PDA

View Full Version : Best renderer for photoreal interior scenes?


Richard7666
08-07-2010, 10:13 AM
Wanting some suggestions, speed is also a consideration. I've been using MR but really only because it's the Maya default.

cgbeige
08-07-2010, 03:47 PM
if speed is a consideration, go with V-Ray. Maxwell produces more realistic light (I use both renderers) but V-Ray is much faster since you can control everything (sampling, biased stuff).

Don't waste your time learning mental ray in Maya unless you are looking for a generalist job.

InfernalDarkness
08-07-2010, 05:30 PM
Also, don't waste your time listening to CGBeige. He's biased and has various paid agendas and rarely says anything worthwhile.

mental ray can do anything you need it to do; just takes some patience, research, and persistence. If you're looking for a more photorealistic renderer, there are none. Some can rival mental ray for quality, but none are "better".

cgbeige
08-07-2010, 06:05 PM
yes, I'm on the Pixologic, Autodesk, Next Limit, Chaos Group, Adobe payrolls... :rolleyes:

Infernal said himself that he'll be switching to V-Ray but is just angry because he can't afford it yet. I know how to use mental ray - I learned it first. It's just a steep learning curve and then you realize it's broken for what you want it for so you wasted a lot of time learning it. And this has nothing to do with mental ray's quality - it's fine, it's just that mental ray in Maya is a crappy implementation.

mental ray for Maya: iRay, linear workflow and passes by 2023. We swear.

Meanwhile, V-Ray RT for Maya is going into beta testing next week and it's a free update for owners of V-Ray for Maya.

Hasnz
08-07-2010, 07:56 PM
I love mentalray . It has been or primary renderer since a couple of years . No doubt it can produce renders as effiicient to speed and quality to any render engine in the market ; In the hand of an experienced 3d artist . Very helpful community on Cgtalk and other forums ! .

Mentalimages has spent years integrating mentalray in Maya , still no good compared to Max and Softimage . Vray can already render painteffects :) .

Vray IS more artist oriented . Vray IS more ArchRender friendly .Huge resource library available . Is our primary render for ArchiVis project for the very reason . It simple/easily produced great results . . like no brainer .

But in the end It also depends on the Artist himself .

If you have the time ; I would recommend giving MR a go , it can do it and comes integrated . But If u have the money and avoid some headaches , go VRAY .

Another little point to add . Browse the forums . You will find "vray like interiors in Mentalray" . "maxwell like renders in Mentalray" :P not the other way around . I wonder why :\ .

jipe
08-07-2010, 09:06 PM
V-Ray RT for Maya is going into beta testing next week and it's a free update for owners of V-Ray for Maya.

Interesting... any idea why Maya users get it for free but Max users have to pay?

InfernalDarkness
08-07-2010, 09:21 PM
Infernal said himself that he'll be switching to V-Ray but is just angry because he can't afford it yet. I know how to use mental ray - I learned it first. It's just a steep learning curve and then you realize it's broken for what you want it for so you wasted a lot of time learning it. And this has nothing to do with mental ray's quality - it's fine, it's just that mental ray in Maya is a crappy implementation.

I totally agree with you, only there's no anger here, silly. Just pointing out your perpetual agendas for the OP so he was aware of your endless bias. But I do agree with you; mental ray for Maya has a huge learning curve, and at the end of that curve: workarounds at best for all the broken functionality. The lack of any decent internal material library alone is preposterous! After six years working with it, I still have a pathetic library of MR-ready materials, and when you go to use most of those in newer versions there's all kinds of bugs to behold... It's brutal.

cgbeige
08-07-2010, 11:23 PM
Interesting... any idea why Maya users get it for free but Max users have to pay?

It's going to be free for Max users as well. I guess it was just the early adopters who had to pay for V-Ray RT for Max. Don't know if they'll be compensated in any way. Can't wait to get my hands on it - Vladimir from Chaos Group was demoing it at SIGGRAPH and it looks great. The best part: you don't have to use different materials between the software and GPU renderer. Unlike mental ray and iRay. It's going to make scene setup a breeze.

InfernalDarkness
08-08-2010, 12:04 AM
The best part: you don't have to use different materials between the software and GPU renderer. Unlike mental ray and iRay. It's going to make scene setup a breeze.

That does sound excellent! I don't have high hopes for iRay; from the name itself, we can extrapolate the value of that silliness. And having to use different materials alone is a big downfall - as if there weren't enough discrepancies in mental ray already!

cgbeige
08-08-2010, 01:34 AM
ya, it was clearly a poorly-thought out approach. The quality looks great but who's going to use half a renderer for staging only to have to redo the work later for production software shaders? This way with V-Ray RT, you at least get to use it until something just isn't doable in RT (SSS or something) and then fall back to software. After using Octane and seeing what it's like to do sun and sky in realtime, it's hard going back to simple scene GL previews. I'm glad V-Ray RT is OpenCL too - I'm going to test it out with the Mac version of the Radeon 5870 soon. Finally an ATI card with enough stream cores to actually use for stuff...

DuttyFoot
08-08-2010, 04:08 AM
That does sound excellent! I don't have high hopes for iRay; from the name itself, we can extrapolate the value of that silliness. And having to use different materials alone is a big downfall - as if there weren't enough discrepancies in mental ray already!

if you guys didn't see the nvidia presentation at siggraph you can check it out. they go over physx in max and the last chunk of the video is iray in max. after watching the iray demo i wasn't that impressed at all. the iray demo starts at 7:42

http://area.autodesk.com/siggraph/video22

Wolfganng
08-08-2010, 01:41 PM
I've been a mentalray user for god knows how long. I've gone through the struggles and rewards of learning all the tricks, nooks and crannies of the renderer. A couple of days ago I decided to give Vray a try. I'm banging my head against the wall for not trying it earlier. IMO not only for archviz world, but for smaller studios, or studios without an army of coders, Vray is also an excellent production renderer. Dont get me wrong, I got a lot of love for mentalray, and I've even been crazy enough to trust mentalray for Maya in actual heavy production work as a primary render. And most of the headache inducing problems mentalray for Maya has, Vray manages easily...i.e. render passes. Vray may not be perfect either, but Im starting to like it!

DutchDimension
08-08-2010, 02:12 PM
Can you talk a bit more about V-Ray RT for Maya CGBeige? I understand you were at Siggraph where they demo-ed this?
Was it running inside of Maya (the V-Ray framebuffer)? Does it run on ATI cards on OSX?

Meanwhile, V-Ray RT for Maya is going into beta testing next week and it's a free update for owners of V-Ray for Maya.

chafouin
08-08-2010, 02:25 PM
http://vray.info/news/article.asp?ID=464

Apparently it was running inside maya. And since it's working with OpenCL, and not only Cuda, ATI video cards are supported. OSX is also supported so I guess a combination of those two would also work :)

demoniorojo
08-08-2010, 02:31 PM
Honestly, Vray has the best quality/rendertime. I preffer Mental ray for some particular reasons, but if you can afford, Vray is faster than MR, and easier to learn. For advanced techniques, new shader model implementation MR is much better, but for daily work in Arch previs, Vray is your beast ;)

cgbeige
08-08-2010, 04:09 PM
Can you talk a bit more about V-Ray RT for Maya CGBeige? I understand you were at Siggraph where they demo-ed this?
Was it running inside of Maya (the V-Ray framebuffer)? Does it run on ATI cards on OSX?

ya, like in the screenshot - it runs in the floating VFB window. They were using 3 GTX 470 cards I think but it is OpenCL based so ATI/AMD cards will be fine on any platform if they have OpenCL support. I'm going to be reviewing the 5870 for OS X when it comes out soon and I want to use V-Ray RT as a benchmark. It's known that the Fermi cards are still much faster for CUDA/OpenCL though - I'm expecting the 5870 to be about as fast as my GTX 285 from what I've seen. But this is the good thing about OpenCL - you can mix and match cards so I could just use the 5870 for the faster OpenGL/Maya performance and keep the GTX 285 in there as well for added OpenCL cores. The heat is an issue though, so that's why a Fermi Quadro is a better choice for really long GPU renders.

DutchDimension
08-08-2010, 04:53 PM
dot87 & CGBeige, thanks for the info. Sounds real good.

CGBeige: the 5870, that's the one that will come with the new 2010 Mac Pro's right? Could one hook up more than one of those cards in the new Mac Pro and have it contribute to OpenCL/V-Ray?
Are all V-Ray shaders supported in RT? And how much of a visual difference can one expect when switching from RT to the main V-ray renderer.

cgbeige
08-08-2010, 09:47 PM
CGBeige: the 5870, that's the one that will come with the new 2010 Mac Pro's right? Could one hook up more than one of those cards in the new Mac Pro and have it contribute to OpenCL/V-Ray?
Are all V-Ray shaders supported in RT? And how much of a visual difference can one expect when switching from RT to the main V-ray renderer.

ya, it's a BTO option in the new Mac Pro and presumably AMD will sell it solo like the 4870 as well. I've seen that some people have flashed XFX cards for Windows running with the drivers already (with some caveats). Ya, you can pair multiple cards (and CPU cores) with OpenCL very easily. Just keep in mind that the memory doesn't stack like computer memory - at least that's my experience with Octane. You can only use the max memory of your single card.

The only shaders I actually saw running in RT on the GPU were the V-Ray material (the V-Ray equivalent of mia_material_x_passes - only passes work) and an emitter shader. You can see a screenshot in my article here:

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2010/07/gpu-renderers-proliferate-show-newfound-maturity.ars?comments=1#comments-bar

edit: oops, that's Max. Anyway, it was on display.

I haven't used V-Ray RT and only had a brief demo so it's hard to say exactly where the limitations are. I doubt you'll see things like caustics, SSS, instancing and motion blur with the first release, but I could be wrong.

Richard7666
08-09-2010, 06:29 AM
Bummer about instancing support.

DutchDimension
08-09-2010, 06:49 AM
Thanks CGBeige.
Shame about the memory limitations. Just when our CPU based rendering solutions are getting access to decent amounts of Ram (16+GB) in 64bit environments. It'll be hard to throttle back on that once more. Good for look-devving individual assets or small scenes I guess.

pauldryzen
08-09-2010, 01:56 PM
RT runs on both CPU and GPU, so if you need more ram, just switch to CPU and there should be no problem with RAM :-)

Iīve seen the demo of RT at the FMX and I had the chance to play around with the stuff a bit and I think it will save a lot of time for my upcoming projects! I canīt wait to have RT finally running on my machine.

Btw. New project done with VRay for Maya: http://www.parasol-island.com/00518

Bitter
08-10-2010, 07:33 AM
I use Vray in production. Generally just the Vray material is used. (The irony being that Vray really only has one major useful monolithic material. So the argument that iRay only uses the monolithic material from mental ray seems. . .silly.)

It's fast, it uses brdf models in its shading. It also handles memory well. It's also not subject to Autodesk screwing up integration. You can also upgrade without waiting on a new Autodesk package.

However, it's very noisy and some passes are. . .odd. A flat plane for instance, does not have constant normals, they. . .point at the camera for some reason. Texture handling (at least in Max) is horribly filtered. I have not had a chance to see this in Maya. It should be better. Motion blur is also very grainy.

mental ray has a steeper learning cure. mental ray also has more complex options. Vray does not have a rasterizer for motion blur, hence the unavoidable grain at lower render times. Using a non-brdf shader in mental ray will make it slower. Stick to the mia material (the vray material equivalent) and you will have similar options. Progressive rendering is also available in Maya 2011 with a nice script available online and you will see much improved speed on glossy surfaces.


http://www.creativecrash.com/maya/downloads/scripts-plugins/rendering/mental-ray/c/k_progressive_rendering--2

If you're curious about how such a renderer operates as progressive, look at Arnold for XSI (and soon Maya). It's a unified framework meaning you have a quality knob and a time knob. This is NOT a different pattern of adaptive sampling, it is a different algorithm designed to generate high quality images quickly and with minimal time. You can get away with lower sampling on glossy effects and depth of field etc and the renderer will handle it for you. No tedious tweaking inside the material or the renderer.

You can set the time to zero if you like for high quality stills and let it render until you like the result. Hit stop and then save. Done. The catch is it cannot resume once stopped. However, this saves the headache or re-rendering to get a better image after you spent 2 hours on another render.

(Sidenote, iRay also runs on CPU or GPU. It does require a CUDA card for now. They are owned by Nvidia afterall. You can see more iRay examples by looking at Bunkspeed.)

cgbeige
08-10-2010, 03:37 PM
my problem with the iRay isn't that it's single material - it's that it's not the same monolithic mia_material_x_passes material that Maya uses. Am I wrong?

naik
08-10-2010, 04:08 PM
It's really funny to see all the thought of so many people complaining about
mental ray , about the quality and of course about the "slow" speed and
the fact that vray is much better.

There is no example where i can really recognize that vray is faster than mental ray.
Of course it really depends on the scene and what you are rendering BUT
we use vray and mental ray in our productions and belive me our projects are
reaally heavy.

The big "problem" with mental ray is, you really have to know what to do.
In other words - know your tool. And yes mental ray is far more
technial than vray. But if you know mr and also know how to
optimize your scenes and the renderer - i promise that mental ray
is not slower than vray - maybe faster.

What really kills my nerves with vray is the translation time of a heavy scene
(> 15 mill. polys )

It takes several minutes just to start the rendering process.
The translations time in mental ray is far better in my view.

Sidenote ---

Also - if you have Holomatix Rendition ( Real Time Renderer )
in combination with Maya Mr - this gonna blast everything on the market.
I just completed several decent tests with Maya vray - vray RT and
Maya mr - rendition.
If i would show the rendertime compared to RT you would not belive me.
It's totally ridiculous to call Vray RT -- RT
If there is one application which really deserves the name RT then
it is definately Holomatix Rendition.

And the fact that Holomatix Rendition support almost 99% of all the mental ray shader
is just awesome. You just have to try it out for yourself and see the boost in
your workflow. I can not live without Rendition anymore....


my two cents

naik

P.s Also, for those who missed it.
Although those renderings are "old" - these are by far
the most photorealistic and best quality interior / exterior renderings i have
ever seen. Mindblowing......

ehh and of course....... mental ray.....

http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=132&t=754315

Bitter
08-10-2010, 05:43 PM
The mia_material used in Maya is the same in iRay. You can use the passes material too, just click off the multiple outputs.

chafouin
08-10-2010, 09:30 PM
naik: I agree with you about almost everything. But you have to admit that if you don't have any coder to help you with mental ray, you run into a lot of problems. And that's certainely why most of arch designers use Vray, because they are mostly freelancers, work alone, and don't have any money to spend on plug-ins or programmers to fix everything that needs to be fixed in mental ray. Vray is expensive in a way, but you get your money back pretty fast since it makes your work easier.

Anyway, I tried Rendition and I really like it, because it works with mental ray, so you don't have to export your scene and make your shaders in another software like Octane or Bunkspeed Shot. But still, I think it works only for pretty simple scenes. And if you want to render your final image, mental ray is definitely faster than Rendition (on a really simple scene, to get the same image quality, Rendition was almost 10 times slower than MR). And I don't feel like paying more than 200 dollars for an IPR. Autodesk should definitely fix the one they already have :)

Bitter
08-10-2010, 10:29 PM
mental ray is still not a consumer product. It is somewhat rooted in the fact it is a professional package designed for TDs where a framework is more desirable than an "off the shelf" package.

The industry has shifted since the 1990's and the software no longer costs $15,000. (mental ray was originally conceived in 1989 I believe and Maya is now "affordable")

The change to a more user friendly and off the shelf product is taking exceptional time. I'm sure some of that is an attempt not to alienate people that still need/desire the framework as it operates.

Vray lacks this expandable base because it's a consumer product from a different background that has made its way the opposite direction. The shift in what is needed from a renderer, it's lower cost, and better hardware makes that move easier and more predictable.

Remove Autodesk's integration from the equation and it becomes a better proposition.

egglybagelface
08-11-2010, 12:23 AM
There is no example where i can really recognize that vray is faster than mental ray.

I first worked with VRay when I was using 3dsmax (still do actually). We chose it over mentalRay and Brazil r/s because we started a project which relied heavily on displacement maps from Zbrush and the increase in quality and speed was unbelieveable.... and yes, mentalray was tweaked by a mray pro TD.

I'll assume the "interior scenes" you're asking about are for architectural scenes, in that case I would go with Maxwell. I imagine the coding is more efficient now, but when we used it for 3dsmax, about 1 year after it came out, it was rather slow. Don't know how it's render-times compare with its competitors today, thou.

cgbeige
08-11-2010, 12:42 AM
Actually, interior scenes are worse with Maxwell in my experience (not quality, just speed vs. noise). If you have a skylight with Maxwell (or any other unbiased renderer), the noise is going to take a really really long time to go away. Octane has similar problems. With V-Ray and mental ray, you can speed up portal lights.

If your lighting is all local and inside the room, that's different but Maxwell skylights/IBLs are slooooooow if you are relying on secondary bounces for lighting (like with skylights).

anyway, my mistake about iRay and the materials. Maybe some day, Autodesk will actually have it working in Maya and I can try it without having to hack at mr standalone...

Is that Holomatix thing CPU-based? It's funny with all these GPU renderers coming out, there's also fast CPU progressive renderers coming too - the next Maxwell update (and Maya plug-in) are going to have this fast interactive CPU renderer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHyrROqAiZM

egglybagelface
08-11-2010, 01:01 AM
Actually, interior scenes are worse with Maxwell in my experience (not quality, just speed vs. noise). If you have a skylight with Maxwell (or any other unbiased renderer), the noise is going to take a really really long time to go away....If your lighting is all local and inside the room, that's different but Maxwell skylights/IBLs are slooooooow if you are relying on secondary bounces for lighting (like with skylights).

I thought it would still be slow. A renderer like that seems to be only useful as a still image renderer and not animation.

cgbeige
08-11-2010, 03:17 AM
ya, and since you can't cache GI solution, it can suffer from flicker. That's not very efficient either. It's an amazing renderer for pure realism but I wouldn't use it for animation.

Bitter
08-11-2010, 07:36 AM
Maxwell doesn't need to cache a GI solution usually. It path traces. This doesn't cause a splotchy flicker like mental ray or Vray. Instead it generates a noise like fine grain (IP in mental ray does this somewhat). This is usually visually acceptable in smaller amounts. A lot of what you see in a movie has grain, especially fabricated grain or renderer generated.

The problem with a path tracing mechanism is that it's slow. Originally it was positioned as a renderer for all things, but at SIGGRAPH 2008 they distanced the product from being a natural choice for animation.

Its better strengths are easy setup, near absolute realism, and cached lighting changes.

It's not very flexible at all and is designed with one main purpose and it does that very well.

GPUs can be use to increase the speed of this type of rendering and is more common lately. Only a matter of time. . . .

Hamburger
08-11-2010, 08:30 AM
Maxwell doesn't need to cache a GI solution usually. It path traces. This doesn't cause a splotchy flicker like mental ray or Vray.

Could the same could be said for V-Ray's brute force approach?

naik
08-11-2010, 08:41 PM
naik: I agree with you about almost everything. But you have to admit that if you don't have any coder to help you with mental ray, you run into a lot of problems. And that's certainely why most of arch designers use Vray, because they are mostly freelancers, work alone, and don't have any money to spend on plug-ins or programmers to fix everything that needs to be fixed in mental ray. Vray is expensive in a way, but you get your money back pretty fast since it makes your work easier.

Anyway, I tried Rendition and I really like it, because it works with mental ray, so you don't have to export your scene and make your shaders in another software like Octane or Bunkspeed Shot. But still, I think it works only for pretty simple scenes. And if you want to render your final image, mental ray is definitely faster than Rendition (on a really simple scene, to get the same image quality, Rendition was almost 10 times slower than MR). And I don't feel like paying more than 200 dollars for an IPR. Autodesk should definitely fix the one they already have :)

@dot87


hey mate - what do you exactly mean with coders?
Coders who "code" a working pipeline for a production?
( Coders for scripts maybe plugins - sure that would be great )

In our company we have no coders for that purpose -
at the end it is the operator who solves that problem and
for many mr "problems" there are dozen of scripts / plugins in order
to get the pipeline smooth.
So yes, using mental ray inside Maya
(most of the time in use mental ray inside 3dsmax
which is really a different situation)
means that you definately have to
solve certain problems which WILL occur
during a real production situation.

But, are there any vray users out there, who will
tell me that using vray means = no production problems
= no problems regarding the renderer
( quality <> rendertime <> artifacts <> efficency <> possibilities )

in every production.
Come on....


Rendition

I really can not confirm that.
Just one example:

I have rendered several heavy scenes ( 16 mill polys ! )
inside Rendition at a 6K resolution ( no GI , no FG )

The rendering took approx. 1 1/2 | 2 hours.
When rendering inside Maya it took 15 min longer.
But dont misunderstand my intention.
At the end, its not about the final render time benefit i use Rendition.
( Also dont forget that Rendittion comes with an implemented
Passes function, which runs perfectly!)
Its about the whole stuff you normally do before the final rendering.
Lightsetup, Camera Setup, Shader Setup etc etc...

I did a job with rendition where i finished it in 2-3 days.
Without Rendition it would be perhaps 4-5 days.
Thats the point - you know, if you have a really heavy scene
( perhaps a full cgi job / scene for an automotive rendering on the highest level )
Its really time consuming just to finish all the light / shader setup
because if you have to wait 5-8 min at a low quality setting ( mental ray )
just for certain render region, that will just kill your smooth workflow.
And with it, it is really like it had to be in my view.
Very fast, light and shader modification render results
and im talking about secconds , not to finish the image inside rendition
but to be able to analyse the result in a very good quality and
then to decide to make further improvements.
Thats the most important issue about RT, for me.


@cgbeige

The developers are also going to support the GPU
for the future versions.
For now it's "only" the CPU

cheers

naik
08-11-2010, 09:07 PM
I first worked with VRay when I was using 3dsmax (still do actually). We chose it over mentalRay and Brazil r/s because we started a project which relied heavily on displacement maps from Zbrush and the increase in quality and speed was unbelieveable.... and yes, mentalray was tweaked by a mray pro TD.

I'll assume the "interior scenes" you're asking about are for architectural scenes, in that case I would go with Maxwell. I imagine the coding is more efficient now, but when we used it for 3dsmax, about 1 year after it came out, it was rather slow. Don't know how it's render-times compare with its competitors today, thou.

hmm okay, i can not remember that point.
So do you mean that the displacement in vray is far superior
compared to mental rays? I would be surprised if its right.
(at least they should be almost equal)
Never compared rentimes for displacement ( also the quality )

Bitter
08-11-2010, 09:26 PM
Brute Force for Vray is the same as FG Brute Force in mental ray. It computes the values at every shaded point, sending out probe rays. This does not continue to collect data through bouncing around the scene.

Path Tracing literally traces a path to objects nearby, runs the shaders and calculates the relationship from point to point to point. This requires a LOT of samples to be noise free.
You may notice this in something like iRay where there are occasional bright specs that have to have more samples over and over to resolve into something more realistic just because the first path traced hit something really bright. You require no settings for this other than a time setting or a desired quality setting. It is a simple algorithm.

Arnold and mental ray's Progressive Rendering also have similar quality knobs. (As does iRay)

GPU versions like iRay converge much faster. Hence the move by vendors to use GPUs for this. Adding something like Metropolis Light Transport algorithms help reduce the bright specs as well and speed up a better result.

mental ray's Path Material is a path tracing and physically "correct" version of the DGS shader. Should you use it for your entire scene, you can make mental ray path trace, albeit with a limited selection of shader options. iRay in CPU mode is also similar.

Hamburger
08-11-2010, 11:51 PM
Thanks for the explanation. So V-Ray's Progessive path tracing or V-Ray RT is more simliar to Maxwell than the brute force rendering approach?

Bitter
08-12-2010, 12:22 AM
That's more correct. Those methods offer a more "unbiased" solution and are easier to setup, but take more time to converge.

Arnold and mental ray use similar approaches in progressive rendering but allow tricks to be used instead of path tracing.

Photorealism and the renderer are independent of one another. They are just tools. Each one makes a particular sacrifice to do one thing or another.

chafouin
08-12-2010, 07:56 AM
Naik: Don't get me wrong, I like mental ray, and I like rendition :) When I say that you need coders, you understood me right: at some point you need some to create scripts, plug-ins, or even shaders (thanks Pavel or deex to share their useful shaders for free) to fix everything that's not working. I don't say that vray doesn't need any scripts, at some point you will maybe need some help from a coder/scripter. But the support from Chaosgroup is just amazing. And the basic shaders and features, they at least work as expected (not the case with mental ray features that get buggy with every new version - IBL for example).

About Rendition, I'm happy that you get better rendertimes, but I don't. Maybe because I used it with FG, I don't know. That is a great preview renderer for me. But now that we have progressive rendering in mental ray since 2010 (version 3.7 I think)... Of course we are not talking about the same render times, Rendition is way faster (haven't had the time to compare, I'll do that tonight maybe), but for tweaking shaders and camera, it's still better than normal renders.

Bitter
08-12-2010, 08:51 AM
There's a lack of separation in some of these comments.

mental ray as it is integrated into Maya is where the problem appears to be for most users. Correct me if I'm wrong, but who in here is speaking of Standalone? Issues with integration should be directed to Autodesk.

Vray is a standalone product under their own integration and support from Chaosgroup.

mental ray also has a integration library product with support from mental images.

Many of the "lacking" features in mental ray actually exist, just not in Maya. Max itself has even fewer exposed possibilities from a lack of String Options.

Personally. . .I miss Alias/Wavefront.

chafouin
08-12-2010, 10:03 AM
We are all talking about mental ray for for maya, I guess.
I know that the integration is made by Autodesk. But actually, I really don't care about who's responsible of the mental ray problems every users are experiencing, the result is the same: Chaosgroup listen to their customers, and give a really nice support. Autodesk doesn't (you never get any answer in the Area forums, you just have to wait for hotfixes, check the fix list and hope that someone heard you), mental images, I can't tell because I never contacted them... but, apparently they don't even help the guys from Autodesk to integrate their renderer, ahah.

Whenever I find something interesting for mental ray, it's made by a random guy. Just have a look at the recent Pixar point Cloud thread (Ok, Max is not a random guy :) I don't know its background, but I don't think he works at mental images).

And I miss Alias too :)

SreckoM
08-12-2010, 10:39 AM
My conclusion is that both can provide really great results, but what is added value of Vray over MR is much better workflow, artist friendly or call it whatever you like, things just work. Plus communication you have with developers is invaluable.
I miss days when those applications were developed by smaller companies that could talk to their user base, share ideas, without thinking about some laws that do not allow them ...

mustique
08-12-2010, 04:59 PM
It took a while for most maya users, but nowadays almost everybody has awaken to the fact that Mentalray is ugly as hell. (thanks to Vray for the most part) It seems even ADSK has lost its faith, hence the İllumateLabs aquisition.

Vray RT will get especially interesting for me, once AMD Fusion APUs hit the market. (AMD CPU & ATI GPU on the same die). A workstation with 2 of these, plus 2 dedicated Graphic cards will be veeery fast. :beer:

cgbeige
08-12-2010, 05:28 PM
It took a while for most maya users, but nowadays almost everybody has awaken to the fact that Mentalray is ugly as hell. (thanks to Vray for the most part) It seems even ADSK has lost its faith, hence the İllumateLabs aquisition.

This is an unrelated purchase. Turtle and Beast are meant to be used in game engines and I'm sure that Autodesk just realized that baked lighting solutions and mobile games are where the growth is now. Unity 3 has Beast integration and it will give some amazing tools to a cheap game dev tool.

http://vimeo.com/groups/19470/videos/13361651

No one's going to be using Turtle and Beast for films unless it was an experiment in realtime rendered movies.

CGTalk Moderation
08-12-2010, 05:28 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.