Author Topic: True GI: Corona vs V-Ray 3.0  (Read 32943 times)

2014-02-12, 07:49:25
Reply #15

lacilaci

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 755
    • View Profile
I wonder if irradiance caching will come back to corona or not...

2014-02-12, 08:15:16
Reply #16

dfcorona

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 176
    • View Profile
okay, what happened to IR though in Corona, seems it use to be in there.  And I thought I read somewhere that it was going to be put back in.

2014-02-12, 09:05:17
Reply #17

fobus

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 363
    • View Profile
I wonder if irradiance caching will come back to corona or not...

I hope it will not...

2014-02-12, 09:15:33
Reply #18

Ludvik Koutny

  • VIP
  • Active Users
  • ***
  • Posts: 2562
  • Just another user
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
I wonder if irradiance caching will come back to corona or not...

I hope it will not...

It will, but quite simplified :)

2014-02-12, 11:45:52
Reply #19

fobus

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 363
    • View Profile

2014-02-12, 14:53:27
Reply #20

Juraj

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 4114
    • View Profile
    • studio website
IR can be tremendously good tool, but people falsely consider it to be much faster than pure path tracing because they get "nice&clean" pictures fast. The fact is, most people
can't really see the huge quality difference you can get under different setup IR parameters. Once you have a complicated scene, with retrace thresholds and additional Detail enhancement,
you easily get render times that rival Brute Force in Vray because you need to solve a lot of artifacts appearing but still keep certail detail away from blurrying.

IR's strength is flexibility, not speed per se. Most people think it's fast, because they have it by default very low, that's what they're used to seeing, it's what gives them quite shitty results but they will never care to notice. It is only fast as long as it's extremely unprecise, and interpolated to avoid artifacts, but that's is exactly where it is best for animation purpose of static scenes.

My only qualm in Vray is that IR's samples are also governed by DMC, something that makes it harder to manage in complicated interiors because you weight in GI together with material shading,and all else. Also, maybe too much potato paramaters that nobody will ever understand so everyone just changes HSPV and interpolation leading. Detail Enhancement (local brute force bounce thingy) is nice touch.

To be honest, I lately change between Vray and Corona seemlessly depending on what I want in particular projects. Animations are of course, completely in domain of Vray because of IR, but even stills get evenly distributed. The biggest stregth of Corona is incredibly nice, precise and believable GI. Even pure Vray's BF+BF isn't such, the details are slightly unnatural in that they always go into dark tone regardless of soem secondary reflections or etc..

All in, all out, I wouldn's say you'll get better render times in Corona compared to Vray. I would say these overstatments come from overly enthuasiastic users getting such times from easy scenes with easy setups. I would say in similar quality, the times can be close to equal at best. But it's better to look at the whole setup time/quality/speed not just speed alone to make your complete opinion.
« Last Edit: 2014-02-12, 15:16:50 by Juraj_Talcik »
talcikdemovicova.com  Website and blog
be.net/jurajtalcik   Our studio Behance portfolio
Instagram   Our studio Instagram, managed by Veronika

2014-03-02, 11:37:30
Reply #21

Fatal1ty

  • Users
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
... you can not compare in such a way. Actually you put the V-Ray image sampler to such a stress. The noise will not go away fast. There is a shading rate parameter ... just make it 16 or higher and you will get up to 50% faster render with much less noise ... cheers :)

2014-03-03, 11:13:25
Reply #22

gabrielefx

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 109
    • View Profile
I think that Vray 3.0 is not 100% re coded from scratch using Embree, is not yet optimized. Is not optimized for Cuda too.
Corona seems to use 100 % of the Intel kernel.
I read that a company fused Embree and Cuda to create a mix of these two worlds.
At this point we have to wait to see optimizations, faster renders and less noise only if Intel or Nvdia engineers will develop better algorithms.

2014-03-07, 22:07:19
Reply #23

biolit

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
    • architectural renderings
fobus: which hardware did you use on the test?
Online portfolio - http://biolit.wordpress.com

2014-03-07, 22:52:58
Reply #24

ondrike

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 95
    • View Profile
I´m really not sure about fobus´s render times

my example is vray3 BR+BR
Corona brought joy to sad world of 3Ds Max :)

2014-03-08, 07:01:02
Reply #25

fobus

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 363
    • View Profile
fobus: which hardware did you use on the test?

Intel i-7 3930k @4.4GHz

I´m really not sure about fobus´s render times
my example is vray3 BR+BR

Can You post this scene to compare please?

2014-03-08, 08:57:53
Reply #26

ondrike

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 95
    • View Profile
I´m on i7 2600k overclocked at 4,5Ghz and my time is somewhere around 3 mins +/-. I dont have scene already. That was just a quick test, so i deleted it

settings are BR+BR,  26 Samples

Corona brought joy to sad world of 3Ds Max :)

2014-03-08, 22:24:10
Reply #27

fobus

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 363
    • View Profile
I´m on i7 2600k overclocked at 4,5Ghz and my time is somewhere around 3 mins +/-. I dont have scene already. That was just a quick test, so i deleted it

settings are BR+BR,  26 Samples

Is there any light source in tiny window in Your scene? I haven't had any lights except environment white color at background. If You placed light in window...it's not fair to compare to anvironment only (without any lights and portals).

2014-03-09, 11:07:02
Reply #28

biolit

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
    • architectural renderings
Is there any light source in tiny window in Your scene? I haven't had any lights except environment white color at background. If You placed light in window...it's not fair to compare to anvironment only (without any lights and portals).

I'm sorry, but I think that this test is nonsense.
Online portfolio - http://biolit.wordpress.com

2014-03-10, 05:45:29
Reply #29

fobus

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 363
    • View Profile
I'm sorry, but I think that this test is nonsense.

This test is for comparing Bruteforce GI only. No direct lighting, but GI. So light in window is cheating in this case.