Unfortunately I don't have the time to keep myself abreast on two different renderers and not supporting GPU makes it in my view a dead end. It is more straight forward to use in general, and I kind of feel renders look better out of the box than in Vray, especially if I convert a Vray scene into Corona. I've played around and subscribed to Corona for a year or so, and I really like the lightmixer, LUTs and multiple render regions, as well as the growing material library. Waaaaaaaay easier to purchase and manage license. Next GPU crashed on me a fair bit, especially as I got towards my memory limit. Corona pretty much never crashes on me, even with the daily builds. Region rendering is so nice, multiple regions, etc. Material preview is more realistic with reflected light from the ground, etc. Scroll easily through LUTs, turn on and off denoising, etc. Sometimes it even has an automated fix (Normal map gamma for example.) That is just super nice. Corona log pops up only when there is an issue, and usually has a clickable link for more info on their helpdesk. Vray log scrolls endless messages at you and it's tough to read. For me that's a cleaner integration than adding it as a render element and juggling that with the HQ denoiser. Optix turns off automatically for production unless you enable it for that specifically. Optix is a checkbox in the performance tab and this checkbox only applies to IPR.
User Experience (just a few examples, there are more): And for final high res renders there's a 'Scene' button where you bake the settings into the scene and can then disable lightmix. I know people knock this feature but seriously, it's amazing. I've bumped trace depth, added fog, and reflect on back side but I always feel like Corona gives a more realistic effect. Speaking of glass, we always get more realistic glass in Corona. It also has Intel denoiser as a nice backup option. It's also easier to use being integrated nicely into the VFB. Corona denoiser seems to do a better job keeping detail and dealing with glass. I use both but keep gravitating back to Corona. Great idea, Vlado! Just completed the survey.
#CORONA VS VRAY UPGRADE#
YOU CANNOT BUY OR UPGRADE VRAY ONLINE, YOU STILL NEED TO GO THROUGH A RESELLER Displacement consumes a lot of memory on GPU, it needs to be optimized. Still no Secondary environment overrides on GPU Fast SSS2 doesn't support GGX or glossy frensel. Volume scatter shader doesn't work on GPU, other models cannot achieve the same results Triplanar still doesn't work with normal maps Bump mapping result changes based on render resolution, will need to change bump delta scale for every material whenever I change render resolution- if I ever want things to look the same LC GI for speed and things like Auto exposure/white balance, adaptive lights, adaptive domelight.etc Vray Volume scatter shader, supports random walk SSS Vray HairNext material with Glint and Glitter controls Metalness option for PBR workflow and achieving physically accurate metals. Bucket modes, for better CPU utilization, less network traffic with DR, less memory consumption with high res renders.etc Best IPR in the industry, with isolate select and other debug shading modes. Adaptive Dome Light, HDRI lighting is easier to use without the need for portals, and interiors are much faster to render. Vray is faster, has better IPR with debug shading options and more shading features. we render most of our projects on GPU ,and if we need to render on CPU for whatever reason we stick to Vray
0 kommentar(er)
