Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

jasonb

Is Vrayforc4D Marginally Better Than The Native Physical Render Engine In R13?

28 posts in this topic

Hi all,

Fairly new to C4D and wondering if VRAYforC4D is still the way to go these days (as opposed to native render engines in R13).

I've seen the great new advancements with progressive rendering etc. so am wondering if it is worth getting to grips with the overwhelming render settings and somewhat different approach that is needed when preparing to render with VRAY in order to get top notch renders.

Any thoughts and opinions would be appreciated.

Cheers

Jason

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go with AR first, if you're not versed in that yet, Vray will be a daunting task. Once you've got a handle on AR, I'd highly recommend Vray if you're after photorealism that's fast. Physical render is a great step forward but is slooooow to get the same results.

cheers

brasc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Second that, Vray settings and some concepts may be a very confusing for people that only start learning 3d.

Peace,

George.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to add to what Brian said, there also seems to be a problem with motion blur in Vray at the moment.

With that being said, none is better, both are great engines, and CInema native renderer is more than enough to play with until someone decides he needs something specific.

It would be much beter idea to pick a render engine that is geared towards specifics of the job ;)

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks gentlemen.

Seems Vray has the odd bug indeed. I have heard mention of things not showing up in the viewport when using things like Vray proxies etc. Not sure if that is resolved in the latest version though.

Be good to know all the render engines intimately but they do come with a myriad of settings which, if you're fairly new, are enough to make your head spin. yikes.gif

Cheers

Jason

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're really best to address your VRay queries to Stefan (the developer/owner) at VrayforC4D.com. He is very helpful and can give you definitive answers to specific questions. While VRay is daunting at first, he is continually providing preset settings that help you get a fair way along the path. VRay proxies are not something you would be jumping into as soon as you start with VRay.

As the above have said, if you're new to 3D then it's best to come to grips with the native C4D render engine first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Begining with the latest version of VRayForC4D 1.2.6 you just use a normal c4d instance or mograph cloner or any plugin that supports the feature "render instance" and vray will automatically generate real V-Ray proxies of it. It couldn't possibly be any easier, I used it when testing Carbon Scatter, I rendered with the C4D physical render engine and with VRay. All C4D render instances were automatically and transparently converted to VRay Proxies by the render engine. The best part about it is that there is no intervention required on your part and your project file remains unaltered because the VRay render engine performs this conversion in it's own memory space after you submit the render.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So from reading this does V-Ray produce better more photo-realistic results compared to the native AR engine in C4D? I ask because I have an architectural scene I need to render as photo-realistic as possible and I am wondering whether to invest in V-Ray or not. The results I am getting in AR look somewhat artificial, I would post the image but I would be in trouble if I did…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So from reading this does V-Ray produce better more photo-realistic results compared to the native AR engine in C4D? I ask because I have an architectural scene I need to render as photo-realistic as possible and I am wondering whether to invest in V-Ray or not. The results I am getting in AR look somewhat artificial, I would post the image but I would be in trouble if I did…

I think most people would agree that the Maxwell Renderer is the most physically accurate render engine available for Cinema 4D. If you look through the galleries at MAXON and VRayForC4D the quality of the renders are very similar and that is because someone familiar with the engine and skilled in post work can produce nearly identical results with either engine. However with Maxwell the key to getting a good render is being a Photoshop guru, years of experience or inside information but it only requires that you create physically accurate materials along with accurate lighting and camera setups and you need to do very little if any work in post. With Maxwell this is easy since Maxwell provides physically accurate preset materials and a hugh library of user created materials. If your materials, lighting and cameras are physically accureate then you are pretty much guaranteed to get a high quality physically accurate render in Maxwell. When using the C4D AR you have many more options when it comes to materials, lights and cameras and these options allow you to do things that are not physically accurate. It takes time to learn how to tinker with all these options and VRayForC4D has many more render options than C4D and it will take time to learn all these options and how they affect the render. So Maxwell is the quickest path to the highest quality render, the only downside is that Maxwell takes a long time to render and it is not 100% compatible with everything C4D can produce. VRayForC4D also has some incompatiblites, it is faster than AR3 in most cases but it is also has more options, requires more experience and in some cases inside information. I get the impression that there are cerrtain groups close to the VayForC4D company that have access to inside information which is not made public and they use that to their advantage. A practice like that is not ethical and is not good for business, I can not prove it but that is the impression I get. When one pays for a publically avaiable product then they should have equal access to the information on how to use that product, especially when it costs over $1000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vray is arguably a more sophisticated engine than AR anyway, but I'd say that its main advantage in the quest for realism lies in the materials.

As has been said, Cinema's material system has a lot of options which allow you to make surfaces that don't behave in a realistic way - it's certainly possible to build convincing, realistic materials but there's quite a lot of experimentation required. The fundamental material definition in Vray is designed to make it easier to mimic 'real-world' surface properties - not surprising, given that the needs of architectural and product rendering have been the main drivers of its development. In particular, Vray gives you hugely more control over specular shading, which is key.

Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gee fanx for the tips peeps :-) So it seems that I might not have to invest in V-Ray/fryrender and that I should be able to get reasonable photo-realistic results from AR provided that I spend time experiementing with the materials and lights.

Off to look for some tutorials any recommendations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vertex Pusher's video tutorial series on the new Physical Engine sould be your first priority :)

There is also 3DFluff's Photorealism videos but it doesn't cover R13 (Yet, I believe)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.