Vray 2 vs Mental Ray 2011

[mattclinch]

There is always a lot of bias in the MR vs VR debate, like so many other programs, due to people having extensive knowledge and experience of using one peice of software, and nowhere near as much of the other. It makes threads like this one and so many others before a bit of a waste of time IMO. I guess there are not too many people who are absolute experts in both - knowing all the tricks and optimizations. Those people would be the ones who could make an unbiased appraisal.

 

As already mentioned - if a package works for you, and gives good results - great.

 

+1. let's not turn this and every other renderer comparison thread into a pissing match. it's getting quite boring.

[gato_maxx]

Yes, there are lots of studios using Mental Ray for their VFX.

 

But in the case of Blur studio, they found some pretty serious technical issues with Mental Ray (I know that some of them have been "fixed", but... Vray didn´t need to be fixed at the moment, it just worked.), and Vray was a more solid experience for them.

 

My point is: Why choose Mental Ray when Vray allows you to reach your goals with less trouble?

[AJLynn]

Some people like mental ray. Some people like Vray. Can't we all just get along?

[wasteland giant]

My point is: Why choose Mental Ray when Vray allows you to reach your goals with less trouble?

 

 

Mental Ray is free with max.

[jinsley]

+1. let's not turn this and every other renderer comparison thread into a pissing match. it's getting quite boring.

 

Some people like mental ray. Some people like Vray. Can't we all just get along?

 

+1... pick which ever one you work best with... the support for VRay is great, MR is free with Max and I have never had problems finding support for it with forums like CGA around.

 

Focus more on the art and industry and less about how big your pencil is and how many features it has...

 

on a side note, I have switched back and forth between the two render engines over the last 2 years and I would challenge anyone to go through my posts and pick which is which... I noticed no difference in the end... neither made me better... if anything my improved PS work flow and focus on learning a strong foundation in colour and shape theory has helped the most.

[Christiansltd]

I wonder how many people who own and rate vray so highly are bidding it up subconsciously to justify there spending the extra large amount of money on it.

 

I personally cant see the super difference, i am sure there are users on here who use mental ray that could wipe the floor with other vray users and vice a versa.

 

I would say if you have learnt to utalise the full power of mental ray and you cant get the finished product you want then you have to try other products.

 

Remember 99% of the time in evry industry its not the tool thats an issue its the user !

 

just my 2 peneth....

Edited October 22, 2010 by Christiansltd

[gato_maxx]

Well, nobody has said that Mental ray has more "image quality" than Vray, or viceversa. BUT...

 

Blur studios found very serious technical issues while using Mental Ray on their cinematics, and then they decided to switch to Vray (and it just worked). Does that makes Vray a better render?

 

Well, ask yourselves this: Would you like to have Ram issues when rendering a final sequence at 4am? Or "render times rising unacceptably high attempting to resolve sampling and GI flickering"? Or "vector moblur and Z-Depth DOF in post started to feel very dated".

 

I mean, who would really want those problems in their production line when theres a solution that just works?

 

(And dont tell me that Blur Studios "Dont know how to really use Mental". Have you seen their cinematics? If they dont know how to use mental ray, nobody does!)

[AJLynn]

The Blur thing is one example. It relates to one firm's workflow and needs. It cites problems resolved more than a version ago. I don't see it as being all that important.

[jinsley]

a lot of problems with GI, etc. have been addressed more than a version ago... I think this point has been brought up and dealt with already in this thread... move on to something else.

[Christiansltd]

I mean, who would really want those problems in their production line when theres a solution that just works?

 

(And dont tell me that Blur Studios "Dont know how to really use Mental". Have you seen their cinematics? If they dont know how to use mental ray, nobody does!)

 

The latest release of mental ray works fine for me and i am sure many others, maybe Blur studios moved over to vray several versions ago and stick with it as it is now what they know and they dont want the hassle of going back to relearn how to tweak.

 

For instance, i buy trimble survey gear it is fantastic for us, but importantly we are USED to it, its what we know how to use and while it works i wont look to replace with another make even though i know they are all probably as good.

 

If people are moving over to vray with the belife that they will make time savings i am not sure if they are really that significant, i would personally use the vray money to buy another z600 workstation that i am sure would more than compensates for any savings + you have another lovely workstation to work on.....

[padre.ayuso]

If people are moving over to vray with the belife that they will make time savings i am not sure if they are really that significant, i would personally use the vray money to buy another z600 workstation that i am sure would more than compensates for any savings + you have another lovely workstation to work on.....

 

I agree with Christian. If time is what you are looking for, then spend on a better machine. If VRay really does produce a better result at the end of the day than MR does, then go for it. However, after reading all these posts, I'm starting to change my mind about wanting to change to VRay, as we are currently using MR and it seems to work just fine for us for right now.

[gato_maxx]

I dont think its much a matter of image quality, because we all know that Mental ray is very capable of producing awesome work (like Vray), but a matter of reliability and speed.

[Justin Hunt]

you are also fooling yourself into believing that vray doesn't have it issues with memory and stability like mr, and that if you just switch over then all your worries are over, and vise versa. There is a learning curve involved in both and it takes time to become a master of each.

 

Just for fun I rendered the same scene in Vray, mentalray and final render. Whilst there are visual differences between the three, what I found interesting was that each did it in more or less the same time and were of a comparable quality.

 

jhv

[gato_maxx]

I will agree that all programs (mental ray, vray, etc.) have a limit, and beyond that limit they will certainly have stability and memory issues.

 

Blur Studios used Mental Ray and Vray to the absolute limit (ie. awesome complex cinematics with hair, fur, motion blur, etc.).

 

The results: Blur had so many technical problems with Mental Ray that they decided to switch to Vray, and they were extremely happy with it.

 

But, by all means, if you are happy with Mental Ray for your arch-viz work, please dont let the Blur experience discourage you. For simple stuff like that, it will deliver the goods. For more complex stuff, well... just ask Blur about how that went for them.

[BVI]

I will agree that all programs (mental ray, vray, etc.) have a limit, and beyond that limit they will certainly have stability and memory issues.

 

Blur Studios used Mental Ray and Vray to the absolute limit (ie. awesome complex cinematics with hair, fur, motion blur, etc.).

 

The results: Blur had so many technical problems with Mental Ray that they decided to switch to Vray, and they were extremely happy with it.

 

But, by all means, if you are happy with Mental Ray for your arch-viz work, please dont let the Blur experience discourage you. For simple stuff like that, it will deliver the goods. For more complex stuff, well... just ask Blur about how that went for them.

 

Jesus, you are arguing for the sake of arguing. Your point is mute because MR is used for absolute reality by film makers who need absolute control over the lighting engine. VRAY is not the same as MR, not by a long shot in terms of the programatic control that one would have over shaders etc. VRAY fills its own niche, just as PRman and Mental Ray do.

 

No disrespect to Blur, but their render quality is not on par with that of ILM and the other film studios that need to match live action plates - The Matrix, Star wars, Day after tomorrow etc used MR for a reason.

[AJLynn]

Honestly, what software one firm decided to use and for what reason only matters a very small amount. This sort of testimonial is something you often see and the intelligent reader will read it critically or not at all. A surprising number of these articles are bogus or misleading, some are irrelevant and the rest must be taken with grains of salt because they reflect only the experience of one user or firm, and might have nothing to do with your needs.

 

As you've seen, while firm A decided to use product X, firms B and C are quite well off with product Y. From this you can infer nothing at all about which one you should be using.

[BVI]

Honestly, what software one firm decided to use and for what reason only matters a very small amount. This sort of testimonial is something you often see and the intelligent reader will read it critically or not at all. A surprising number of these articles are bogus or misleading, some are irrelevant and the rest must be taken with grains of salt because they reflect only the experience of one user or firm, and might have nothing to do with your needs.

 

As you've seen, while firm A decided to use product X, firms B and C are quite well off with product Y. From this you can infer nothing at all about which one you should be using.

 

Totally agree with you Andrew, they do seem to dumb down those features and throw in a few sensational comments.Im glad BLUR is pushing VRAY into the main stream of game cinematics, but in terms of Jesus statement regarding MR having pipeline issues - that doesnt seem to be as big an issue as he is making it, for the VFX world at large.

[Justin Hunt]

on top of all that most studios have their own propitiatory software anyway, and if the do use an off the shelf solution they tend to strip it apart to get it to fit into their pipeline.

 

jhv

[gato_maxx]

Wel, I´m not anti Mental Ray by any means. In fact, I do want to love it, but... I dont know why, after all these years, it still feels like a catch-up render for vray.

 

Just one example: for years, Vray has used proxies to handle more efficiently repetitive things in a scene (and save RAM). Autodesk saw that but for some time nothing happened, until they (finally!) implemented it some versions ago.

 

I mean, why? Why the delay? I see the proxies thing as an essential thing to have for a render of this kind. We all know Autodesk has much more resources than Vray, millions of programers and stuff like that, so...

 

Why? With all those Autodesk resources, I think the way things should have always be are: Autodesk anounces the new version of Mental Ray! Its 50% faster than Vray, has lighting fast GI, displacement, motion blur, Dof, etc. Also, it has X new cool feature and Y game-changing thing that will revolutionize the arch viz thing.

 

We would all be: Oh, poor Vray. What can they do against all those massive Autodesk resources? * tear *

 

But no. Mental ray always ends up playing catch up (I mean, theres a reason Vray dominates this field, even considering that Mental ray is "free", dont you think?)

 

But, this is only my opinion, and I would love to see more points of view on this topic.

[mattclinch]

Wel, I´m not anti Mental Ray by any means. In fact, I do want to love it, but... I dont know why, after all these years, it still feels like a catch-up render for vray.

 

Just one example: for years, Vray has used proxies to handle more efficiently repetitive things in a scene (and save RAM). Autodesk saw that but for some time nothing happened, until they (finally!) implemented it some versions ago.

 

I mean, why? Why the delay? I see the proxies thing as an essential thing to have for a render of this kind. We all know Autodesk has much more resources than Vray, millions of programers and stuff like that, so...

 

Why? With all those Autodesk resources, I think the way things should have always be are: Autodesk anounces the new version of Mental Ray! Its 50% faster than Vray, has lighting fast GI, displacement, motion blur, Dof, etc. Also, it has X new cool feature and Y game-changing thing that will revolutionize the arch viz thing.

 

We would all be: Oh, poor Vray. What can they do against all those massive Autodesk resources? * tear *

 

But no. Mental ray always ends up playing catch up (I mean, theres a reason Vray dominates this field, even considering that Mental ray is "free", dont you think?)

 

But, this is only my opinion, and I would love to see more points of view on this topic.

 

firstly, mental ray is developed by mental images NOT autodesk, who merely implement it into max. so if you are unhappy with the rate or direction of mental ray development i would target your frustrations at them and not autodesk.

 

secondly, mental images did not pursue the proxy route until later than chaos group because, IMO, mental ray used the bsp2 feature to very successfully and effectively reduce RAM load at render time, making using proxies unnecessary. only recently have mental images developed their proxy system as an additional memory aid combined with bsp2.

[gato_maxx]

Ok, my mistake: I know Mental Images is the company behind Mental Ray, not Autodesk. Perhaps my anti-big corporation instincts took over.

 

But, your proxy arguments are completly wrong about the Ram use. Lets say I want to create a scene with 300 identical trees.

 

Well, if I dont use proxies, Max will see 300 different 3D models of a tree in my scene. And Vray, too, will see 300 3D models (or Mental for the matter).

 

Thats a lot of Ram wasted, dont you think?

 

With proxies, Max will only see only one 3D model repeated all over the scene (you can even tell Max that it´s a cube, and it will believe it). But Vray (or Mental, now) will know that its really only one 3D model multiplicated by 300.

 

This doesnt has anything to do with the Bsp2, its just common sense.

[mattclinch]

my post was not an 'argument' about proxies, i was simply stating my opinion on why i believe mental images implemented proxies at a later stage than vray did.

 

bsp2 is designed to save ram by preventing a full-scene voxelisation before rendering and instead allowing that voxelisation to happen 'on-demand' and thus saving excessive overhead in ram. i have previously rendered close to 1200 trees with only 2 gig of ram in a previous version of mental ray.

 

so, as was my original point, mental images already seemed to have a 'ram saving' feature implemented, so there was no need for more until proxies came along and were clearly a much cleaner and more efficient way forward.

[Justin Hunt]

Jesus, even your explanation of proxies is wrong. They are basically placeholder of the real geometry that gets loaded and unloaded when a bucket needs it.

 

Your explinaltion is more to do with using instances over copy.

 

What I am failing to understand is, if Vray is working for you, why are you taking your frustations out on mentalray?

 

 

jhv

[Crazy Homeless Guy]

I can't believe I am jumping back into this thread, but I am.

 

.... I wouldn't let Autodesk completely off the hook for mental ray because Autodesk is responsible for the way in which mr is incorporated into Max, and Autodesk is responsible for how mr can be used in Max. If I understand some statements I have read from mr pros in the past there is some concern to how it is implemented.

 

I use Vray, but have used mental ray in the past. I prefer Vray for reasons that I like, but Vray does not even come close to mr's flexibility in terms of custom shader writing. I don't write shaders myself, but I have spent a lot of time researching and looking to do very specific things and it seems like you can make mr do nearly anything you would want a render engine to do by writing specfic shaders for it. It is very powerful and impressive in that sense.

[Justin Hunt]

agreed, even if you dont know how to script (which I dont) mental mill is perfect for that. I have only dabbled with mentalmill but from the few tuts I have followed it is very powerful. Granted most of the arch-viz community would never need or even consider using it as it does seem too complex for our daily needs.

 

Has anyone even looked at the new substance shaders? and if so are they compatible with other renderes, other than mentalray?

 

One thing I must say about the mr implementation is that between the three main apps (Max, Maya and XSI) Max problably has the easiest workflow. Not nessesarily the best or fully featured though. XSI is the most implemented as its been using mentalray for the longest and Maya has the most 3rd party shaders, mainly because of its user base.

 

Now if Vray could fully implement the A&D shader I'd be a very happy camper.

 

 

jhv