Jump to content

vray vs R16


adamfilip

Recommended Posts

V-Ray user here...but a bit of a newb with it.

 

I've played just an hour or so with R16. Some of the new mats rendered surprisingly slow to me. I'll add that a few rendered surprisingly fast. Shockingly fast even. It might be awhile before we can all make reliable conclusions.

Link to post

Some of my early displacement tests were very pleasing. I had a cube with some displacement material that rendered in 00.00. That's correct. It was less than half a second. Cranked up sub-displacement levels and quality, turned on AO and GI...added sky...and it rendered in around 12 seconds. Just a cube but i remember when any displacement incurred a huge hit.

 

In the Visualize folder...I tested two scenes. The wine glass and soda can with droplets rendered with very pleasing quality and surprising speed. With the progressive render I had a good impression of the image after about 15 seconds and achieved an acceptable noise quality at about 8 minutes. Not bad with all those reflective drops.

 

SunLight-Fabric...a scene with glass AND lots of those new fabrics..AND Depth of Field...took about 10 minutes to get what I would regard as a very nice client comp. I wouldn't call that slow given the scene composition. The results were exquisite. Yes it might take 20 minutes per frame for final quality. But with a small render in-house render farm I could easily live with that.

Link to post

SunLight-Fabric...a scene with glass AND lots of those new fabrics..AND Depth of Field...took about 10 minutes to get what I would regard as a very nice client comp. I wouldn't call that slow given the scene composition. The results were exquisite. Yes it might take 20 minutes per frame for final quality. But with a small render in-house render farm I could easily live with that.

 

 

We must have very different considerations of what's a reasonable amount of time. That Sunlight scene for instance, doesn't contain any GI solution and renders far better when indirect light is taken into account. Render it again with GI and witness the render times go through the roof. The other examples you mention are also GI free. I found it surprising that the vast majority of the included scenes showing off the Reflectance materials were also GI free.

 

I think the results are great but getting back on point as to a comparison with V-Ray, I believe 'reflectance' material heavy scenes render very slowly in comparison to similar scenes in V-Ray especially when GI is enabled. I posted some test results with the included archviz scene in another thread which will hopefully explain my reasoning a little better. These aren't just subjective thoughts.

 

 

I won't have access to a licensed copy of R16 for a week or so (I'm supposed to be on holiday at the moment) but intend to run further tests with the demo until that point.

 

My main client's bread & butter is archviz work, much of which starts out life in Vectorworks and Archicad, two other Nemetschek products which are closely integrated with C4D; so the new reflectance channel capabilities are very important to us. At the moment all exterior archviz scenes are rendered in Arnold via Maya and the majority of interior scenes are rendered in V-Ray via Max. We were very much hoping to be able to make more use of C4D's native capabilities in R16 but the early tests aren't stacking up well against our existing tools. Physically correct lighting is an essential component of our work and this is why I'm so focussed on the performance of reflectance based materials when used in combination with GI.

 

As I say though, my comments aren't based on the quality of the results. Strictly the speed and the impact that speed has during the look-dev phase of production work.

Link to post

I tested two scenes. The wine glass and soda can with droplets rendered with very pleasing quality and surprising speed. With the progressive render I had a good impression of the image after about 15 seconds and achieved an acceptable noise quality at about 8 minutes. Not bad with all those reflective drops.

 

post-163709-0-74746400-1409833504_thumb.

 

I've just rendered this myself and looked through the scene and noticed that it uses the legacy R15 specularity/reflection algorithms for the water droplets and condensation. The render times on this scene are reasonable considering all those reflection/refraction calculations (approx 9 minutes with 5% error threshold) but the scene could easily be rendered in R15 and it doesn't make use of any R16 specific capabilities so it's not really relevant as part of this discussion.

post-163709-0-74746400-1409833504_thumb.

Link to post

 

 

 

I've just rendered this myself and looked through the scene and noticed that it uses the legacy R15 specularity/reflection algorithms for the water droplets and condensation. The render times on this scene are reasonable considering all those reflection/refraction calculations (approx 9 minutes with 5% error threshold) but the scene could easily be rendered in R15 and it doesn't make use of any R16 specific capabilities so it's not really relevant as part of this discussion.

 

 

The soda can itself does feature some of the new R16 material technology...so I don't think it is irrelevant to the discussion. And for the record: I turned on GI for all my testing. The can doesn't have 3, 4 or 5 layers so I don't know how it will respond when it does. I'm curious to see those kinds of things.

 

Again, I'm a newb when it comes to VRAY, but I've never heard it described as a big speed demon. I've often seen frames take longer than 10 minutes...some much longer.

 

You've probably used VRAY a lot more than I have.

Link to post
Again, I'm a newb when it comes to VRAY, but I've never heard it described as a big speed demon. I've often seen frames take longer than 10 minutes...some much longer.

 

It all depends on your expectations and definition of speed, it's a LOT faster than C4D at blurry reflections and GI.

If you want photoreal, +10mins a frame is pretty much a minimum in my experience.

 

I'd guess a well optimised AR scene would be a bit longer than a well optimised Vray scene (never use the defaults!!) with similar visual fidelity, but I'd have to approach it like Adam is doing to be sure.

 

edit: I have both R16 and VRay, so once I've cleared my workload, I'll get on to doing a proper comparison, I might throw in Octane too since there's a lot of misconceptions about it

 

 

cheers

brasc

Link to post

Again, I'm a newb when it comes to VRAY, but I've never heard it described as a big speed demon. I've often seen frames take longer than 10 minutes...some much longer.

 

 

All good, I wasn't being critical of you or C4D for that matter. I'm just discussing what I've found when testing out scenes made with the new reflectance channel capabilities.

 

V-Ray is considered by most people I know to provide the fastest engine coupled with high quality. The are much faster renderers out there but the output is nowhere near as good.

 

The thing that I've found counter intuitive in R16 is that I've always considered the Physical renderer to be an excellent compromise between quality and speed. Before we adopted Arnold, we used C4D for most of our exterior archviz work (HDRI dome driven using the sIBL plugin) as this got us results close to those from V-Ray but in half the time. My expectations was that MAXON would have maintained this fine balance between speed & quality for it's new reflectance material channel but it has turned out to be much slower than V-Ray in many cases.

 

I think the key to getting the best out of the reflectance channel is to know exactly where best to use it otherwise it's chewing through an awful lot of calculations that don't bear fruit in the final render. The archviz scene I posted earlier is a prime example as it's using reflectance on all the concrete surfaces (which are mainly diffuse). Physically all surfaces reflect in some manner so the temptation is to use reflectance for everything but if you do, expect to see your render times rocket!

 

Back to the Can/Droplets render. I can't see any real benefit in using GI in that particular scene (the watch scene is much the same) is it doesn't have any surfaces for indirect light to bounce off so the extra calculations would be wasted. 

Link to post

Don't get me wrong: I don't find 10-20 minutes per frame to be particularly slow, if we are talking about a complex frame with nice settings. And I can think of frames where 30-40 minutes would be quite robust for any renderer.

 

I'd think if speed was the premium objective...one should buy 3-4 current GPUs and use Octane, and I'd be shocked if brasc can refute me on that. Though I sure hope he tries!  :-)

 

I'm excited about the future of VRAYFORC4D. It's good now with the prospects of becoming great when they can integrate the main VRAY 3 core.

 

For the record I own VRAY, Octane and R16. I don't have one particular horse in the race I want to see win.

Link to post


For the record I own VRAY, Octane and R16. I don't have one particular horse in the race I want to see win.

 

Absolutely with you there. I'm not backing any single rendering technology either. But I think it's always best to know what areas each one excels in.

 

The most used renderer in archviz is Artlantis, which is pretty poor by FX standards but its super fast and childs play to use so it's fit for purpose for many architects who see rendering as just another task to be completed (and with the least pain possible). I see it it as just another tool to get the job done depending on the brief. V-Ray and Arnold on the other hand I see as a palette of fine Windsor and Newton oil paints - in the right hands masterly work can be produced!  :)

Link to post

I was a bit dubious, Jon, that my system would take 40+ minutes to complete that one sample interior scene you tested. But using C4D's progressive physical renderer, it's now 45 minutes deep and on pass 6. At this point it's good enough for a comp but still features too much noise for a final.

 

I suspect for interior work VRAY will continue to reign supreme. But then maybe thats not a huge surprise.

 

(I'm rendering at 1440x800. I suspect progressive rendering is a bit slower than Adaptive, but still...)

Link to post

I'd think if speed was the premium objective...one should buy 3-4 current GPUs and use Octane, and I'd be shocked if brasc can refute me on that. Though I sure hope he tries!  :-)

 

This may surprise you, but I can refute that (sorta)! I run Octane on 3 pretty fast GPUs and it's not always the fastest engine, it's all down to complexity and thresholds but basically, it's SO fast to get a beautifully lit, reflections all over the place GI etc etc scene to about 80% quality, it's just to get passed that last 20% of noise takes a long time. I generally set it to run for 10mins a frame and that is acceptable. Of course it varies depending on what's going on in the scene, sadly it's never as clear cut to be able to rank render engines as clear winners and losers.

 

cheers

brasc

Link to post


I was a bit dubious, Jon, that my system would take 40+ minutes to complete that one sample interior scene you tested. But using C4D's progressive physical renderer, it's now 45 minutes deep and on pass 6. At this point it's good enough for a comp but still features too much noise for a final.

 

It is a challenging scene light wise as most of the light filling the room is indirect and any renderer would find it a challenge. As I mentioned in a previous post I think it's not as well optimised as it could be as many of the surfaces that are using the new reflectance channel capabilities could easily use standard C4D techniques. I'm going to test my theory over the next few days and see what I find but I reckon I should be able to make it at least 25% more responsive.

Link to post

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...