General Category > General CG Discussion


(1/3) > >>

I know, I know the two pieces of software are not intended to do the same thing, still, I feel like CORONA and VRAY are just approaching archviz in such a stupid way it's hard not to comment.
I love corona render. When it came out it was a breadth of fresh air compared to VRAY.

I've switched jobs and I'm working for an architecture firm that solely uses enscape. There are key issues, like a painful material library, a definite loss of quality, shit view management, little uv controls, to name a few, but I can see why our firm uses this software.
1- It plugs in very well with revit - I have my revit view and my enscape view open in another window. This means less bugs from revit to 3ds, and, of course, not having to deal with 3ds. This is key as we want to render throughout the entire design.
2 - The speed is incredible - it is almost real time.
3- Theres a wealth of easily accessible and easy to place assets.
4- The material integration between revit and enscape, though imperfect is going in the right direction. Soon the material libraries will merge.
5- It has a much much easier learning curve, though that comes with a lack of key controls.
6- Its sun and sky system is easy and intuitive, though it could have several more options.

Taking all this into account, there's no way a firm should use a revit-3ds corona pipeline - espeically not with large complex models.
What frustrates me is that there really doesn't seem to be a revit - corona pipeline ( and the vray one is severely lacking as well)
A lot of the issues described above have nothing to do with the core capacities of the engine, they are pipeline choices that keep emphasising obsolete archviz pipelines that require 3ds or C4d to anchor the process.
This si antitethical to where the entire architecture industry and BIM want to head towards. Sure, some high end rendering firms  can take the extra time to add these steps, but as of last month, we don't outsource our renders anymore. Not worth the lack of control, and we can get 80% of the way there in terms of quality, without paying them to rebuild the model. Not to mention we have much more control and can more quickly react to changes in the model and materials. 

Future software would
1- have strong revit dual screen integration and material intergration
2- connect intuitively to a significanlty upgraded cosmos library - like why is this library still shit... corona and vray shine with high level assets.
3- Have simplified sun - daylight controls (really a huge asset for such a small addtion)
4- Have a simplified user interface (Advanced and Simple) that can compete with the ease of enscapes interface.
5- Utilise the almost realtime engine provided by the corona IR - I mean corona IR on the next gen threadripper should do the trick.

Enscape made some smart choices, but I still believe the core engine behind corona to be better.  I want 90% of enscapes ease of use with revit and Coronas 200% better renders and material creation. Why are you letting this new piece of software eat your lunch. WHY THE FUCK aren't you building plugins for archicad or revit, the actual BIM software. 3ds and C4d are not part of this industry. Isn't archviz a massive (if not the largest) piece of your revenue.

I suggest doing atleast some research next time before making such a clueless rant.


--- Quote from: GraceKellyPerfect on 2022-01-08, 12:58:46 ---I suggest doing atleast some research next time before making such a clueless rant.

--- End quote ---

I'm new to all of this. Could you please elaborate?

appreciated :)

UE5 suits my taste

Good news I guess? :)


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version