Chaos Corona Forum
General Category => Gallery => Topic started by: Polymax on 2013-02-18, 19:45:46
-
I want to show a comparative test of two renderers, vray and corona.
The interior is very dark and a little direct light, so there is a big load on the GI calculation (Primary and secondary).
I was not able to achieve high-quality rendering of Vray, using for the primary bounces Irradiance Map.
In niches on the walls was always dirty. To avoid this, we would have to do a lot of fake, that to me is not acceptable.
So the only way left for the primary bounces use of Brute Force engine with more subdivs (70), because of this highly risen render time.
I tried the same set up shaders and direct lighting.
In the end, as you will see, the render time Corona is much smaller than the Vray and better quality and realism.
With this example I want to show that the Corona is better vray, even in alpha stage!
Sorry for my bad English!
-
better quality and realism.
we know it)
-
Oh yes, it's true!
8 years of sitting on Vray and never thought that could be better, but how can we see :)
Thank Keymaster for his work!
-
So the only way left for the primary bounces use of Brute Force engine with more subdivs (70), because of this highly risen render time.
I tried the same set up shaders and direct lighting.
I think you should have used Irradiance Map + Light Cache and in Irradiance Map's parameters turn on Detail Enhancement.
Seriously, I don't know why Vray is so popular. It's not user-friendly and on an average machine the render times are unacceptable with more complex scenes.
But let's stop cause talking about Vray on Corona forums is a blasphemy.
-
These tests are very, very subjective. In this very specific case, Corona might have some advantage over Vray, but there are many more complex cases, where Vray would kick Corona's ass both in terms of speed and feature set.
Yes, Corona has a great potential, but at this moment, it's way too soon for any conclusions ;)
-
These tests are very, very subjective. In this very specific case, Corona might have some advantage over Vray, but there are many more complex cases, where Vray would kick Corona's ass both in terms of speed and feature set.
Yes, Corona has a great potential, but at this moment, it's way too soon for any conclusions ;)
I agree with Rawalanche, corona seems to be easier for now and faster in some kind of scene, but when we talk about some missing features and the complexity of a scene, in my experience I've found that vray was able to render make great renders of one of my heaviest scenes with proxies displacement a lot of copies etc but after hours of rendering, and corona took a lot of time just to calculate the scene so it can be ready to render it, it's normal since it's just an alpha, so for this time we can't judge which is good and not, Vray is doing fine but i see a great future for Corona if it speeds its development.
-
I think you should have used Irradiance Map + Light Cache and in Irradiance Map's parameters turn on Detail Enhancement.
Of course I tried to use the DE, even with high values, but it did not help. I discussed the setup of the interior in vray the forum, topic to be very large, but the solution has not been found, but fakes.
I wanted to show the work of two renderings on this interior, because it is difficult to render a GI. In my other work vray handles very well, well, in this case, it does not work as fast, and an acceptable rendering.
Here I am only comparing the GI rendering, and not all the renderings!
-
my 2 cent ;) ...
Imho comparing Vray and corona is a bit nonsense (yet). Both are using kind of different concepts to render the image. For me, Vrays DMC is way more useable in daily business than coronas current concept of (simply spoken) just shooting rays without any adaptivity. You can do really awesome things in Vray, especially in terms of speed/quality if you know how DMC works. Don't get me wrong, I love corona, but until there is some possibility to tell corona not-to-shoot-a-lot-of-rays-in-already-clean-areas I don't see a lot of sense in comparing the two. Sure Pathtracers always rock in terms of speed/realism, but there are a lot more things a good renderer should be able to do and at some point those pathtracers just are not the right way to go.
If you really want to compare Vray to Corona for interior you may want to try PT+HDCache for Corona and BF+Lightcache for Vray - which is at least kind of the same concept.
-
If you really want to compare Vray to Corona for interior you may want to try PT+HDCache for Corona and BF+Lightcache for Vray - which is at least kind of the same concept.
This test is a comparison of the case!
Vray for rendering, I used just such a method BF+LC! :)
-
This test is a comparison of the case!
Vray for rendering, I used just such a method BF+LC! :)
Ah sorry, my bad. Didn't read properly ;) How is your AA set up?
-
How is your AA set up?
Adaptive DMS 1-4.
I do not think that this forum is to discuss setting vray;). Questions about the scene with vray, you can in a personal message.
-
These tests are very, very subjective. In this very specific case, Corona might have some advantage over Vray, but there are many more complex cases, where Vray would kick Corona's ass both in terms of speed and feature set.
Yes, Corona has a great potential, but at this moment, it's way too soon for any conclusions ;)
I agree with Rawalanche, corona seems to be easier for now and faster in some kind of scene, but when we talk about some missing features and the complexity of a scene, in my experience I've found that vray was able to render make great renders of one of my heaviest scenes with proxies displacement a lot of copies etc but after hours of rendering, and corona took a lot of time just to calculate the scene so it can be ready to render it, it's normal since it's just an alpha, so for this time we can't judge which is good and not, Vray is doing fine but i see a great future for Corona if it speeds its development.
+1