Messages

1

[Max] General Discussion / Re: Direction of Corona 7 and beyond

« on: 2020-09-26, 19:04:51 »

Thanx

2

[Max] General Discussion / Direction of Corona 7 and beyond

« on: 2020-09-26, 18:13:23 »

Now that Corona 6 is out but also Vray 5 with several "corona-like features", whats next for Corona Renderer?
Is there a clear feature list for v7 already or sis the future more hazy?
Next year we'll have Unreal 5, where do Corona devs and users want the product to position itself in  the future?

3

[Max] General Discussion / Re: Favorite type of Material-standard among users?

« on: 2020-06-23, 23:27:20 »

Both Corona and V-Ray are PBR materials, btw. Just that "PBR" is one of those 3D standards that isn't really a standard. What aspect of Unreal shaders are you comparing, e.g. the glossiness/roughness workflow, or something else?

Yes, Metalness of a material + glosiness/rougness..  Seems to me its a more intuitive way to create materials and get a good result quicker than in quirky custom material definitions as seen in most renderers over the years (not just vray, corona..).

I would prefer it if Corona was more like U4 in that respect. Simply put, I ***personally*** get better results faster in U4 than i Corona when it comes to materials.

4

[Max] General Discussion / Favorite type of Material-standard among users?

« on: 2020-06-21, 21:33:33 »

Who prefers classic "rendering materials" (vray, corona) over PBR like in Unreal 4?
If so, why?

Cheers
eX

5

[Max] General Discussion / Re: How much longer will using CPU only for rendering make sense?

« on: 2020-03-08, 22:07:39 »

Devs are already experimenting with this in some way, ChaosGroup just launched public beta (or alpha?) of their LAVINA project (very similar to D5).

Closest to interactive workflow right now would be, 3dsMax 2020, Corona Interactive running within viewport (not framebuffer or active shade,...) and having nVidia powered AI Denoise going on at same time.

You are right,
Question then becomes, will Chaos Group differentiate between these products where Project Lavina tech becomes the next Vray RT while Corona is continuing to be CPU only.
Difficult to know what development will go where. We remember a time when Corona was a competitor to Vray :-)
Anyway, these are all just tools of course and people use whatever does the job best from their perspective. I sure hope Corona will continue to evolve into something simple and beautiful while managing to remain relevant for a long time to come.

6

[Max] General Discussion / Re: How much longer will using CPU only for rendering make sense?

« on: 2020-02-22, 00:11:00 »

You should understand speculation about RT on RTX and how low quality it is. There is other similar renders for example D5 Render
but it is also not fully real time and have low quality compare to real RT renders. So it is speculation about realtime and ray tracing.
It's the same if you can draw in photoshop similar result and faster than you will make it every 3d models for the same scene in real 3d. Some people concept artist works in similar way basic 3d scene and all details they drawing in 2d this is faster workflow for cool pictures

Sure, actual quality from RTX without denoising is terrible, but then you have hardware accelerated AI that does its magic and ta-daa, image looks good. That will obviously only improve over time. So, hypothetically speaking, if you can't tell the difference from AI denoised RTX render and a 4 hour CPU render then this discussion will be highly relevant.

7

[Max] General Discussion / How much longer will using CPU only for rendering make sense?

« on: 2020-02-19, 23:34:44 »

Howdy
I love Corona, for me it kick the hell out of Vray from a usability viewpoint, but what I find myself doing more and more is doing stuff in Unreal4. After getting an RTX card doing stuff in Unreal and getting the instand feedback from raytraced reflections, and RT-AO it makes me wanna stay in that workflow. All non realtime renderers make you feel like you're wasting time instead of being productive.
So what do you guys think. How much longer will it make sense to have a CPU based renderer, or even a hybrid one as opposed to moving entirely to future versions of say Unreal backed up by ever more powerful GPUs with hardware RayTracing using more and more clever AI to save computational time. (Who knows, maybe we can have hardware accelerated, AI assisted, realtime Caustics in a couple of years.