Render engine comparisons

[santiago]

I'm sure this question has been posted before, so perhaps someone can point me to a thread where Vray and Maxwell are compared.

I realize Vray costs $800 and Maxwell costs $1000. My main concern is speed, both render engines offer enough "realism" for my needs, at least that is what I think after seeing work created with them. I'd just like to know what their rendering time difference is, if one is only 10% faster than the other, then I'll go with the one that offers more realism from a photgraphic point of view. But if the speed difference is greater than 10%, I think I'll go with the faster render engine.

Any help is appreciated.

[Arnold Sher]

well, the difference is that one actually works and one doesn't... Go with vray, you won't regret it. Maxwell is nowhere near of where it should be. Do not believe what they right on their website. It's a product that should still be in the development stages...

[ivox3]

well, the difference is that one actually works and one doesn't...

Arnold, Taking no sides here, but to make an ultra broad and oversimplified statement like that is doing no one a favor as you might think. It's ridiculous, unecessary and firmly resides within an emotional viewpoint. I'm sure Santiago was looking for more of a discussion based on the current set of working features, functionality and speed each engine is currently offering.

 

As far as comparitive discussion of the two goes, ....others will have to fill in, --- I'm out on those issues.

[Bongo51]

There should be some warning made, though "it doesn't work" is a bit extreme.

 

I can't speak for Vray, but I can give you a few strong points and a few weak points.

 

Maxwell PROs:

 

The most photorealistic amazing results possible.

 

Setup for simple scenes for the purpose of a photorealistic render, for example, a simple product shot or studio setup, is EXTREMELY fast. No fiddly bits or numerous settings to mess with. You have the complete freedom to create materials from physics viewpoint, where you design the surface based on the real properties of an object vs. the various sliders which fake aspects of a surface. So, rather then specular, you adjust the surface roughness.

 

optical effects like DOF blur and motion blur as well as glare are completely convincing and automatic in their execution.

 

Glass isn't much more of a rendering hit then plastic, and a thousand emitters (lights) don't really add to the rendertimes very much, certainly not the exponential rise one would expect from something like Lightwave.

 

Very complex materials can be rendered faithfully and easily. Glowing coals, or any number of multi layer surfaces like car paint or laquered stainless steel. The possibilities are endless and completely convincing.

 

Rendering isn't as slow as everyone moans about, with the same level of 'tricks' enabled most rendering engines are pretty close. The difference is that most of Maxwell's rendering 'tricks' are on all the time. Where Vray or Lightwave you can peel away expensive rendering effects like caustics or radiosity and cut render times an incredible amount. I have made a career out of getting photoreal images out of lightwave completely without radiosity or even caustics. In maxwell I get faster times then Lightwave... that is, if I turn on caustics at the level maxwell operates... Maxwell is several times faster. Vray and fPrime... Maxwell is still close. I did a speed comparison with Vray on a scene... the fPrime after the same period (5 hours) looked noisier and less convincing then the maxwell one.

 

CONS:

 

Next Limit is like a cranky mother in law. Really, the customer service is scary.

 

The MaxwellRender forum is anything but a forum. Any negative or contra indicated comments and you risk being banned. Several members of very high artistic value have fled.

 

The software really still is buggy. Some features still are either absent or non-functional. There are updates, but many groups are having serious issues with the plugins.

 

Contrary to my plus, render quality (noise) is inversely related to the scale of the scene. Which means any architectural scenes will require huge amounts of time to make the noise manageable. Maxwell is pushed on architects but I have found my biggest challenges with maxwell while doing modest interiors. I can't even IMAGINE doing anything larger then a 1000sqft room! The really large objects I've seen rendered with maxwell have had a lot of noise. Most people are not willing to wait FIFTY hours, or don't own 20 machines.

 

Metals, glass and plastic can combine to produce some really obvious, never-clearing noise. I've noticed it's related to light levels (the amount of noise).

 

Don't even consider animating anything with Maxwell. It needs to produce a relatively massive datafile for EACH frame. (currently) In some cases with complex scenes I've produced these files weighing in the hundreds of megabytes. 500 frames x 200 MB = 100000MB or 100GB... 500 frames isn't a lot. Currently it's a lot like those digital cameras with video capability, except you can only record a few seconds... without sound... at 5fps...

 

License is non-transferable. You buy it... it's yours for life

 

Core Counting. A quad core macintosh will use the ENTIRE license, unless they have changed that recently.

 

 

 

So, it really depends on one thing I think. Do you really, really need photographic quality? If you do, then get maxwell, with the idea there will be sleepless nights and you can pretty much not count on doing anything in a production environment for a bit. It's still pretty buggy but improving fast. Vray I gather has quite a lead on maxwell in the stability department.

 

In any case, maxwell WILL bring something positive to your toolbox, though I would have reservations if you wanted a bulletproof production tool, because at the moment it's more of a racecar which keep in mind, does need an entourage of mechanics.

 

[DavidR]

Vray is many times faster than Maxwell in almost every case, and you can render animations with it. Maxwell is fantastic for certain things, but not speed or animation. You'll learn how to render with Vray, but Maxwell is so simple that you'll be lost in any other renderer. Since you're starting out, I'd recommend Vray as it can do anything you may want to do. It's enough for most of us.

[leoA4D]

If you have not already visited the Maxwell forum, you should (http://www.maxwellrender.com/forum/). There are many subforums to be explored.

 

While in the subforums, keep in mind that you have to cull out the facts as to problems and the real positives. Complaining is actively discouraged (those that do, do so in very well-mannered ways) and some of the frequent posters are sometimes over zealous about the positive side of things.

 

The plug ins apparently vary as to just how well they work. Check that out.

 

Opinions are scattered all over the net. Research theses and take in both sides of the issues – which are many and complex but are about either the company or the sw.

 

As far as the sw, Maxwell issues have to do with render time, noise, bugs, and final render quality. (Ian, above, did a nice job.)

 

I can't help with Vray but am pretty damned excited about the future VrayforCinema4D bridge!

[Maximus3D]

Maxwell and Vray compete, but in very different leagues as they're not based on the same type of calculations and algorithms. Vray is based around GI, Maxwell is not. Which makes comparisons irrelevant.

 

/ Max

[rivoli]

Vray is based around GI, Maxwell is not. Which makes comparisons irrelevant.

 

well, that's not exactly the point. maxwell is based "around gi", if it didn't calculate any global illumination or indirect lighting it wouldn't be much of a light simulator. so, both deal with gi, but in very different ways.

 

if speed is your main concern, then vray is what you should go for. it has a whole bunch of tools that can make your life much more easier if you had to deal with tight deadlines (fast gi methods, caching, baking, g buffer channels...), it's a very versatile and highly controllable renderer. plus, if you don't need a standalone renderer, it's perfectly integrated into max.

 

on the other hand maxwell is a bit more intuitive: you model your scene, add a light of a given intensity, and it basically does all by itself (well, in a nutshell). you don't have to worry about caustics, dof, decay, multplier, bounces, sampling...

it can be the perfect tool in a lot of situations, but what it gives in terms of photographic quality, you loose in terms of speed (but keep in mind that it can quite fast considering what it does). given the way it works it may be very, very slow (and btw, vray can be really, really slow as well, it depends on what you need and how you use it).

 

edit:

oh, I forgot, in case you're going to do animations (or in case you have more than one machine for rendering), vray gives you 10 nodes for distributed rendering, and unlimited nodes for animation via backburner with a single license.

maxwell, even though its way to distribute a rendering over a network it's different from other raytracers that use buckets, gives you 4 cores for one license.

[manta]

The way I see it, vray is 10x faster, with a 10% quality loss, its highly doubtful you'll ever need higher quality than vray can give you...

[Devin Johnston]

These guy's have pretty much summed up why Maxwell is good and bad but I suggest trying out the demo version of each package and seeing for your self which one works best for you. Maxwell is still in its early stages, not really ready for prime time unless you have a sizable render farm from which you can use the cooperative rendering function. If high resolution imagery is something you need, and you need it in less than 24+ hours then Maxwell isn't for you.

[rivoli]

I suggest trying out the demo version of each package and seeing for your self which one works best for you.

 

yep, as maxer says, that would the best way to find out which one works better for you.

[Bongo51]

if you try a demo version of Maxwell... all I can say is stick with it. The interface is a bit overwhelming for the newbie (to maxwell) but it does 'click' after a few hours.

Vray users who are also maxwell users have made it clear that the rendering time delta isn't as dramatic as 10x. Lightwave is 20X faster than Vray. well, did I mention that in lightwave I have shadows and reflections turned off? The real question is, can you get the image you need. blanket statements about speed are difficult. Many factors affect rendering time.

Try a Vray scene with 5000 lights... I have trouble believing it's still '10x faster' at that point.

-

Huge quantities of glass or reflectives.

winner - Maxwell

-

Standard Interiors and Exteriors.

winner - Vray

-

Bread and butter jobs where quick setup, execution and noisefree output is required.

winner - Vray

-

Photographic Quality

winner - Maxwell

-

I once saw an artist posted a 10 hour rendering of a 1 million polygon building, rendered entirely in glass... I don't know about Vray, but that brings everything else i've got to it's knees.

-

Of course I can't even use Vray (lightwave user) but if I could, I'd buy it as well as maxwell. Maximus is so right, they are very different products and have completely different philosophies. I use maxwell for beauty renders and fPrime (roughly equivilant to Vray in market niche) for EVERYTHING else. I would strongly urge anyone, NOT to consider maxwell as their primary and singular rendering engine. It really is a high end toy which performs best in it's field - that is, producing photographs. Everything else... it's pretty much last.

[leoA4D]

if you try a demo version of Maxwell... all I can say is stick with it. The interface is a bit overwhelming for the newbie (to maxwell) but it does 'click' after a few hours...Huge quantities of glass or reflectives.

winner - Maxwell

-

Standard Interiors and Exteriors.

winner - Vray

-

Bread and butter jobs where quick setup, execution and noisefree output is required.

winner - Vray

-

Photographic Quality

winner - Maxwell

-

I once saw an artist posted a 10 hour rendering of a 1 million polygon building, rendered entirely in glass... I don't know about Vray, but that brings everything else i've got to it's knees.

-

It really is a high end toy which performs best in it's field - that is, producing photographs. Everything else... it's pretty much last.

 

I have kind of mutilated your post, Ian, and I hope you don't mind. I am stunned with what you have said here after some of your recent posts. And your are not the only one making comments which have led me to wonder what has changed with MWR to cause a reversal of opinions such as these:

 

1/ In response to a V1-related post six weeks ago, "But nothing is impossible for a good artist." (Hybaj), Fran responded, "Sometimes a good artist knows when to put down a bad tool." 2/ Fran said about a month ago, "The engine is bad. That's my opinion as a professional." 3/ Yesterday, Fran said, "Whether or not you think that there is any work done with V1.1 that reaches or exceeds beta quality, is certainly an important issue for you. It isn't for me any longer."

 

You noted not long ago (three months) in re V1: 1/ "I can't imagine anyone using Maxwell in production." 2/ Again about V1 six weeks ago: "What the beta offered AND DELIVERED was clear and simple path between the artist's creativity and the digital canvas. THIS is what got me to open my wallet. I consider the horrendous and Borg-like mountain of ability which V1 has become is 180 degrees from what was promised." 3/ And yesterday: "Most artists (myself included) would choose a tool that can produce repeatable and QUICK results in favour of one which is problematic and full of noise. In order to be the tool of choice for professional artists I'm thinking maxwell needs to be a lot smarter... that is.. not blindly follow the unbiased path at every turn. There really needs to be settings for creating noise reduced images at larger sizes and with some semblance of it's current quality. if THAT can happen, it will clean up."

 

There seems to be a change of opinions underway. Has MWR improved that dramatically?

 

Just curious and for discussion purposes only.

[Fran]

I see improvements in the engine from V1 to V1.1 that make it something I am willing to try again. In spite of that, I don't think that M~R is production ready with some of the plug-ins, especially Max. There are some glaring, show-stopping issues with materials that NL would be advised to fix as soon as possible. As yet, not even a word about their intentions. Which doesn't mean they aren't doing something to fix it. They just aren't saying. Which is annoying.

[Ernest Burden III]

I don't think that M~R is production ready with some of the plug-ins, especially Max.

 

Which plugins do you think ARE in good shape? So far I'm just going on AdamT's reports on the C4D plug.

[Fran]

Which plugins do you think ARE in good shape? So far I'm just going on AdamT's reports on the C4D plug.

 

All the main ones - Max, Maya, C4D, Lightwave - are reporting problems, some more than others. Studio seems consistant, but output from a host app via plug-in might not work correctly in Studio. I've mainly paid attention to the Max issues because that is my plug-in of choice.

[yog]

I have both.

I play with Maxwell, I work with Vray.

 

I'm always under very tight time constraints, and because of that I can't even begin to consider using Maxwell for paying work. With Vray I have the ability to scale the accuracy of my work (whilst still achieving a very smooth results) in order to match the deadline. Maxwell is more of an all or nothing.

And that's just for stills work, for animation work Maxwell isn't even a consideration.

[Devin Johnston]

I've been playing with the Max plugin for a while and it still has problems, I'd say my computer crashes at least once an hour. Given that I've been testing it for animations and I believe that I might be able to use it. Exterior scenes are of course much faster to render than interiors, but I think if I choose my materials carefully and just accept the fact that there will always be a little noise this just might work.

[manta]

I have a couple questions,

 

Does the amount of polygons have much of an effect on render time with Maxwell ?

 

Does the size of the render effect the render time ?

 

Do your material choices have an effect on the render time ?

 

The reason I ask, is I've read some things that people have said that makes me wonder...

 

I ran a little test with Vray to see how far I can push it, I'm going to continue to push it till it stops...

 

The scene consists of 14 million poly's and 600 lights with shadows, all the cars are reflective, it rendered in less than 3 hours with GI...

[Adehus]

I have a couple questions,

Does the amount of polygons have much of an effect on render time with Maxwell ?

 

Does the size of the render effect the render time ?

 

Do your material choices have an effect on the render time ?

 

As best as I can ascertain, the answers are (in order)-

 

not much, tremendously, and depends on the material but yes (particularly with SSS).

[Maximus3D]

As Adehus said, SSS and dispersion affects rendertime. But that's all. High polycounts ain't affecting rendertime at all.

 

/ Max

[manta]

As Adehus said, SSS and dispersion affects rendertime. But that's all. High polycounts ain't affecting rendertime at all.

 

/ Max

 

And do you agree with him about the size of the rendering tremendously effecting render time ?

[Devin Johnston]

Absolutely, the larger the image is the longer it will take which is why most people have a big problem with Maxwell. Actually let me clarify, the larger the image the longer it takes to clear out the noise. You will see within a minute or two what your scene is going to look like it's just getting all the noise cleared out that takes so long.

[Adehus]

It should probably be noted that the biggest factor in terms of how long a rendering takes to complete (ie- for the noise to clear) is how much the light is 'trapped'. I'm pretty sure that the more the light bounces around inside of a scene, the longer it takes to clear up. That's why interiors generally take so much longer than exterior or product renderings.

[manta]

So an interior rendering at 4K resolution, would just be absurd ?