The "AR 2.5 vs the rest" thread!


So I seem to have been er nominated to start this new thread… Anyway, let’s see how the new Advanced Render 2.5 holds up against the competition now that we’ve got the new area lights, faster blurry reflections and overall speedups!

Here is a scene from the free stuff section at (converted to .c4d with some basic materials applied but no lighting set up yet):

  [download scene in .c4d format](
  [download scene in .obj format](
  [download scene in lw format](

download the (original) scene in .max format

             Original image:
             You can use this as a guidline but feel free to make it look even prettier. ;)

Use any renderer you like, maxwell, vray, finalrender etc… and of course AR 2.5. Hopefully this will turn into a nice big thread with some hard facts (ie pictures) to look at.

       Another edit: forgot to thank Simon Reeves for converting the max scene to obj. :D


Very generous, Janine :slight_smile:

I’d also like to see 9.5’s AR shine.


to get the exercise more accurate, all texture mat should be the same whatever the renderer is, its too easy to get something pleasing to the eye with a decent map and could disturb any judgement…
i’m in for the maxwell test (i dont own the AR 2.5 yet ), i’ll run tests this week end :slight_smile:

once i’ll start, i’ll provide some maps.


Agreed, and the camera angle should stay the same as well.


Why maps? Just render the image the best you can without maps. If a program has map-less surfacing, use that. Cinema, for example.


I don’t think we should make it too restrictive. It’s supposed to be a fun exersize as well. I’d say let everyone apply their own textures and materials (although it seems to me like the original doesn’t actually use any maps at all, possibly the tiles, but even they could be procedural).

The only thing I would say - don’t apply lots of noisy textures and patterns to all the objects to cover up any artifacts, we want to see nice clean walls. :wink: Just keep it simple.


I’ve updated the scene so that the camera matches the one in the original pic (see first post).


janine, could you make a target camera please or the maxwellrender wont match…



It doesn’t have to match 100%, I wouldn’t worry.


create a null object, transfer it to the camera, move it forwared a bit ( away from the camera) give the camera a target tag, drop the null object into the target - Done!


ok then i’ll send the file (cinema4D with camera and 2 maps, one for the rug and one for the tile plus maxwell tags applied) tomorrow, still got my work to finish…
i’ll be back tomorrow :bounce:

edit: sorry rick, you were too fast…

so yes i create a null, but you didnt mention that it must be shift-create a null, otherwise it wont work… :wink:


i’ll go first then, quick test -

22 mins

AR 2.5
Strength 100%
Accuracy 70%
Prepass 1/2
Diffuse Depth 2
Stoch Smples 300
Min res 80
Max res 120

colour mapping 2-1 exponential

no area lights for this test or blurry reflections,

lighting = emitter in window, light at camera position - no shadow, sun - hard shadow

might try again with higher settings


nope, it just create the null directly within the camera, then a litll tweaking to match a bit and , voila…

sorry :wip:


ha ha. hurry up dudes. I’m already in grainland and test rendering. Large image is @9 minutes. :slight_smile:


I think it would make comparisons easier if the position/direction of the sun was pre determined.


I’m not using a sun yet. Just bouncing a triangular emitter off the ceiling. Lets have some fun with this kitched scene. Produce variations (day, night, fridgelight only and so forth).


My sun is at -2190/1408/-146 (omni light with hard shadow, haven’t made it parallel, too lazy) Matches roughly with the original pic.


Ok. I’m killing my kitchensink-DOF render and switching to the regular sun/camera format. Last state at 17mins 38s:


nice work ric, your test looks great


rendering from the conventional angle with skydome GI through window now. The M~W preview window shows this: