Compare V-Ray and Corona Renderers

7 Sep, 2016 SharpOo
7 Sep, 2016 # Re: Compare V-Ray and Corona Renderers
Good afternoon! Thank you for that answer the questions in as much detail and competently. There was another: as I understand it, you're on Renderstuff use only V-ray. Nevertheless, I see more and more that the prof. visualizers in their projects to the Crown, and say that in many respects it is better to Vire. Tell me, why virey? And if you tried to do the Crown? What are the fundamental differences between them?

8 Sep, 2016 Anton (Staff Author)
8 Sep, 2016 # Re: Compare V-Ray and Corona Renderers


You are not the first one to ask this question, including, he asks this question directly to us. At the moment, it has not lost its relevance and is not spontaneous. We, without a doubt, permanently follow the novelties in CG, including what to touch on the new software. We do not use Corona in our daily work, but in general we are familiar with the capabilities of this renderer. So this is not a simple question actual because there is no obvious difference in technical capabilities, at least this is true for interior visualization - no. Personally, I do not know about any technical advantages of V-Ray over Corona. And vice versa. The only thing I can note with a high degree of probability is that the users of Corona are at a good 90% - interiors. Renderitil of three pears in a basket with a clog-out, but everything is ranked on the table in the interior - does not count. At the same time, all serious studio-produced ones prefer V-Ray. By the way, we also do not deal with visualization of interiors for a long time, but specialize in scientific 3d animation. And here, in doubt, is Corona able to properly provide the animation wizard with the necessary tools, especially fine-tuning, when every second render of one frame plays a role. The same goes for object visualization. It's one thing when you use smudge (denoiser) on wooden facades of cabinet furniture and huge areas of flat walls and it's quite another matter when you need every detail, when any cheat is to the detriment of the result. By the way, in the latest versions of V-Ray, there is also a denoiser. In fact, this is the main benefit of Corona for me personally - the competition makes V-Ray developers move😁

Now let's get back to your question. Already his formulation contains at least one answer. You ask why the more professional visers switch from V-Ray to Corona and say that it is much better, but then you ask us a question in what exactly? How did it happen that someone who tears his hair on the chest that one software product is better than another, but never really bothered to formulate exactly what the benefits are. All that I personally heard, it's nothing unsubstantiated statements ala: "In V-Ray, I rendered the scene for 5 hours, and the same scene Corona mastered for the half hour ...". But, as a rule, scenes do not spread themselves, lighting schemes and detailed settings are not reported. Which casts doubt on the reliability of such statements. I also heard that "Corona is easier to configure than V-Ray". Honestly, I do not understand the essence of this statement. What does not need lighting to expose? Or the parameters of materials indicate? Simply you write "to create a bark of a tree" and "BAC" a material of a tree is ready ??? 😁 Seriously, I'm happy to look at specific examples in what exactly is the workflow of the latest version of Corona, better workflow of the latest version of V-Ray. Crownmen, respond😁

An important argument in favor of this or that software is its prevalence. Historically, V-Ray came out much earlier and it has more useful content. From lessons and forums about it, to materials and finished models. What can I say, even a monster like Turboaqid considers it a standard for rendering. It is in V-Ray that he takes scenes for rendering speakers on PixelSquid. So to say, V-Ray is an industry standard.

And now we are getting to the next question. What can make an experienced vreyschik go to another renderer. For example, to become a crown.
I will allocate important for myself:
(1) Another renderer allows you to achieve incomparably greater realism of renderers.
(2) Even if other things are equal, the other renderer produces a much faster result.
(3) Another renderer has a better tuned shader "out of the box", for example, a translucent shader of human skin, which, even if applied to a kettle, even a tree, when you click on the "Render" button on the visualization, you will immediately see that it is human skin, and Not like pink rubber or orange wax.
(4) In general, the availability of a larger number of really useful specialized shaders.
(5) Built-in modules of special effects, such as fire, smoke, different glows, fogs. Of course, provided that they are needed in the work, and not just there "for a tick".
(6) The presence of a large number of really useful and useful materials on another render engine. I mean, the new engine became the de facto industry standard, replacing V-Ray, where only freaks and boring "grumbling old people" remained, for which V-Ray 1.0 is nostalgia for the past youth😁
(7) The price of the issue.

Now what do we have in fact:

1) Both Corona and V-Ray allow you to make a literally PHOTO-realistic picture. There is nothing to discuss, more realistic than realistic can not be. Again, this only applies to arkhviz. As things stand in Corona with object and animation, I do not know why they will not say. In the case of V-Ray, it's not the rendering tool itself that limits, but the talent of the wizard itself. Worse than a bad dancer, you know what's stopping and that's definitely not the name of the renderer.

2) The difference about which it is worth talking about, this is at least the acceleration of the renderers in half. Faster by 5%, 10% or even 30% is not worth the trouble with the transition. First, the algorithms of the renderers are improved every year, the same V-Ray yesterday demanded a whole render of the farm for the timely obtaining of the result, and now "OP!" And "screwed" the Embree library. After that, "for nothing" renderers almost doubled. Secondly, with an experienced visualizer, the "sea" of blanks that allow not to "reinvent" the bicycle every time anew, but to use the already developed lighting scheme, library of studios, materials. Third, computer technology does not stand still and the output of another new processor can make even 30% of the difference not so significant. Therefore, the other renderer should not just be faster, it should give a breakthrough in speed. At the moment there is not a breakthrough between V-Ray and Corona I do not know.

3) As far as I know, with translucency of the situation, "sad" in all modern render engines. A distinct shader of realistic skin is not present in V-Ray, not in Corona. The same with other shaders. They are approximately the same for the given result.

4) See point 3).

5) The same as in items 3) -4). Advantages of Corona over V-Ray in this issue there. Everyone needs fumefyksy, afterburn.

6) We discussed this issue in principle earlier. In it, Corona almost completely loses V-Ray. If I want to find an elephant or a motorcycle already tuned for V-Ray, I'll find it on any adequate 3d drain. If you ask the same goal but for Corona, then the choice will be either sooo small or find only the chairs and sofas.

7) If we are talking about the transition, it will, in fact, cost the month of renting a license for new software. How many months you rent, so much and pay. This is how the developers of the majority of expensive programs raise the question. They suggest not to buy a lifetime license, but only to rent it. Another question, what if you already bought V-Ray with a lifetime license? In general, it all depends on the specific situation, but assuming that the V-Ray license is leased, the transition to Corona is virtually painless, even profitable.

Quite a different situation if you do not have another license in any form and decide what to buy, then there is a competitive advantage on the side of Corona. For makimalizma take, the price of a monthly lease license for 1 leading comp + 10 render nodes (1WS + 10 NODES). The crown is $ 50, in V-Ray it is $ 185. The price can still hang from the distributor. And on this note, I will finish. For this striking difference in price, in fact, is the root cause of such popularity of Corona. Having her technical advantages over V-Ray is more of an excuse than a real fact.

If you plan to render purely interiors, then it makes no sense to buy V-Ray. Why overpay? For what? If you want to be able to handle software that is guaranteed to be the best in all applications of CG, without any "buts", then you still need to think about whether you want to limit yourself to the functionality of the still "green" Corona. It's up to you😉

7 Sep, 2016 SharpOo
8 Sep, 2016 # Re: Compare V-Ray and Corona Renderers
Anton, thank you so much! A more detailed answer is difficult to imagine. So far, I try to master virey good, not to rush back and forth.

7 Sep, 2016 SharpOo
8 Sep, 2016 # Re: Compare V-Ray and Corona Renderers
Yet, what about the interactive renderer? They say he is a good idea implemented in the Crown. (I do not have the latest version of Vire, may be new to this better)

8 Sep, 2016 Anton (Staff Author)
8 Sep, 2016 # Re: Compare V-Ray and Corona Renderers
Yet, what about the interactive renderer? They say he is a good idea implemented in the Crown. (I do not have the latest version of Vire, may be new to this better)

Add a comment


Anti-spam challenge (please check if you agree with this and uncheck if not)
Yes, I am a spam-bot.
Yes, I am a human.
Terms of Service

RenderStuff © 2008