Vray Next Vs Corona...Vs Fstorm

[Anonymous No.667707]

I have noticed in the last year or so many arch viz artists are moving form vray to corona.
Do you think its better? what about vray next- Gpu is pretty fast and the viewport live render is a good addition to. how about Fstorm?

[Anonymous No.667719]

>>667707
light mix and how i didn't have to spend moths researching the best setting for rendering different scenes gives corona a +1 in my book. not used fstorm

[Anonymous No.667727]

most of the ppl i know use vray or lumion for rendering, i just render my shit in cad cause i didnt learn anything and im too lazy

[Anonymous No.667775]

>>667719
light mix it pretty good- i can see vray adding that feature in a future update. render settings are much more simple in vray than before while also giving you control when you have tight deadlines and animations. also you can add Lut with fade control in frame buffer- does corona have that?

[Anonymous No.667801]

>>667707

i dont care to much about renders as long they are simple to use and give me results i need. everything else i do anyway in the post production.

my experience tells me that renders are more important for the gamers and movie makers. for stand alone pictures the shit lands in the Photoshop filters anyway..

[Anonymous No.667835]

>>667775
i've used vray for 4 years and corona for 2, I'm fully committed to using corona unless something big changes for either.

the setting in vray are over complicated and necessary. you can add luts in frame buffer but i would advise against it as when you extract it from rendering you would be able to fix in post, just edit in post. here are some comparisons to look at.

[Anonymous No.668275]

>>667835
I'm thinking on moving form blender cycles to corona in 3dsmax. One thing that comes to mind is the price. how much realistically am I going to pay for corona?

[Anonymous No.668278]

>>667707
what about eeve
I heard its pretty fast

[Anonymous No.668279]

haven't heard a peep about fstorm.
but to my understanding its supposed to handle glare,reflection better than other renders.
also the sun system and lightning in general is pristine quality.
between that and the other renders, the competition is very tight

[Anonymous No.668281]

>>668278
It's GPU based and crashes if you run out of VRAM. At least, that's what happens to me with RX 560 4GB. I don't know if it'd be good for Arch Viz which looks to be very high on the polycount and on texture size.

[Anonymous No.668282]

>>668281
> I don't know if it'd be good for Arch Viz which looks to be very high on the polycount and on texture size.
Actually you'd be surprised, how many people use eeve for arch viz. By the same token, the blender institute actually advertises its good for arch viz, even hosting a demo file made by some 3d artist on their website.

[Anonymous No.668309]

>>668279
These gay hipster render engines are guaranteed to disappoint. I don't care if it's fast and looks good out of the box, crap like Octane and Fstorm will bite you in the ass as soon as you try to do anything moderately complex.

[Anonymous No.668343]

>>668275
It's cheeper then vray, look it up, what I am your dad?

[Anonymous No.668370]

>>668343
>what I am your dad?
no i have no idea how you'd come to that conclusion.

[Anonymous No.668443]

>>667707
>not using arnold
ngmi

[Anonymous No.668463]

I tried redshift and I don't understand why my renders are broken.

[Anonymous No.668465]

>>668463
imagine trying to render two squares and failing so miserably that your squares have exploding knees and the textures don't even remotely attempt to wrap around the polygons

[Anonymous No.668467]

>>668465
Then imagine doing literally nothing but adding a single default cube to the scene and suddenly everything is fixed

[Anonymous No.668477]

>>668282
>Actually you'd be surprised, how many people use eeve for arch viz.
Considering it's not even stable, I would assume it's a pretty low number. In other words, you won't convince anyone, Blendlet.

[Anonymous No.668483]

Which renderer has the most autistic PBR system that doesn't have any ```artistic''' non-scientific crap?

[Anonymous No.668487]

>>668483
None because the margin of error in these "physical" controls is way outside the boundaries of what actually gets measured with real materials. If you don't allow fudge factors you can't actually achieve photorealism. Most of these artistic controls retain conservation of energy anyway.

[Anonymous No.668493]

>>668487
For a system that claims to provide a unified interface for materials it sure does suck at it
None of the physics and computer graphics courses in the world can prepare you for all of these retarded variations of the same sliders, and it's a wonder that there aren't publicly available basic materials for random shit like grass

[Anonymous No.669374]

>>667707
I've been using Vray for 7 years so... I don't think moving to corona soon or any moment

[Anonymous No.669375]

is the lastest version of max any more stable? Last one I used was 2017 and its crashcrashcrashcrash

[Anonymous No.669376]

>>669375
Blender rarely crashes. Just saying.

[Anonymous No.669380]

>>667707
I'm not into 3D, but to me it seems like Corona has more dynamic range.

As a pleb, this is pleasing.

[Anonymous No.669383]

>>669374
I'd give it a go mate, not like you'd loose anything. Look up some of the thing Corona can do while you download it, use the 45day free try and convert your vray scene to Corona with one button, hit render. Imo, it's very similar but has a few nice features that vray lacks. I got proficient with Corona after about a week

[Anonymous No.669468]

>>669383
desu senpai, i've had try corona once like 5 years ago, i didn't even make it thru the installation setup, so that moment count like i gave a chance

>inb4 git gut

[Anonymous No.669469]

>>667707
the days of offline rendering - even in industries like arch-viz where high accuracy and quality is paramount - are numbered.

Is there a real-time version of Corona in the works?
I tried Corona a few years ago when I was doing arch-viz stuff with Vray, and the boast from Corona was 'no setup required! fire-and-forget!' and I tried it, and it like that - leave everything at default - and it was just set for fucking progressive brute-force! Slow.... noisy.... un-optimized....
It just reminded me of fucking Maxwell Render - remember that one? Thought not....

Yeah whatever I don't do that shit anymore thank god. Haven't used Vray in a long while but I would take that over anything else, and now they're moving towards real-time stuff it's a no-brainer....

[Anonymous No.669488]

>>667707
>not using cycles

[Anonymous No.669494]

>>669488
*laughs in caustics*

[Anonymous No.669498]

>>669494
LuxCore is great for that.

[Anonymous No.669547]

>>669488
*laughs in "filmic" preset*

[Anonymous No.669706]

>>669494
That cuts deep anon!

[Anonymous No.670164]

>>669469
>the days of offline rendering - even in industries like arch-viz where high accuracy and quality is paramount - are numbered.

I'm new to 3d what do you mean by the days of offline rendering are numbered, are you talking about a cloud system setup like adobe?

[Anonymous No.670175]

>>670164
>a cloud system setup like adobe?
VADE RETRO SATANA

[Anonymous No.670179]

>>670164
Render farms my dude

[Anonymous No.670484]

>>670179
ah ok thanks

>>670175
lel

[Anonymous No.670486]

>>670164
>>670179
No, he means real-time rendering, with engines like Unreal and GPU rendering and whatnot

Computer power is (erroneously) assumed to be reaching a level good enough to compete with pre-rendered stuff. I'd say, give it at least another 5 years and then we'll see the switch starting to happen.

For now, the most accurate and high-quality light/material approximation of the real world remains with Renderman, Vray, Arnold, etc. aka offline renderers. But someday things will change, I concur.