty fast given the results it is producing.

As for adding support for other software, I would rather have them focus on existing two and continue rapid increase in quality of Corona Render

I don't agree with this at all, speaking as someone that's used Corona for years, and FStorm for several months (commercially). Take a quick browse on the FStorm Facebook group for an idea of render time vs quality. Unfortunately Corona isn't coming close any more.

Secondly, the cost to performance (coupled with convenience factor) is definitely skewed in GPU rendering's favour, given that we now have 24GB GPU's (roughly equivalent to 128gb-256gb of system ram imo due to how efficient ram usage is with FStorm + the option of memory compression). What's more convenient/cheap; building out multiple 3990x machines and dealing with DR annoyances vs. simple dropping in as many 3090's as you need in any machine with lots of PCIE lanes. Another negative of CPU rendering, having to build an entirely new system every time a new socket/platform gets released, or being potentially rugged in the future by workstation only platforms i.e. Threadripper pro as your only upgrade path.

I don't want to sound like an FStorm fanboy, but I'll go with whatever software gives me the most benefit. It's a shame to see the Corona devs dig their heels in on the CPU/GPU debate when there IS a clear current and future benefit to GPU/Hybrid rendering.

I agree with that quality in rendering has nothing to do with GPU vs CPU, but there are cons of GPU as well. If you look at the media library on FB for Fstorm, there aren't huge exterior scenes. Memory in GPU rendering must still be a big bottle neck.
Also video cards do have their problems too. Many times I read in the Facebook page of Fstorm someone with issues with GPU and I feel relieved that I don't have to deal with all that.


2021-11-02, 16:05:41
Reply #963

agentdark45

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 577
    • View Profile
I agree with that quality in rendering has nothing to do with GPU vs CPU, but there are cons of GPU as well. If you look at the media library on FB for Fstorm, there aren't huge exterior scenes. Memory in GPU rendering must still be a big bottle neck.
Also video cards do have their problems too. Many times I read in the Facebook page of Fstorm someone with issues with GPU and I feel relieved that I don't have to deal with all that.

What would you classify as a huge exterior scene? The groups banner photo seems pretty sizeable: https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=1355093498211047&set=gm.2514144842215252

If you spend some time with FStorm you'll realise that it doesn't use GPU memory in the same way Corona uses system RAM, hence why I've likened having a 24GB 3090 to the equivalent of having 128-256GB of system ram with Corona - it is insanely memory efficient. I've made scenes using 60+ 4-16K textures, mega detailed photo-scanned assets with silly amounts of scatters and was barely over 9GB of GPU ram usage (which could get reduced to ~5GB if you enabled memory compression). I've also done ridiculous 32K renders on an old single 2080ti that were impossible to pull off with Corona.

I would agree that GPU's in general are probably more prone to failure than CPU's, but we are splitting hairs here tbh. High end PSU's and adequate cooling are needed both CPU's and GPU's. You'll find all manner of problems on this forum with people's systems (VRM issues, throttling, proper core loading e.t.c).

My current machine has a 3970x and 3x3090's all water cooled, which has given me a good opportunity to properly test both engines on real world commercial scenes. I tried hard to not gravitate away from Corona (as it was my daily rendering engine for the best part of 3 years, and the lightmix feature is absolutely fantastic), but the benefits of FStorm far outweigh the cons.
Vray who?

2021-11-02, 17:45:17
Reply #964

lupaz

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 678
    • View Profile
What would you classify as a huge exterior scene? The groups banner photo seems pretty sizeable: https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=1355093498211047&set=gm.2514144842215252

Yes, that definitely classifies as a huge exterior scene. I wonder what kind of card they used, because my impression is that you'd need a much larger investment to create  a scene like that in Fstorm than with Corona.

Other than this one image that you showed, I haven't seen anything done in Fstorm with that scale. While with Corona there's tons of examples.
If you know more examples of larger scenes, I'd be interested in seeing them.


In other words, yes, GPU rendering is great if you're willing to spend big bucks for a system.
Otherwise Corona is more wallet friendly in terms of system requirements IMO






2021-11-02, 18:28:49
Reply #965

agentdark45

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 577
    • View Profile
Yes, that definitely classifies as a huge exterior scene. I wonder what kind of card they used, because my impression is that you'd need a much larger investment to create  a scene like that in Fstorm than with Corona.

Other than this one image that you showed, I haven't seen anything done in Fstorm with that scale. While with Corona there's tons of examples.
If you know more examples of larger scenes, I'd be interested in seeing them.


In other words, yes, GPU rendering is great if you're willing to spend big bucks for a system.
Otherwise Corona is more wallet friendly in terms of system requirements IMO

It was rendered on a single 2080ti and only used 2.75gb of VRAM...in other words it could be rendered on a toaster: https://www.facebook.com/groups/FStormGroup/permalink/2432656570364080/

I don't really get your argument about not seeing many huge scene examples...take a look at some of Mikael's other work if you need to be convinced further (despite me also using FStorm daily - I have no reason to lie). Here's another: https://www.facebook.com/groups/FStormGroup/permalink/2547706508859085/ I've chosen to invest in 3x3090's because I can, and it's profitable. It's not necessary. I was using a single 2080ti for quite a while which was faster in equivalent render time to my 3970x in complex interior scenes using Corona. You would need to invest a hell of a lot more than what I paid for 3x3090's to match the speed using Corona, and then have to deal with distributed rendering.
« Last Edit: 2021-11-02, 18:43:18 by agentdark45 »
Vray who?

2021-11-02, 23:19:12
Reply #966

GraceKellyPerfect

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 24
    • View Profile
I don't agree that without GPU rendering there is no future. Especially since CPU market is starting to be super sompetitive again which means better products for consumers. Intel is finally awakening with Alder Lake and AMD is showing no signs of stopping either. Also, Apple M1 is pushing both of these to get better/competitive (especially Intel).

But most importantly, as explained by Corona team, CPU is capable of producing more beautiful/realistic results than GPU at cost of speed. I choose quality over speed and in my opinion Corona render is pretty fast given the results it is producing.

As for adding support for other software, I would rather have them focus on existing two and continue rapid increase in quality of Corona Render

I don't agree with this at all, speaking as someone that's used Corona for years, and FStorm for several months (commercially). Take a quick browse on the FStorm Facebook group for an idea of render time vs quality. Unfortunately Corona isn't coming close any more.

Secondly, the cost to performance (coupled with convenience factor) is definitely skewed in GPU rendering's favour, given that we now have 24GB GPU's (roughly equivalent to 128gb-256gb of system ram imo due to how efficient ram usage is with FStorm + the option of memory compression). What's more convenient/cheap; building out multiple 3990x machines and dealing with DR annoyances vs. simple dropping in as many 3090's as you need in any machine with lots of PCIE lanes. Another negative of CPU rendering, having to build an entirely new system every time a new socket/platform gets released, or being potentially rugged in the future by workstation only platforms i.e. Threadripper pro as your only upgrade path.

I don't want to sound like an FStorm fanboy, but I'll go with whatever software gives me the most benefit. It's a shame to see the Corona devs dig their heels in on the CPU/GPU debate when there IS a clear current and future benefit to GPU/Hybrid rendering.
Quoting from Corona article "When it comes to light bouncing around in a 3D scene, it DOES skip all over the place – exactly what calculation is required next is not easily predictable, and it may not be the same as other calculations which need to be happening at the same time, and that is why the architecture of a CPU is much better suited to this task than a GPU."

And from Autodesk "The most notable difference between CPU and GPU rendering is that CPU rendering is more accurate, but GPU is faster"

Although I have to say FStorm seems to produce most beautiful renders among GPU render engines, very impressive but I still prefer Corona or Arnold.

2021-11-03, 00:46:45
Reply #967

agentdark45

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 577
    • View Profile
Quoting from Corona article "When it comes to light bouncing around in a 3D scene, it DOES skip all over the place – exactly what calculation is required next is not easily predictable, and it may not be the same as other calculations which need to be happening at the same time, and that is why the architecture of a CPU is much better suited to this task than a GPU."

And from Autodesk "The most notable difference between CPU and GPU rendering is that CPU rendering is more accurate, but GPU is faster"

Although I have to say FStorm seems to produce most beautiful renders among GPU render engines, very impressive but I still prefer Corona or Arnold.

This is patently false information, is this from a 4 year old article or something? Are we to believe that for some unknown reason that accurate calculations cannot be done using CUDA on GPU's...despite the scientific community using them daily for exactly this purpose?

What has been described in your quotes is purely down to the algorithms implemented on a software level (it makes no difference what the underlying hardware is in this context). If anything I've found Corona less accurate with GI calculations than FStorm due to the biased secondary UHD cache of Corona - try rendering an animation with multiple moving objects/light sources, or compositing newly rendered regions in a render in Corona; you're going to have a bad time (admittedly the devs have somewhat solved this with the 4K cache, however it's still an approximate solution). You do not have this problem in FStorm, the GI solution is tack sharp and 100% repeatable even with moving objects and light sources (not to mention no precomputation of secondary caches are needed).
Vray who?

2021-11-03, 15:31:09
Reply #968

lupaz

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 678
    • View Profile

It was rendered on a single 2080ti and only used 2.75gb of VRAM...in other words it could be rendered on a toaster: https://www.facebook.com/groups/FStormGroup/permalink/2432656570364080/

I don't really get your argument about not seeing many huge scene examples...take a look at some of Mikael's other work if you need to be convinced further (despite me also using FStorm daily - I have no reason to lie). Here's another: https://www.facebook.com/groups/FStormGroup/permalink/2547706508859085/ I've chosen to invest in 3x3090's because I can, and it's profitable. It's not necessary. I was using a single 2080ti for quite a while which was faster in equivalent render time to my 3970x in complex interior scenes using Corona. You would need to invest a hell of a lot more than what I paid for 3x3090's to match the speed using Corona, and then have to deal with distributed rendering.

I guess you're right. I didn't know that one was all 3D.
If you don't mind me asking, what and why do you use Corona for?

2021-11-03, 22:23:22
Reply #969

davemahi

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 154
    • View Profile
    • iamstatic
Cryptomatte support please. I find your lack of Cryptomatte support disturbing. The most other features on the list can be filled in by plugins but I need Cryptomatte, having full blown pipeline with Vray for years using Cryptomatte and need it. Even Blender has it. Shame on you.

LOL.
Is this a joke??

It's not a joke for me. Not having Crypto Mattes is so weird. It's just another of those industry standards that the devs seem to look past. Nothing says fun render engine, like wasting time setting up mattes for a million shots.

2021-11-03, 22:54:39
Reply #970

lupaz

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 678
    • View Profile
Cryptomatte support please. I find your lack of Cryptomatte support disturbing. The most other features on the list can be filled in by plugins but I need Cryptomatte, having full blown pipeline with Vray for years using Cryptomatte and need it. Even Blender has it. Shame on you.

LOL.
Is this a joke??

It's not a joke for me. Not having Crypto Mattes is so weird. It's just another of those industry standards that the devs seem to look past. Nothing says fun render engine, like wasting time setting up mattes for a million shots.

I was talking about the "disturbing" and the "shame on you" parts.

2021-11-04, 09:28:19
Reply #971

sebastian___

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 192
    • View Profile
I was talking about the "disturbing" and the "shame on you" parts.

That was a quote from Star Wars  :)
So it was funny, even though that post was supposed to be sad.

2021-11-24, 15:51:35
Reply #972

lupaz

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 678
    • View Profile
Hello Corona Team.

I'm looking into buying a material manager but I thought first asking here if you guys think yours will be able to incorporate our own materials soon or it's not something you're currently working on.

Thank you.

2021-11-26, 15:05:32
Reply #973

aref3dsmax

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 61
    • View Profile
hi. any news about Export corona scene to vantage ?