Chaos Corona Forum
Chaos Corona for 3ds Max => [Max] General Discussion => Topic started by: Christa Noel on 2018-07-18, 07:51:29
-
hi guys,
for my next presentation, people told me i need to include some explanation about corona and what makes it a better choice compared to other render engine like vray which is more popular and mature. I have pretty much experience with corona, i started to use it since A4. But the main problem i have very less experience with vray.
So can you guys please help me point what makes corona better than vray?
what i already have is this,
- lower cost / cheaper.
- way simpler in any settings.
- rich material library included.
- flexible settings with coronaCam.
- lightmix. i have no idea does vray already have this or not.
- Interactive Rendering, but i see vray already have IPR and vrayRT which uses GPU.
- ...
Please note that this thread is not a corona vs vray war.
-
- way simpler in any settings.
Nonsense! Since V-Ray 3.5, never ever did I need to change any settings besides noise threshold. Thats all.
Simply use the defaults out of the box together with Brute Force and Light Cache for GI, it works well and fast.
-
Kinda agree, i had Vray 3.5 demo for some time and i have to say, it was completely different experience from when i tried 1.x years ago. I think that render settings wise, Vray can be no harder than Corona, if one wishes it to be so. And i think in latest version, Vray got its camera back, which probably renders your point about cameras obsolete.
-
So now vray have optimum settings by default. Thanks :)
Any other opinions?
-
Hi. Personally I wouldn't go that route (why Corona is better than Vray). Instead I would tell why I use Corona, and what I find great about it. In my opinion Corona has pushed other renderes in a good direction.
Maybe you can be inspired by Ondras talk at TotalChaos:
-
If you use default setting where is no advantage comparing to corona, all know what vray a bit faster then corona but for adjusting speed you need to setup scene what will take much time, in corona where is no to setup. So using vray by default settings do not gives any advantage just catching up Corona. Corona much user friendly and simpler to learn, it goes to UI too.
I think it's only one render engine in which developers spend as much time for UI as for feature development.
Vray also using embree, progressive render etc, but looks at it's UI, looks how it clogs 3ds max UI. By the way progressive render in vray not so fast as in corona.
But vray can give more option to make fake images, i was never like that plastic renders though.
-
If you use default setting where is no advantage comparing to corona, all know what vray a bit faster then corona but for adjusting speed you need to setup scene what will take much time, in corona where is no to setup. So using vray by default settings do not gives any advantage just catching up Corona. Corona much user friendly and simpler to learn, it goes to UI too.
I think it's only one render engine in which developers spend as much time for UI as for feature development.
Vray also using embree, progressive render etc, but looks at it's UI, looks how it clogs 3ds max UI. By the way progressive render in vray not so fast as in corona.
But vray can give more option to make fake images, i was never like that plastic renders though.
You just made a post based on experiences you made like 5 years ago, I guess. Did you use V-Ray recently? I doubt it, otherwise you would have made other statements. As I said, default V-Ray settings are good for 95% of my work, and the result is clean and fast. No UI clutter either, because it was reworked recently. Corona is nice, yes (thats why I render with it every now and then), but it does have it's weak points. Speed and noise is still one of them.
-
I think my answer here will help you :)
https://ask.fm/NawrasRyhan/threads/149329844428
You might not need any of these missing features for simple archviz work, but Vray is used in other fields that need them. .
To add why Corona might better in some cases (I use it for Archviz /products rendering)
1-solid and fast interactive rendering
2-good post processing tools
3-built-in light mixer
-
Hi. Personally I wouldn't go that route (why Corona is better than Vray). Instead I would tell why I use Corona,
but "why i use corona" will surely lead me to "why corona is better than vray" route :) . Anyway there are many things i get from that ondra's talk. thanks
I think my answer here will help you :)
https://ask.fm/NawrasRyhan/threads/149329844428
i really like your solid detailed answer. thanks for sharing :)
-
kosso_olli I agree with you on speed and Noise hope in futures release we will see some major updates improving speed and noise and moreover Ondra has told at Total Chaos with few tweaking in current versions we can achieve up to 50% more seed However he is not willing to say that!
-
To make it even more confusing ;)
A BMW is definitely a good car, and an Audi too. There are many other car brands, which make cars that can be used to travel from place to place. Some people tried BMW and find it better than all the others they tried. Some people tried Audi, or other brand, and find it good for their needs.
Why choose a BMW? Why choose an Audi?
-
Reasons I use Corona:
1 - Lightmix, LUT slider, and all those other features VRay hasn't quite rolled in yet.
2 - User experience in Corona. One thing that struck me from Ondra's talk is that he thinks about the user experience from the inception of a feature. Vlado's approach is kind of 'How fast can we roll this in because we have power users\studios who need it ASAP' which is totally legitimate, of course! Ondra seems to think 'How do I make this tool foolproof and really solid before releasing it.' I think that's one of the biggest reasons Corona is so successful and why I choose to use it most of the time (I own both.) Just look at Bloom and Glare in VRay vs Corona. VRay's B&G might have more features, but (for me anyway) it's hard as heck to use. If I remember right in VRay the glare especially is affected by render resolution, which made it a moving target. Same thing with VRayEnvironmentFog vs CoronaVolumeMtl, Corona gives me the results I want every time.
3 - Realism. This is more my personal conspiracy theory than anything else, but I find that Corona gives me slightly more realistic results, even in the earliest stages of a scene. I know people post these 'apples to apples' comparisons where you can't tell the difference, but still I see it in my work. Might just be me, personal bias, etc. but I find VRay gives me a subtle CG look...even when using the 'PBR workflow.'
4 - Community. The Corona forum is way more active these days, you can't discount the importance of community.
5 - Glitches. More often than not I get frustrated with VRay's IR because it doesn't update. It's a ton better than it used to be when it first came out, but I'm always surprised by little glitches. Corona seems to always update with scene changes and be more stable. Or something is supported in VRay production but not VRay IR...yada yada.
Anywhooo...just my two cents. I still love them both.
-
2: Just look at Bloom and Glare in VRay vs Corona. VRay's B&G might have more features, but (for me anyway) it's hard as heck to use. If I remember right in VRay the glare especially is affected by render resolution, which made it a moving target. Same thing with VRayEnvironmentFog vs CoronaVolumeMtl, Corona gives me the results I want every time.
5 - Glitches. More often than not I get frustrated with VRay's IR because it doesn't update. It's a ton better than it used to be when it first came out, but I'm always surprised by little glitches. Corona seems to always update with scene changes and be more stable. Or something is supported in VRay production but not VRay IR...yada yada.
I dont get tired of saying this: Your last experience with V-Ray seems outdated. Lens Effects have vastly improved with 3.5. They are just as easy to use as Coronas Lens Effects, and they are not resolution dependant. I turn them on with every render.
Regarding IPR in V-Ray: There is exactly one(!) feature that is not supported in IPR: Atmospheric effects. Thats it. Everything else is working, and it is working fine for me without any issues in automotive viz. Some users here should take Next for a spin, you'd be surprised...
-
you'd be surprised...
With new glitches? =)
Stop protecting vray, i just couple month ago received vray scene for rendering in 3.60 and at 2-3 render it gives screen of death what was never happens with corona. Yes it was buggy scene but corona never freeze PC!, also i can render in corona the same scene just after converter. If you like vray use it, but stop protecting and trying to change our opinion or we can also start talking what corona is ideal render engine just you don't know that because use old version =)
do not forget compare price for both renderers
-
you'd be surprised...
With new glitches? =)
Stop protecting vray, i just couple month ago received vray scene for rendering in 3.60 and at 2-3 render it gives screen of death what was never happens with corona. Yes it was buggy scene but corona never freeze PC!, also i can render in corona the same scene just after converter. If you like vray use it, but stop protecting and trying to change our opinion or we can also start talking what corona is ideal render engine just you don't know that because use old version =)
do not forget compare price for both renderers
I've never ever had a bsod from vray. I've used it for perhaps 10 years now.
Comparing prices is not as clear cut as you might think. How often does a new paid release of vray come around? Every three years let's say? So the upgrade price from vray 3 to next is 570Euro for a single workstation (849 with the two extra nodes to match corona). How much will Corona cost over three years? 863Euro. There's more to it than than this, but it illustrates my point.
There's a difference between 'protecting' something and just being a bit more objective and aware of the facts before having a fanboygasm.
edit: my two cents
Vray's strength(s): much more capable of handling super dense, high memory scenes without a fuss. Generally faster in my usage for exterior scenes. More flexible atmospherics.
Corona's strength(s): The interactive view is so fast and so stable it makes vray look awful. Great material system and very easy to get a good result. Great post production features. Lightmixer.
-
you'd be surprised...
With new glitches? =)
Stop protecting vray, i just couple month ago received vray scene for rendering in 3.60 and at 2-3 render it gives screen of death what was never happens with corona. Yes it was buggy scene but corona never freeze PC!, also i can render in corona the same scene just after converter. If you like vray use it, but stop protecting and trying to change our opinion or we can also start talking what corona is ideal render engine just you don't know that because use old version =)
do not forget compare price for both renderers
edit: my two cents
Vray's strength(s): much more capable of handling super dense, high memory scenes without a fuss. Generally faster in my usage for exterior scenes. More flexible atmospherics.
Corona's strength(s): The interactive view is so fast and so stable it makes vray look awful. Great material system and very easy to get a good result. Great post production features. Lightmixer.
Thats actually a quite accurate comparison, I would agree to this. Altough V-Rays IPR is getting better. It was quite slow in the beginning, thats true.
-
you'd be surprised...
With new glitches? =)
Stop protecting vray, i just couple month ago received vray scene for rendering in 3.60 and at 2-3 render it gives screen of death what was never happens with corona. Yes it was buggy scene but corona never freeze PC!, also i can render in corona the same scene just after converter. If you like vray use it, but stop protecting and trying to change our opinion or we can also start talking what corona is ideal render engine just you don't know that because use old version =)
do not forget compare price for both renderers
edit: my two cents
Vray's strength(s): much more capable of handling super dense, high memory scenes without a fuss. Generally faster in my usage for exterior scenes. More flexible atmospherics.
Corona's strength(s): The interactive view is so fast and so stable it makes vray look awful. Great material system and very easy to get a good result. Great post production features. Lightmixer.
Thats actually a quite accurate comparison, I would agree to this. Altough V-Rays IPR is getting better. It was quite slow in the beginning, thats true.
But the lack of atmospherics makes it useless for me. Has this been fixed in Next?
-
2: Just look at Bloom and Glare in VRay vs Corona. VRay's B&G might have more features, but (for me anyway) it's hard as heck to use. If I remember right in VRay the glare especially is affected by render resolution, which made it a moving target. Same thing with VRayEnvironmentFog vs CoronaVolumeMtl, Corona gives me the results I want every time.
5 - Glitches. More often than not I get frustrated with VRay's IR because it doesn't update. It's a ton better than it used to be when it first came out, but I'm always surprised by little glitches. Corona seems to always update with scene changes and be more stable. Or something is supported in VRay production but not VRay IR...yada yada.
I dont get tired of saying this: Your last experience with V-Ray seems outdated. Lens Effects have vastly improved with 3.5. They are just as easy to use as Coronas Lens Effects, and they are not resolution dependant. I turn them on with every render.
Regarding IPR in V-Ray: There is exactly one(!) feature that is not supported in IPR: Atmospheric effects. Thats it. Everything else is working, and it is working fine for me without any issues in automotive viz. Some users here should take Next for a spin, you'd be surprised...
That’s good to know about the lens effects, I didn’t test them much during the next beta. And to be fair, I wasn’t just talking about unsupported features of IR (although Atmospherics is a big one), but also things not triggering an update. Might just be my bad luck but during the Next beta I was surprised to run into a few random things that didn’t trigger an IR update, something I rarely have ever seen in Corona. Not the end of the world, I still use Vray for jobs, just my observations. I do love how memory efficient Vray is and it sounds like the new Metalness workflow is cool!
-
edit: my two cents
Vray's strength(s): much more capable of handling super dense, high memory scenes without a fuss...
hi, thanks for that 2 cents. but about the interesting part, what did you mean about high memory scenes without a fuss.. i think i dont really get it.. is it about the memory efficiency or the stability / "out of core" rendering?
i'll appreciate if you or anyone here share the result of corona vray memory comparison here. or at least share the link please if there is existing related article out there
-
Vray seems to be more memory efficient (which I believe is a known thing). I can throw a giant scene at vray with 100's of lights, 1000's of proxies (some massive in disk size also), and insane Revit model(s) and it'll render fast, and not complain, whereas corona will start to give me memory warnings and tell me the rendering will come out with dark spots or somesuch. To be honest this has only happened on one very complex project, however it has informed my decision on which engine to use for which type of project. This is (just one of the reasons) why I still use both renderers.
-
edit: my two cents
Vray's strength(s): much more capable of handling super dense, high memory scenes without a fuss...
hi, thanks for that 2 cents. but about the interesting part, what did you mean about high memory scenes without a fuss.. i think i dont really get it.. is it about the memory efficiency or the stability / "out of core" rendering?
i'll appreciate if you or anyone here share the result of corona vray memory comparison here. or at least share the link please if there is existing related article out there
Try rendering a highly tesselated car interior with CAD data provided by the manufacturer in 12k resolution, with maps for leather, fabric etc. in 8k. You will run out of RAM with Corona quite quickly because the progressive render mode alone takes a share of the system RAM. Bucket render in V-Ray on the other hand is very efficient. If you need even more RAM, let V-Ray render straight to disk without any framebuffer at all. Corona might be able to do this as well, don't know.
-
edit: my two cents
Vray's strength(s): much more capable of handling super dense, high memory scenes without a fuss...
hi, thanks for that 2 cents. but about the interesting part, what did you mean about high memory scenes without a fuss.. i think i dont really get it.. is it about the memory efficiency or the stability / "out of core" rendering?
i'll appreciate if you or anyone here share the result of corona vray memory comparison here. or at least share the link please if there is existing related article out there
Try rendering a highly tesselated car interior with CAD data provided by the manufacturer in 12k resolution, with maps for leather, fabric etc. in 8k. You will run out of RAM with Corona quite quickly because the progressive render mode alone takes a share of the system RAM. Bucket render in V-Ray on the other hand is very efficient. If you need even more RAM, let V-Ray render straight to disk without any framebuffer at all. Corona might be able to do this as well, don't know.
A good point made by Olli: Progressive renderer in Vray will also use more memory.