Author Topic: Sample interior scene  (Read 80000 times)

2014-09-09, 11:06:07
Reply #30

ecximer

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 286
  • Scriptobot
    • View Profile
Are you comparing exactly the same scene?
A4 result - from "A4 benchmark"
Build timestamp: Sep  8 2014 result - from this thread. I opened file and click render butoon.

I don't know precisely, than two scenes can differ. But absolutely not incorrect global illumination, a noisiness and, as a result, the increased time - me confused.
If it is only temporal, I will wait and trust =)

I began to panic because to release not and long it was necessary to wait. And "regress" as it seemed to me, was strongly expressed.
« Last Edit: 2014-09-09, 11:12:45 by ecximer »
sorry for my english

2014-09-09, 11:14:09
Reply #31

Polymax

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 830
  • CG Generalist
    • View Profile
    • maxkagirov.com
Build timestamp: Aug  6 2014 - working fine, only 09/07 - have a bug with SecGI(but! working fine with HDRI lighting).
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/g4qz1fh98mycjg6/AADYLXbvXE6w6trSU2lSPnaga?dl=0

Testing: same scene ("max" edition) in all versions, no reset, no change any parameters
« Last Edit: 2014-09-09, 11:45:13 by Polymax »
Corona - the best rendering solution!

2014-09-09, 18:20:19
Reply #32

Ondra

  • Administrator
  • Active Users
  • *****
  • Posts: 8921
  • Turning coffee to features since 2009
    • View Profile
ok, there was a weird bug. In some of builds it did nothing, in others it made the scene brighter, in others darker (like the one I released as daily build). It is fixed now.
Rendering is magic.
Private scene uploader | How to get minidumps for crashed/frozen 3ds Max | Sorry for short replies, brief responses = more time to develop Corona ;)

2014-10-01, 17:19:40
Reply #33

polbo

  • Users
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
OCTANE and CORONA comparison


Hi! I take the scene and converted to Octane Render, so I can compare the quality and speed of the two renderers.




They are some differences but they are because the values for specular/ glossiness  and reflection are very different in Octane.
I had some problem with the portal, because with the version of Octane I have can't change the environment when use the Sun.
In render time it's 3 time faster with a gtx 590 in Octane than a i7 2600k in Corona to get similar image quality with the same amount of noise.
In Octane I used Pathtracing with a maxdepth of 1024 to be totally unbiased, but i can get the same quality with faster render times with a maxdepth of 8 or 10.


2014-10-01, 20:19:16
Reply #34

juang3d

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 636
    • View Profile
Can you post your render times and do the Octane test with a 21 ray depth?

Cheers.

2014-10-01, 21:18:07
Reply #35

polbo

  • Users
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Can you post your render times and do the Octane test with a 21 ray depth?

Cheers.

Why 21 ray depth? Where you get that number? In my experience with Octane go further than 16 doesn't make any difference. I had renderer water and fruits with 16 max depth and don't have any clamp on the reflections.. So, 21 doesn't make any sense for me... If I want to be sure I go for 1024 that take the same time to render than 21.

2014-10-01, 21:20:43
Reply #36

Ludvik Koutny

  • VIP
  • Active Users
  • ***
  • Posts: 2560
  • Just another user
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Yeah, matching ray depth is completely irrelevant, as long as ray depth is larger than what Corona uses. And even if it wasn't, anything above 8 does not make very big difference.

Anyway, sure Octane is fast, but you are still comparing very expensive GPU with monstrous power consumption and quite restricting memory limitation to quite cheap CPU with moderate power consumption.

2014-10-01, 22:33:16
Reply #37

polbo

  • Users
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Yeah, matching ray depth is completely irrelevant, as long as ray depth is larger than what Corona uses. And even if it wasn't, anything above 8 does not make very big difference.

Anyway, sure Octane is fast, but you are still comparing very expensive GPU with monstrous power consumption and quite restricting memory limitation to quite cheap CPU with moderate power consumption.

The intention of my post wasn't to compare which renderer was the fastest, but to compare the render quality.. I think they are pretty close.
I don't know why you talk about the cost and the power consumption. Who cares? You are not buying a Lamborghini... It's only a few bucks less or more.
I like Corona Render very much.
But as an art director, Actually I prefer Octane because have instant preview and can make a lot of changes very fast to get the style I'm looking for. And that time is much more valuable for me than the final render time.
I can spend a lot of money on a computer or send my Corona renders to a render farm.. but I will not get instant preview anyway.

2014-10-01, 22:44:06
Reply #38

Ludvik Koutny

  • VIP
  • Active Users
  • ***
  • Posts: 2560
  • Just another user
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio

2014-10-03, 16:48:50
Reply #39

andrerosh

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile

2014-11-12, 16:57:37
Reply #40

sas

  • Users
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
My test
How long should I wait to get the results in your gallery?

2014-11-15, 10:51:05
Reply #41

Black Sun

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 91
    • View Profile
Do I use the Obj File to load in Max. Obj is the only one that makes sense to me.

Thanks


2015-05-08, 13:37:55
Reply #42

geesve

  • Users
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
For maybe someone like me, who interested with some old AMD CPU speed with this...

Phenom II X6 1100T
Time: 0:12:26

2015-05-08, 15:19:13
Reply #43

agentdark45

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 556
    • View Profile
Just tried this out in Max 2016 on my 12 core Xeon v3 using the UHD cache for the secondary bounches (as opposed to the old HD Cache). Result is 3 minutes 17 seconds.
Vray who?

2015-12-17, 08:35:36
Reply #44

bud85

  • Users
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Just tried this out in Max 2016 on my 12 core Xeon v3 using the UHD cache for the secondary bounches (as opposed to the old HD Cache). Result is 3 minutes 17 seconds.

Same max, same Xeon = time 03:03