Along with Octane, I’ve been testing Vray for Blender, but as Blender isn’t very well known there isn’t much in the way of tutorials for them together. There’s just no documentation of tutorials natively.
I’ve found some settings here and there from Max and Maya and mostly they seem to match, although it’s hard to tell when I’ve only got a tiny demo resolution to test with (600x450).
Is Vray 2 viable with Blender, or is it too much work? Plus I hear there’s a new version of Vray for Blender coming out, but I’ve no idea when, or what it’ll offer in comparison. Also will an upgrade to 3 when it does arrive be reasonable price wise I wonder?
So far Vray is working out a lot cheaper than Octane.
V-Ray and 3dsmax go hand in hand like bread and butter. everything else is secondary when it comes to V-Ray because the majority of V-Ray users are also 3dsmax users and that’s their main development platform.
I played with the octane blender integration and I think it’s much better than what V-Ray offers.
When it comes to speed I am really impressed about how Octane renders. Compared to Cycles it’s almost everytime twice as fast however Cycles is less memory hungry.
I’d seriously consider learning cycles if you are able to. I work with Vray a lot and its so unintuitive in comparison.
Cycles is free and offers the flexibility I haven’t seen in any other renderer apart from Arnold.
It is, in some situations, a bit slower than Vray or Octane, but I’d consider it worth it unless you absolutely have to work with an industry standard render.
words, although some may obviously disagree, Cycles isn’t a good choice for archviz interior rendering - it just doesn’t look real compared to Vray and Octane.
reC, it’s just the price I’m afraid of for Octane and a possible new GPU, but with Vray it’s the lack of documentation.
Vray £264 for dongle and license
Octane £309 and I’ll need another GPU card with more than 2GB, that’s another £100, possibly £200. Making Octane’s total £509!
Not sure if you’ve spotted those already. I think the lack of tutorials/documentation is due to the fact that vray/Blender has been a kind of hobbyhorse of its developer until rather recently. vray 3.0 for Blender will be the first “real” Chaosgroup release and I’m positive that at least the documentation might improve.
As any new renderer vray will almost certainly be tricky to master at first, but there’s one advantage: The settings are always the same, whether you use vray with Blender, 3ds max, Cinema 4D or whatever. So, if you change your 3D app of choice later, your vray knowledge might always be of value. Which does of course also apply to Octane, btw.
Octane was thought of and built from day 1 to be a pure GPU rendering solution and it is still young compared to V-Ray.
What is great about GPU rendering is that it leaves your CPU free to handle other tasks. So you can continue doing something else while your GPU cooks.
With CPU I’m forced to leave a minimum two threads free of load when I render.
Errr, thats a fairly weak argument. There are quite a few examples of excellent archvis interiors in cycles. There’s obviously different ways to go about getting the best results (although this is still nice and easy thanks to things like the interactive viewport) but saying “it just doesnt look real” is completely arbitrary O.o.
I think this might have to come down to whether you want to pay the money for the license, or spend the time to learn the render engine.
I think some people don’t have a clue what looks real, if you know that Cycles is a path tracer, then you should understand that Cycles isn’t up to interiors. It’s not that Cycles is a bad engine, far from it, it just isn’t made for that purpose. And regarding good interior renders in Cycles that look real, those are in a real short supply - know your hobby. Maybe some fanboys should go to Spec Savers.
Oh dear I seem to have hit a nerve.
I’d like to see why you don’t think a path tracer isn’t up to interiors, both vray and octane use path tracing in at least options (Vray less so and has more viable alternatives, but using solely PMC for octane isn’t exactly common practice). The GI from path tracing is really nice, especially since it is calculated in the same pass as everything else which results in some nice interactive viewport renders. Other than the possibility of longer render times to reduce noise (I can’t see a well optimised scene being more than minutes behind vray or octane). I really am struggling to see the reasoning behind “if you know that Cycles is a path tracer, then you should understand that Cycles isn’t up to interiors” if i’m misinformed please reference the contradicting source
