This is good news everyone. The bigger the blender community the better for everyone. Not everyting needs to be free. 😊
@atasky
7 ай бұрын
Nice Vray is a great renderer but i would prefer a corona addon for blender.
@ajtatosmano2
7 ай бұрын
If vray doing good I think we can trust chaos to implement it as well.
@blenderisms
7 ай бұрын
@@ajtatosmano2 Chaos has always boasted about being a user driven company, so if there are enough requests for Corona for Blender, it probably will happen.
@cr4723
6 ай бұрын
@@ajtatosmano2 There is already a corona plugin for blender 2.79.
@SamEmilio2
5 ай бұрын
I haven’t tried the unofficial one, but it seems good aside from the fact it’s not compatible with a newer version that has the UHD Cache
@ajtatosmano2
5 ай бұрын
@@cr4723 it's garbage. I mean, much slower than the current Corona, have to refresh a ton, and crashes a lot. Image quality is still pretty good, but not as good as the newer versions. At this point it's much better to use Luxcore or Octane for blender, both have comparable quality to Corona (better than Cycles)
@AGvfx
7 ай бұрын
Va-a-a-a!!!! Realy?!!!! NICE!
@CsokaErno
7 ай бұрын
Great, if it is free or cheap. Cycles is almost perfect for anything. I would pay for only one render addon - Corona Renderer.
@RomboutVersluijs
7 ай бұрын
Of course it won't be free, it's a paid engine
@Mortom83
7 ай бұрын
Remind me how many years they have been porting Vray to Blender? 5-6 years? I worked many years on vray and I miss a few modern technologies BUT cycles freed me from a thousand switches and tweeking the render.... it also used to be more plastic when it came to light.... but unfortunately lately the devs from Cycles have been darkening the render more and more. I will admit that when I switched to Cycles it was almost a plug and play engine now it requires IMO more tweeking in postpro. But it's still a good engine. The only thing I miss is the skill of a vray that can quickly render a frame in LC mode with BF. Cycles in this respect has a deficiency that Eevee patches a bit :) So it can be combined or bypassed completely. Either way I don't believe they will port the Vray as it is in 3dMAX or other leading softs. I base this belief on what they did with Blender 2.79 + Vray. It was IMO a horrible experience :|
@blenderisms
7 ай бұрын
I think the last stable port was of VRay 3.0 for blender 2.79? my memory is a bit fuzzy on that. Imho, working with vray 3 in blender and in 3dsmax was very similar if you knew what you were doing. I really hope that vray 6 will be ported well.
@simoko7076
7 ай бұрын
Should be Luxcore
@TynkaTopi
3 ай бұрын
A private alpha testing for selected users will start soon. I'm happily one of them :)
@blenderisms
3 ай бұрын
would love to hear your impressions!
@SanOcelotl
5 ай бұрын
I would love phoenix for blender
@tomcollins6989
7 ай бұрын
Probably going to miss the point horribly. Blender open source and free. These guys going to charge for their product. A bit like substance. Sounds great. Isn’t. Greed. I’ll stick to blender and cycles thanks.
@RomboutVersluijs
7 ай бұрын
Their engine is kinda superior to cycles though
@punmije
4 ай бұрын
I'm not interested in V-Ray; I never liked it much. I know it's fast, but nowadays hardware is good enough to run other rendering engines like RenderMan. There's RenderMan 26 available in Blender 4.1, completely for free. It's a bit buggy and prone to crashing. I did some testing in LuxCore/Cycles and RenderMan, and I can tell you that RenderMan gives the most photorealistic results. Materials are just much better than in both Cycles and LuxCore. Metals look like metals, plastic looks like plastic. The problem with Cycles is that materials are garbage; they never looked good to me. It's the same with LuxCore (although LuxCore handles light perfectly), but materials look like garbage as well. RenderMan materials are just superior to both of these. However, there are caveats as well: RenderMan is very noisy and very slow. It's really hard to get rid of the noise in interiors.
@charlesthomas5956
Ай бұрын
Why are you watching this then?
@MrPaulowillians
7 ай бұрын
After V-ray, XGen also came, then everything will make more sense hahaha!
@MrChronn22
7 ай бұрын
Oohh man I’m so hoping that one day it will come true… can’t work with cycle
@blenderisms
7 ай бұрын
I'm curious what limitations have you faced if you tried Cycles? or what do you find most useful in VRay?
@MrChronn22
7 ай бұрын
@@blenderisms no limitations, only habit , vray for me is more familiar than working with cycles:)
@HulioEgnesias
6 ай бұрын
@@blenderisms For example, photorealism, photorealism never gave and does not give cycles. Photorealism is Corona or V-Ray, no options. This is why I did not switch to Blender in the field of rendering, only polymodeling, and the rendering is still Maya, Max, Cinema/Red Shift.
@blenderisms
6 ай бұрын
@@HulioEgnesias Thats interesting. One thing I've noticed for Cycles, compared to the industry standard engines is that it has been behind on 2 quite important fields. One was tone mapping. Before AgX coming to blender, every Cycles image had this overblown, oversaturated feel unless you really knew what you were doing and knew what a RAW render should look l ike and what you can get from post. The other thing i've noticed is that bounces are very limited in cycles by default and if you want a really realistic interior for example, you need to manually crank up those numbers. That's something a lot of Blender users have stayed ignorant to. With some additional effort you can really match the photorealism from VRay or Corona, but you really need to know what to tweak. My main problem with Cycles so far has been how poorly it handles heavier scenes and manages RAM usage. Things that i could easily render on vray gpu have eaten up all my vram in cycles.
@arturobandini8164
7 ай бұрын
I prefer Cycles
@CGDive
5 ай бұрын
You tested both and you prefer Cycles? Or just prefer Cycles? :D
Пікірлер: 32