FurryBall 4 - new speed compare (unbiased rendering) V-RAY, Iray, Mental ray, Arnold

#21

Here is 12 minutes result for a dated $300 CPU render. 1/3 the chip cost, 3× the time. This one is clearly better than the titan render, even though, once again, it uses real DOF instead of fake one.
http://i.imgur.com/UC83ke3.jpg

#22

These are the types of problems you will run into when promoting your product through argument only, instead of promoting your product based on its inherent merits, Furryball.

You come into a forum full of dedicated, talented, and intelligent CG artists and technicians and exclaim that your product is the best, followed by arguments on why/how/when it is the best. You instantly and immediately put your target audience on the defensive. You begin your presentation as a debate, when you don’t even know all the counter-arguments, nor the rules of such a debate.

Then you pointedly ignore any counter-arguments and criticism, and become erratic and almost hostile with your own arguments. Classically, you have already lost the debate outright - hands down, you would have lost this debate in any college, anywhere. You won’t answer our questions, you do not even know what a photon is, and you use contradictions to try to counter-argue the counter-arguments. Case in point:

Maybe I forgot mentioned, that all scene is lid ONLY by indirect (one Direct light from windows and sky also only from window).

Here you say "scene is lid (that should be “lit", by the way; a lid is the top of a container) ONLY by indirect”, then instantly say it’s lit by one Direct light. You just contradicted yourself, and if you don’t even understand what indirect light actually is, you have no business promoting or even writing a rendering engine. “…from windows and sky also only from window”. Which one is it? First it’s indirect only, then it’s from up to three direct lights?

You don’t understand the meaning of the word “only”, and you can’t explain what light is to us.

Hire someone else to do your PR, someone who knows physics and English.

#23

I hope the furryball team gets the point.

  • things I like about the plugin:
    Realtime (good enough for me) motion blur. I’m an animater, so it’s nice to turn it on for some shots.

-the realtime lighting is really friendly for seeing my facial expressions etc.( this is always for preview purposes, I use vray for renders)

It’s really great they opened up by supplying that scene. I can get great times in mr and vray.

I would like to note that English is there second or third language… We don’t really need to go there.

Personally I am not upgrading the product I purchased with furryball due to the lack of customer service I had. I will use what I have and it’s good enough for now. Time will tell.

#24

I would like to note that English is there second or third language… We don’t really need to go there.

English is also not my first language. Thus, my suggestion for them to hire someone who knows it when presenting it to an English-speaking community.

Edit: was the scene supplied for Maya as well, or just for Max? I checked again and couldn’t find it for Maya…

#25

I’m deeply apologize to all those affected by my bad English.

#26

To be constructive can I make a few suggestions:

I understand one of the key features about Furryball is speed, but regardless, keep it general:

  • use words like “furryball is significantly faster than other render-engines with little to no tweaking and optimizing”… or whatever

  • not words like “furryball is 10-100x faster than other CPU based render-engines.”

  • promote it’s strengths and ignore mentioning other engines. (When I see all that comparison stuff it’s like a politician that focuses to destroy his/her challengers by digging up their past and finding things to find fault in, rather than saying what their actual plans for the future are etc.)

But I know you’re not going to listen to the advice others have given you… the last “vs. vray” thread obviously had no effect on you and we’re all looking forward to your future “Furryball vs. Maya Software Renderer” thread soon.

#27

Ooooh, renderer challenge :slight_smile: Here’s my entry.

Brute force GI (3 bounces)
http://help.chaosgroup.com/vray/images/stuff/furryball_scene/render_bf_3_bounces.jpg

Brute force GI (25 bounces)
http://help.chaosgroup.com/vray/images/stuff/furryball_scene/render_bf_25_bounces.jpg

And a little bit of bias (brute force + light cache)
http://help.chaosgroup.com/vray/images/stuff/furryball_scene/render_bf_lc.jpg

DOF and motion blur are fully raytraced.

Best regards,
Vlado

#28

Great times Vlado!! :applause:
Congrats for beta version 3. Looks really great!
We tested on Vray for Maya and version 2.

We used brute force for Vray (like on your image 1, but much more samples, to prevent grain). We got time 47 min on i7-930 2,80 GHz
What was your CPU?

#29

Again, do you have a Maya-ready version of this scene for comparisons?

You won’t answer any of my other questions, but if this is a Max-only thread now, let’s move it to the Max section. I won’t even begin to dissect your last post for ineptitudes, but if you have a Maya scene ready to share that would be pretty unbiased of you.

#30

Yes there is a .ma file in the link further up the thread

#31

here is something from me :wink:
done using gtx460 :wink:

hair not supported yet, but its planed…

cheers

#32

To chime in, another thing that was mistaken rigth from first post is that speed alone means nothing.
Stability and being able to chew through every and any scene you throw at your engine without spending nights overlooking rendering is even more important to some.
Yes I’m looking at Arnold for example. If your scene is like huge forest with everything down to grass and rocks on the ground scattered all over the place with bunch of zeroes in number of polygons with MB DOF and everything you acn think of… GPUs have nothing to do there. At least yet. Even <rendere x> awas nightmare as I still remember sleepless nights waiting for crash and rendering over frame by frame… somethings can;t be measured with speed only.
Time spent to setup lighting and stability during rendering sometimes wins over.

If priority is speed then there are already a lot of other renders that provides equal if not better results, VRay and Redshift that is by the way still in early alpha and already being production proven, not to mention customer support for both of them which is fantastic…
So instead of trying to beat others where there is really not realistic thing to do, someone else already provided better solution. Present engine, show it’s strengths and show what you doing to beat weakness.

As for comparison, if you really wanna show that it is the best then provide challenge, give couple different scenes not single interior scene, and give people that actually know how to optimize each render engine participate and then see true results.

#33

Look no matter which way you want to argue in this thread…

… the fact that it brought Vlado out to play with the new Vray made it all worth it.

Great stuff Koylazov, guess I better upgrade my vray soon.

#34

And to be fair. I would still buy Furryball given the right situation. I own multiple render engines for different reasons.

Furryball has its place in productions too.

#35

Vlado, nice time!!! Can you tell us your CPU spec? Cause without it, it’s very difficult to understand how good is your render time, compare to the other engines =) Thanks.

#36

Hey Bazuka,

Redshift render is really looking amazing! Whats your thoughts on it? Seems like its a great new option for a GPU based render…Not to change subject but really makes the other renders posted look like there on preview mode.

Vray 3.0 is also looking to be a great update…4 min renders not bad at all. Lets get all the pros to take the furryball render challenge :wink:

#37

Great image Bazuka!

There are photon maps for GI as I guess, but really great.
You wrote you render it on 460 gtx, it has 10x less cuda cores than Titan… Is it right?
So on Titan would be your time under 20 sec?

#38

furryball, I’m not sure, but you cannot do this count. the 480 is Fermi (480 cuda cores), Titan is Kepler (2,688) . So, you can think: ok, Titan is 5.6 time faster! (and not x10… ) But, this is not true. You cannot to this! The “cuda cores power” is completely different.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-780-performance-review,3516-26.html

I think 480 vs Titan is… 4x

#39

Redshift does really excite… :bowdown:

#40

460 gtx has 336 CUDA cores.
Titan has 2688 and higher clock and latest chip. In our benchmarks for raytracing is really 10x faster.
Here is real raytracing benchmarks:
http://www.aaa-studio.cz/furrybench/benchResults4.php
460 is not there, but it’s close to 650.