53 replies to this topic

[stoob]

Ok, I use Vray for GI renders like many people to get some really nice renders, however I both: LOVE IT - great render results with great materials - and HATE IT - hours spent tinkering with very high settings to get flicker free animations.

I, like most people want an integrated GI solution and it seems that AR3, as hyped through MAXON, has it all - flicker free, fast rendering animations.

But has anyone got such results? I want to get Release 11 and stop asking questions such as ´when will Release 12 be out´ but like others I need to be convinced before parting with my cash before getting R11.

As Vray kind of does it for me and Final Render seems to be very fast and flicker free, how does AR3 compare to these or other renderers that people use?

Use this thread to post your results, stating how long it took to render and the render settings used. I have a few Vray examples, here is one before post production but although it used high settings, still was flickery, I´ll do all the covering up work in After Effects I suppose http://www.c4dcafe.com/ipb/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif

Maybe this topic could be a sticky to stop people asking the same question time and again! Could be an interesting thread.

So let´s see what we get!

Edited by stoob, 25 September 2008 - 03:55 AM.

[Cyclad]

again i think we need to use one file. one similiar scene. I think there is a thread with this out already no?

[srek]

I very much agree with Cyclad. Without a common base to work on, comparisons are over all pretty useless.
Cheers
Bjorn

[3DKiwi]

I can see flickering in this animation. Why not submit a scene. I've got R11 so willing to render it out with GI and see how it compares.

By the way, I'm not actually sure that GI animation rendering in R11 could be described as fast. Where it is fast is rerendering the animation as the GI calculations are cached to file so subsequent rerenders where you made a slight change are really fast.

3DKiwi

[colibert]

come on then, lets get a decent scene everones happy to work with and let everyone have a go with it.
we could talk about this for years, as there are a lack of examples around that are convincing people lets make one!

[StCanas]

Here's a test which shows a little bit of non flickering Vray. Not putting this up as a scene, just showing a bit of flicker free object animation.

http://www.c4dcafe.com/ipb/index.php?act=a...st&id=62556

Cheers
Karl

[Cyclad]

somone should make a scene that has:

1-no unique shaders=plain colours or textures
2-coloured+animated lighting
3-animated camera
4-complex+animated geometry

This i think would be a good tester!

[StCanas]

And what about refection, transparency and DOF?

Cheers
Karl

[colibert]

yep sounds good,
didnt sreks example he put up have most of that? apart from the geometrey bit,
that didnt flicker from what i can remember, ive seen stuff done by our tv dept at work done in ar 2.6 that moves and doesnt flicker, if anyones seen the ups widget web banners where hes driving around on a forklift, that was ar.2.6,

just guess different scenes are gonna throw up different results / problems, as are different people rendering it


good point, the above 3 things need including, http://www.c4dcafe.com/ipb/public/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif weve already got a scene thats gonna be slow, im happy to test and leave my 8 core going over the weekend while im not there

Edited by colibert, 25 September 2008 - 11:29 AM.

[Cyclad]

actually those are gonna be tricky to setup and moderate because of the diff settings in each engine. How do you make a glass material in c4d that is equal to the physically correct glass of vray? or floor blurd reflection that is equal in amount because of the diff parameters. It is gonna vary according to who sets up the scene.

[colibert]

true, sorry, not reading properly, thought we was just rendring wih AR3

[StCanas]

But the fact that the materials vary from render engine to render engine is all part of the overall equation. So, for instance, you just have to make the best glass possible in each material system. The individual material systems are inextricably linked to each engine and to not take full advantage of each system is to do the exercise by half.

Cheers
Karl

Edited by Lesia44, 25 September 2008 - 12:01 PM.

[colibert]

very true,
inextricably, good word!

[Cyclad]

hmm but who is gonna setup the materials? cause then it would be a case of the best user not program

[colibert]

its going to be hard i think, maybe we just need a scene thats animated and let people texture it as they want but sticking to a few a few rules, like it has to have some transparency and coloured lighting,

that way it may throw up different problems quite quickly, anyone having problems can upload the scene and and see if someone else can fix it, ive seen alot of files that are badly set up (and done lots myself!) and then they cause people problems, you sometimes just dont see it unless someone else picks up on it

Edited by colibert, 25 September 2008 - 02:24 PM.

[Cyclad]

to test somthing yu have to have some control over the variables. If you dont have limits on how the scene is treated in each app then the best lookin render and fastest is gonna be whomever is the best shader creater and since we are not testin shaders but the render engine..........I think if we introduce shaders also this might become a challenge rather than a test.

[colibert]

very true, sure we can come up with something to suit, im off to sleep on it

[StCanas]

"... since we are not testin shaders but the render engine."

But that's the point, you have to test the shaders. You can't test the render engines without them. The shaders are part of the render engine. People make the mistake of thinking that, because you go one place to deal with your shaders and another to deal with your render setting, these are somehow separate things. They're not. If you don't exploit each material system to the full you'll never find out what each render engine is capable of. And if you're not going to max out each render engine then a head to head is pointless.

Cheers
Karl

EDIT: "If you don't exploit each material system to the full you'll never find out what each render engine is capable of." Maybe that sentence should have said: If you don't exploit the material system to the full you're only using 50% of the render engine.

Edited by Lesia44, 25 September 2008 - 10:50 PM.

[3DKiwi]

And what about refection, transparency and DOF?

DOF is out as MAXON has yet to fix this so that it works with transparency and alpha channels. I don't own Vray but I gather that it does true DOF with both of these.

At the end of the day wouldn't you expect Vray to give better results? It costs more, has more people developing it than however many people MAXON have developing their render engine.

3DKiwi

[stoob]

Of course renders should have reflective materials and a reflective floor, nothing too fancy but i would just like to see some renders and examples, this isn´t a ´bashing MAXON´thread, just interested.

My scene is there but I´ll put some examples that are better, just wanted to get the thread up an running