[Peter Shupe]

I have been using Maxwell and Vray for a bunch of projects lately. Usually I start my projects with Maxwell to get some nice ambient light greyscale images and then move on to Vray once I add materials.

Since the release of 1.50, Vray seems to be able to produce these nice greyscale images as well, and deal with glass very well.

I have tried to do final renders in both with varying degrees of success. I find Maxwell a little frustrating once I start with materials, and glass seems to be very problematic. With Vray I run into problems that the materials seem to be easier to develop but then it seems the images become flat and lifeless.

Now obviously these are mostly my own failings in my grasp of the subtleties of the programs. What I would like to determine is, which one will work best for me.

I will be posting images at the same stages in both programs and asking for advice on issues that develop. Please stay tuned as I progress. Thank you in advance for any feedback.

Regards Peter.

Vray


Maxwell


I will post my Maxwell settings soon - thanks.

[JTB]

My first comment is... This should go to off topic section

Also, what we see here is something both renderers can do, and we know from the begining that Vray does that faster... not better, just faster...
Vray is a great choise but no matter how many times I read about a comparison of Vray and Maxwell, the only thing I here about is rendering times...
The last Vray release (1.50) is a great product and I would recommend it to everyone that wants a great picture in less time than Maxwell.
I think everyone knows that there is nothing like Maxwell's quality.

[def4d]

it's not a comparison, sorry

Vray is the best for quality/speed ratio
Maxwell gives you the best results, with long rendertimes

Try the PPT with vray, to come near Maxwell quality results... and rendertime!

There's a good comparison test made on the spanish forum, but i don't have the link

[Peter Shupe]

Thanks JTB - but this is more for me to determine which one is better for me. It is easy to say one is better than the other but that is purely subjective.

I have seen phenominal renders done by each software. I purchased both based quite a bit on images that I had seen. As I think most people do.

I have tried to develop my renders and have had issues with both programs, trying to get a really nice final product. I would like to develop this post through to a finished product and see which program suits me better for the results. For instance, I don't mind long render times, to a certain extent. I have 2 machines which one could easily be rendering test renders for an hour or 2, while I work on the other. Also I don't mind rendering for overnight or over the weekend or longer to get the result I want, say for a final render.

As for being moved to off topic - as it heavily relates to Maxwell, I don't think that to be the place for this post. You don't have to comment on Vray, in fact please don't. I will decide which better suits me. I would like feedback on making my Maxwell render as good as it can be. And that will aid in my decision.

I will post my settings and ask for help with issues that crop up as I go. Thanks again and keep watching.

Regards Peter.

[def4d]

If you don't care about rendertimes, use Maxwell
You'll keep the focus on your projects, not with tweaks in Vray

[devista]

There's a good comparison test made on the spanish forum, but i don't have the link

this one? http://www.maxwellhispano.com/modules.p ... 9&start=15
saludos
luis

[m-Que]

I've seen thousands of VRay images and I came up to an interesting conclusion: at the very first second as I look at some Vray render I can say for sure that it's Vray-made. I don't know if it's some sort "style" present in every image but I can simply "feel" it there. Another important thing- VRay works may look fine and beautiful, but you just always know that it's a render. I never had that "Maxwell-feeling" with VRay when it takes you a while to guess if it's photo or render. On the other hand VRay is VERY popular (probably because of 3dmax) and it's times cannot be compared to Maxwell
PS: Why are there some many artifacts on a VRay sample

[Peter Shupe]

def4d - to a certain extent I don't care about render times. I care about render times when testing my materials, that I really am not that good with, because it takes me forever to find the right settings, or never. I need some advice on a WIP and that is where this post comes in.

devista - I will check that out but I am not too concerned about comparison tests because they are very subjective. I have to figure out which one works for me.

I thought I would get the best feedback by pitting them against each other and I could make a decision as to how easy they each are to get to a certain look.

Like I said I have seen awesome renders with each but If I can't get my renders to look even close there is no point to having the software. That's a bit severe but pretty close to the truth.

Thanks guys - I will post some updates soon. and I will be looking for suggestions from you all!! !

[def4d]

devista: i didn't know that test, i think it's not a good comparison test, sorry...
cause in the Maxwell render, the lamp on the right has changed

[Mihai]

Peter, for starters I can say that if you are concerned about your materials, you are on the right track I suggest downloading some materials from the mxm gallery (there are over 2000 now) and check out how they have been made, experiment with them.

Basic materials are very easy to make in Maxwell, you can turn a simple plastic into a shiny wooden floor just by adding a texture. What makes a mediocre material turn into a great one are first of all the maps (color, bump) and I think secondly what precise roughness, bump strength etch you use.

Regarding your first render, how big is the ground plane compared to the building?

[Peter Shupe]

Mihai - Thanks for the reply

The plane object that the 20mx30m building sits on is about 400mx500m. Is that too large? I just need it large enough to realistically bounce light from the environment - which I am using a physical sky with the correct Long & Lat for the project.

I love Maxwell for it's ease of use as far as just putting in some lights and just hitting render - it is quite amazing.

I have had decent success with adding some materials downloaded from that site, but struggle with modification. Also I find the AGS and glass materials very complex. They also seem to take a long time to clear the noise. But that is why I am posting, to get better with the advice of the masters here. Thanks again.



Regards Peter.

[Mihai]

You can do this test: Resize the ground plane so it extends about 15-20m from the object and render again. The lighting should be about the same but rendering a bit faster. This is an issue with scene boundaries, if you try and render a closeup of a football, but you model and render the entire Stadium, you will get much longer render times than if you had modelled a smaller plate of grass and used HDR for the rest.

[Peter Shupe]

Will do - thanks - Good idea. I will probably be using an alpha channel and a background image, so there is no need to have any geometry outside. Thanks again.

Regards Peter.

[Calico Jack]

Well MR seem to be very good program for architects who likes to make outdoor images but what about those who need to make product images for example cosmetic companies -> lots of dielectrics, multilights, multilayers, multi f***g things..

I'm one of them and I have this kind of tasks alot: "Make three moisturising jars(usually subsurface materials) in printable A3 scale and those images have to be ready in a week!!!"

I always have to say for them that can't do it because my software isn't able to make those in that time ..btw, Vray is.

Well they pay me well and I'm not complaining for that but It's still anoying that I can't make a simple glass object.

I think I need buy Vray, but it would be nice if NL could get those dielectrics work - those who make product visualizations are still quite common and large group of users/customers.

Don't get me wrong I love MR, but there could be some improvements for dielectrics(noise issue) etc.

I don't give a damn about for that f***g displacement but just fix 64bit and dielectrics so I don't have to that f***g Vray


Here's my sermon.. by the way.. while I was writing this I had a little bit(just a bit) of communion - I mean I'm drunk - cheers

[mrcz]

Well MR seem to be very good program for architects who likes to make outdoor images but what about those who need to make product images for example cosmetic companies -> lots of dielectrics, multilights, multilayers, multi f***g things..

Many architects like INDOOR images better.

I'm one of them and I have this kind of tasks alot: "Make three moisturising jars(usually subsurface materials) in printable A3 scale and those images have to be ready in a week!!!"

Try make an interior in which "three moisturising jars" are one of many dielectrics in it. Those images will be ready in weeks. Visual complexity of an interior is usually far behind any product design scene.


Martin