Messages

1

[Max] General Discussion / Support for Chaos VrScans

« on: 2022-01-11, 17:15:50 »

Hey guys,
I was reading about this in the roadmap, but I can't seem to find any more info on that. Is support for VrScans still planned and is it possible to give a time frame?

2

[Max] General Discussion / Re: Chaos cosmos & Chaos Cloud - Corona users are left behind?

« on: 2021-03-01, 17:32:51 »

I was also quite into VRScans for a while but the thing seemed to pretty much die the last couple of years.

It is not dead! We regularly send samples to them for digitizing, two or three times a year. So far, VrScans are superior to any other scanning solution we tested (and we tested all the major ones).

We also collect various samples to send to Chaos for adding to the library. The last update on the carpaints was all based on paints provided by us. However, this takes some time on our end as well.
Anyway, the VrScans are very far from dead! ;)

3

Gallery / Re: Audi RS5 Sportback Interior Shots

« on: 2019-08-09, 14:40:50 »

Good work, although I can spot numerous shading errors resulting from bad mapping. Most of the time these models got incorrect UV layouts, and you can see this in the image in several places.
For my taste, the suede leather on the steering looks a little rough.

4

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

« on: 2019-05-16, 17:21:56 »

Of one of the guys came up with the strangest solution to this problem: Apply UVW map in box mode and it works. I tried it, and it does... Weird!

5

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

« on: 2019-05-16, 10:58:34 »

@dfcorona: Can you send you scene to the developers over in your thread at the Chaosroup-Forums? I am curious what comes out of this, because this seems to be a bug.

6

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

« on: 2019-05-14, 14:53:04 »

I tried your file.
I can not get it to work correctly, either. I have to agree the GPU/Corona version is looking much more detailed and crisp, and also the lighting on the right side is looking much nicer. More correct for the direction the lighting is coming from.

7

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

« on: 2019-05-08, 08:58:42 »

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?

8

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

« on: 2019-05-07, 18:40:05 »

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?

9

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

« on: 2019-05-07, 10:24:53 »

I tried to download your scene, but it seems I have to request permission for this?

10

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

« on: 2019-05-04, 17:28:07 »

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...

11

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

« on: 2019-05-04, 12:35:13 »

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!

12

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

« on: 2019-05-03, 20:51:56 »

Regarding the glass issues: There recently are discussions to increase the default Max depth parameter, as well as the reflect on backside option for the VrayMtl. These two options are well known to long-time V-Ray users, but new guys have no clue what they are. Both are neccessary to get good looking glass in any renderer.
The bugs you mentioned are unknown to me. Never had the bucket mode skip half of the image, nor does it crash when assigning an Override Material. Guess some stuff is down to the user.
But I can tell you something else: In my 12 years of V-Ray, I have seen a lot of renderers come and go. I tried all the promising ones (yes, including Corona), but so far no competitor ever matched the speed and the set of supported features. There is literally nothing I could not do with V-Ray.

13

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

« on: 2019-05-03, 16:50:03 »

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

14

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

« on: 2019-05-03, 16:34:57 »

Well, the old Alfa from the side has vegatation in it, the grass, wall and the hedge. Same for the Mazda: Racetrack, Grass, Hills etc. are all rendered.
The Dodge in the fog also, it is full CGI. Droplets the same. The only car on photo background is the BMW. So I think V-Ray can render any environment in a realistic way...
But here are some more I did with Forstpack and some assets from Megascans.

15

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

« on: 2019-05-03, 16:03:38 »

I have to agree with the opinion of most users here. In Next the IPR is much more responsive, it's faster then ever.
What I can not understand are the comments about the palstic look. Attached are some renders straight out of the VFB, with applied LUT. No further post work whatsoever. Looks good in my opinion...