Community
3ds Max Shading, Lighting and Rendering
Welcome to Autodesk’s 3ds Max Forums. Share your knowledge, ask questions, and explore popular 3ds Max materials topics.
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Unsure if Arnold or Vray

25 REPLIES 25
SOLVED
Reply
Message 1 of 26
Anonymous
30393 Views, 25 Replies

Unsure if Arnold or Vray

Hello, i'm unsure which render to learn. Vray is much longer around and works with real light behaviour, also a scan library.

Arnold however has a solid documentation via solid angles website.

 

Now both dont have many online tutorials, or atleast no good series except the one of mograph plus

 

I saw this https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=10&v=4XhVy_8QYaQ

and wondered if arnold can do this somehow

25 REPLIES 25
Message 2 of 26
Christoph_Schaedl
in reply to: Anonymous

no it cant... and those scanned materials are only usefull if you need exact that material... you cant edit them...

in an artdirected ebvironment they are useless...

i would testdrive both... you will learn a lot and a good lighting artist should be able to use all major renderer out there....
----------------------------------------------------------------
https://linktr.ee/cg_oglu
Message 3 of 26
Anonymous
in reply to: Christoph_Schaedl

So you cant fake it out with a thinfilmshader or something?

Message 4 of 26
Francisco_Penaloza
in reply to: Anonymous

Without the intention to sound offensive, the comparison points you mentioned between this two software are wrong, very wrong.  That's not the way you compare two render engines, these software are way more than that, also there are plenty of tutorials, classes and training material for both render engines.  Arnold may sound new to you but it been for a while already.

 

The main point for you should focus first is your target market, Arch Viz, industrial Viz, Motion graphics, FX?  depending on that then you can narrow your tools such render software.

 

In a nut shell if you work at a small studio and only with do furniture rendering, then Arnold is out of the question. V-Ray may be a better choice, or Corona or any other render engine.

 

If you do FX, well then Arnold may be your choice but even with that V-Ray may go a long run.

 

Message 5 of 26
Anonymous
in reply to: Francisco_Penaloza

Yeah im going for VFX.

Was highly impressed by arnold, but since i found rlly cool things you can do in Vray like this holographic thingy i was unsure. Gonna go with arnold, t hen.

If anyone can still answer after i accepted a solution, or know how to do that in Arnold, i'd love it to be answered

Message 6 of 26
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

I have a friend that started a company (The Molecule) that does very well in NY.  They use Maya and Arnold.

 

I do not understand why Arnold would be "out of the question" for architecture.  Bottom line, it's a ray-tracing render engine that is fast and incredibly photo-realistic...which is what you need for fx and architectural rendering.

Message 7 of 26
Anonymous
in reply to: Francisco_Penaloza

hey im just curious why you say arnold is out of the question for furniture rendering? Ive seen some amazing product shots done with it so what is it exactly that qualify or disqualifys a render engine for that task

Message 8 of 26
Francisco_Penaloza
in reply to: Anonymous

Just to clarify here, you can use any render engine you can afford or please, really.

My point was directed to trying to fit the best tool for the right job.

Arnold is a very powerful raytracer, but it was designed originally with large productions demands in mind.  With the purchased of Autodesk, we can have access to this engine now, and they are trying to make it more simplified to use.  But it is a 500-pound gorilla, not Enscape.

VRay has a proved long-standing record for Visualization, hundreds of preset scenes shaders and others. for the speed of scene setup, it may be better to go with VRay.

 

But again, to the original question, I thought they were no valid points to compare a render engine, a render engine should be valued by what it does, how it does it, what options it has, scalability, flexibility, market share, easy to exchange to collaborate with others, customisations, learning curve and many other factors.

If you fancy Maya and Arnold, well that's your choice, good for you. If you rather work with Blender and Cycles, it is a good choice too.

Diversity is a good thing.

What is bad is not do your homework, choose a tool just because a Movie was made with it when in reality you only need it to do simple door renderings. it will be in your budget?? or the learning curve will be the right for you?

Besides, we all know that final quality is not 100% about the render engine 😉

 

 

Message 9 of 26
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

I am not saying it's out of the question. Quite the opposite. One of the previous posts in this thread said it would be out of the question and that doesn't make any sense to me either. It is a standard photo realistic rendering engine used by the entire film industry. Photorealism is the name of the game when it comes to architectural rendering. So far Arnold is extremely easy to use. It was designed with the artist in mind rather than having to be a programmer to understand things like final gather.

Personally the only reason I am going to learn v-ray is because so many architectural firms use it. So I'm just confirming. But I think overtime more will start to use Arnold.
Message 10 of 26
Francisco_Penaloza
in reply to: Anonymous

Dude, is just my opinion, take it for what it is.

 

Regarding "Photorealism is the name of the game when it comes to architectural rendering' I don't know how much experience you have doing Arch Viz, but let me tell you, that after about 15 years on this, that statement is not true.

But again that's just my opinion.

Cheers.

 

Message 11 of 26
Anonymous
in reply to: Francisco_Penaloza

Hi,

 

I don't understand why Arnold should be out of question here. As it is very easy to use and extremely efficient for any type of work whether it is  Arch Viz, industrial Viz, Motion graphics, VFX or any other complex rendering task.

On the other hand Arnold is miles ahead with any other rendering engine available today. And Vray has lots of issues like scattered User interface and very very slow compared with Arnold.

Message 12 of 26
JohnDraisey
in reply to: Anonymous

I used Vray for 3 years before switching to Arnold. Arnold has more intuitive render settings (16 AA, 1 Diffuse, 1 Spec, 1 Transmission) versus assigning samples to each material separately in Vray, and then trying to wrangle the DMC engine.

There’s no flickering or render glitches in Arnold, and no need to cache BS stuff like photons or light cache. Plus the materials in Arnold are vastly simpler and more realistic than any other renderer. The new Random Walk SSS will make your characters look insanely good, and the car paint shader is just bonkers.

The Russian Roulette makes high Ray depth surprisingly fast to render, and it’s linear workflow by default. I used Arnold as a freelance animator and just creamed the competition. Now that I work on staff and migrated my company over to Arnold, we’re doing incredible work with just a few dual Xeon PCs.

Buy Arnold. Easy. Oh, and get 64GB of ram for your Xeons and skip the Nvidia Quadros. The GTX 1070 is way faster for apps like Maya and Houdini.
Message 13 of 26

Just to clarify things a little, you can choose the render engine you feel more comfortable.

 

But some comments here are not correct.  Arnold is based on Brute force approach to calculating raytracing images, the same method is been in V-Ray from day one.  The advantage by then with V-Ray was that it also included an several interpolated methods such, Irradiance, Ligh cache, Photon mapping, to give you the option to choose whatever you want to simulate your GI.

 

As up today, ray kept most of those methods, but Brute force still there, and today simpler than ever, just adjust max samples and noise filte that's all two controls.

 

The same thing in Anrnolt, max samples, Some people will argue than Corona is the easies of all three render engines, but again, all the controls you can choose are samples and noise/threshold,  because that's the way Brute force works. same method in three different render engines, same method different approach.

 

Message 14 of 26
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

I am trying to determine the best engine for doing quick architectural exteriors renderings. Which engines would have the easiest UI but still produce good images quickly? Price for me isn't really a factor, more speed, and usability. I have looked at VRAY (i know its not easy), Corona, Redshift, Octane, Arnold, and C4D's physical renderer so far. Any other suggestions inside MAX? thanks guys!

Message 15 of 26
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Well then, please tell me what you think so far?  I have not used all of those.  Where are you leaning?

Message 16 of 26
JohnDraisey
in reply to: Anonymous

Use Arnold. It has the most efficient rendering, and is actually Noise Free
for anything in Direct Light. Only indirect light requires noise cleanup on
its part.

Use Sample Settings of:

Camera AA 16
Diffuse 1
Specular 1
Transmission 1
SSS 0
Volume 0

Clamp your Direct AA at 10
Clamp your Indirect samples at 10 to remove most fireflies, or as low as 5
to be more aggressive with fireflies.

And Ray Depth Settings of:

Diffuse 3
Specular 3
Transmission 8
Volume 0

And Skydome Samples of:

2 Samples
Resolution of HDRI or Physical Sun/Sky should be 3000 to 4000.

The Standard Surface shader will do everything you need for every material.
And it even has a "Metalness" parameter for quickly making materials like
aluminum and steel.

Make sure to go to your "Shape" node of any Glass models and turn OFF the
"Opaque" parameter so that light transmits through that glass. All objects
are assumed to be non-transparent by default to save on render time per
pixel, thus the "Opaque" checkbox.

Best of luck!

Message 17 of 26
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

So far I know that Vray seems to be the most difficult, I am used to Keyshot but it is very limited when it comes to rendering 3d environments with high polys. Vray is used a lot but I have heard time and time again it has a very steep learning curve. I am unsure about which of the other engines would have a similar interface to key shot. The one that seems the easiest is corona since it goes off of natural light settings which is all I really need to look for. here is the breakdown I have so far:

 

VRAY-highest quality

Corona-easiest to use

Redshift-scalability

Octane-swiss army knife

Arnold-photorealism and easy to use

 

Anyone correct me if they disagree with these short analysis. This is what I gathered from the company websites, they would know themselves best and all seem to have their little niche in the market.

 

@JohnDraisey

 

Thank you for the info on Arnold, it seems to be a great engine: easy to use but very versatile as well. That is definitely one of my top picks right now, it seems to be going places!

Message 18 of 26
Francisco_Penaloza
in reply to: Anonymous

err.... there are only two setting you need to adjust in V-Ray actually nothing else.

 

If you want to bend the rules then yes you have many options, but defaults work most of the time, on still or animations.

 

If you follow any tutorial online that is from any version before 3.X, then yes it will be overwhelming, mostly because there was too much confusion in how V-Ray works, all settings were there, but if you knew what to do, still you only need to adjust 2 or 3 controls but most people got too excited about all the buttons to push.

 

As to today, you know need to worry about 2 settings that all.

Otherwise give a try to Corona render, in there, just like keyshot, put your lights and click render, that's all.

If you don't want to pay any extra, then just use Arnold.

 

Message 19 of 26
Anonymous
in reply to: Francisco_Penaloza

Thank you for clearing that up. What are the 2 or 3 settings called? I have heard from many others that V-ray is very hard to manage but I have yet to work in it. We are currently starting up with Arnold because-FREE, it seems great so far. V-ray seems like you can go much further in depth but at the moment for me would be an extra $500 yearly so I am going to work with Arnold and see what I can squeeze out. Thank you, everyone, for the replies!

Message 20 of 26
Francisco_Penaloza
in reply to: Anonymous

As mentioned earlier, for V-Ray or any other raytracer engine that is using some way of brute force system. The most important controls are Number of samples and Noise threshold.  The more samples the better, the noise threshold will control how many of the total samples the system will use.

 

V-Ray is an old render engine (technology time) there are millions of tutorials online, most of them  are from the old era of V-Ray, I've seen some tutorials from VRay 1.5. in that case, from that time, yes V-Ray was overwhelming, because it was designed to be flexible, a swiss army knife.  Same thing with Arnold, the first version aren't simple to use, same for the Mental Ray or Fry and Maxell render, even Octane render, by no mean is a Artis friendly interface. no matter what they say, just open up and try to do a shader without reading instructions.

 

Anyways for some reason people take render engines as religion, every time someone asks What's the best, Hell rises and burn everything around.

 I use what's works for me, for what I do, when I do it, sometimes is Corona, others times is V-Ray, sometimes is Cinema 4D render engine, Lumion, Unreal and whatever in between.

 

I just put my input here in this thread because I saw something that really wan's true or correct, Thankfully I have many years of experience and I don't think is fair for a newcomer to read some opinions that are not educated enough and may display someone with a wrong direction.

 

Saying, this is the faster render engine, or this is the most flexible, or this one has more scalability. when in reality any of the render engines named here can do a great thing in a reasonable time when is in the right hands.

 

For you, the main point would be money, if Arnold comes with 3D Max, that's one important reason for you to look at it.  If money is not a problem, then give a try to all of them and find what fits better your workflow.

 

Fors instance for many architects, the 'best render engine may be Enscape, why? because as an Architect you don't want to deal with samples and GI physics and Fresnel effect or such, all what you need is a good enough image, quick enough so you can do many of them, many variations and don't waste time trying to make the image works and instead try to make the design works.

Is Enscape the best render engine??  Well, that depends on what are your goals.

This is a long post but it is the last one here I think we all said enough 😉

Best luck.

 

 

 

Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.

Post to forums  

Autodesk Design & Make Report