Vray 2 vs Mental Ray 2011

[nelpiper]

Recently I did a exterior scene where I had some hi-poly trees and heavy displacement on some of the buildings. I spent a lot of time tweaking the MR 3D displacement shader but I think the results were "satisfactory". I gave a shot to vray just for fun to see if I could get the same or better results. In the case of the displacement, I think the quality of the MR displacement was better but the time spent to balance quality vs speed was not worth it. Vray was a lot simpler to get similar results. At render time I got a lot of memory issues with MR as it "ate" a lot of memory due to the poly count and displacement. Long story short, I think Vray is a lot more efficient at memory management than MR. On the other hand, MR has some very cool shaders that let you achieve some effects that otherwise would have you do some workarounds on using Vray. IMO, 2 things make Vray slightly better than MR: memory management and GI solution. I hope mental images work on those as I really like MR.

[Crazy Homeless Guy]

Long story short, I think Vray is a lot more efficient at memory management than MR. On the other hand, MR has some very cool shaders that let you achieve some effects that otherwise would have you do some workarounds on using Vray. IMO, 2 things make Vray slightly better than MR: memory management and GI solution. I hope mental images work on those as I really like MR.

 

I would agree on this. I have used mr with proxies, and Vray with proxies. mr seems to need more memory than Vray when using more or less the same memory converted to proxies.

[marius e]

Stumbled onto this thread, always a nice subject to piss everyone off!

 

Obviously one would choose your preferred renderer, just like one would stand ground for your software of choice.

 

Vray was on the market and easily incorporated with max, long before mental ray. FOR that reason ALONE more people use it(no I dont have a survey to prove it).

 

I have twidled around with vray years ago, but didnt like the interface settings etc.

 

I only work with mental ray, I love it. As far as speed goes.......how can you compare it to another engine? not possible.

 

I have done many renders at 3500px-4000px that rendered in 1.5-2 hours. Some of those are on my gallerie.

 

ITS ALL ABOUT TWEAKING AND SETTINGS AND HOW WELL YOU KNOW YOUR SOFTWARE.

 

Now I also feel better!!

[TJunkers]

ITS ALL ABOUT TWEAKING AND SETTINGS AND HOW WELL YOU KNOW YOUR SOFTWARE.

 

Agreed. I started using VRay 2.0 and love it, but I have had some great work come out of Mental Ray.

[David Arbogast]

It's a shame that this topic, which justifiably comes up all the time, is treated with contempt by some and as an evangelistic crusade by others. So many fall back on the line that "it's all about the artist, not the tool" or "just use whatever tool you're most comfortable with." Such nice-sounding sentiments don't touch financial realities, though. MR and Vray are both perfectly suitable for creating pretty in the hands of a talented artist. But, time is money. What I want to know is if one tool has a distinct rendering speed and/or ergonomic advantage over the other. Renderings take time. Setting up renderings takes time. Given the same 3d scene rendered to the same level of quality, which tool does it faster/more efficiently?

 

My sense is that Vray has a more efficient adaptive approach that is faster, but I haven't tested that notion. I wish someone would. Chaosgroup should do it. Why? Because Chaosgroup wants to sell their 3rd party renderer to a lot of people who already have Mental Ray. They should do more to explain why buying and maintaining a Vray license is a justifiable expense for those who already have a Mental Ray license (which is anyone who has a license for Autodesk's 3d software). I use Vray, but my reason is mostly due to familiarity. I started using Vray before Mental Ray became integrated into Autodesk's 3d software; certainly before Mental Ray was given a more ergonomic UI.

 

Even though I have invested time and money into Vray - upgraded to 2.0 through the great cgarchitect store - I still ponder the possibility of switching to Mental Ray as there are some advantages to using a renderer that is provided as a core component to the 3d software package (3ds Max in my case).

[Vegeta_DTX]

I just don't understand, why somebody who has an access to both Vray and Mental Ray(I do not have, but I am really thinking of switching to Vray, just because unnecessary complications that Mray possess), doesn't simply do a scene vs scene comparison and once and for all clarify the VISUAL difference. So take for example the same interior scene same sun position same everything, and render it with the best possible settings you know of, both with Mray and Vray.

 

THEN after we conclude which one seems more realistic to us(naturally each will have his own opinion), then we can move on and decide if the quality difference is worth of a render-time difference(which would most likely be negligible when it comes to archviz at least IMO) and all the other differences.

 

During my 4-5 years of not-too-deep experience with Mray and checking a lot of Vray renders, as much as I hate it to be true, I've concluded that Mray simply beats the living heck of Vray when it comes to realism and a natural look, while most of Vray renders always had that "plastic" look that just simply doesn't seem natural to me.

Now please don't jump on me claiming how Vray is better and all that, I respect your opinion, maybe you are right, in fact, like I said, I'd love you to be right! Please prove me that I'm wrong and spare me from the "Mental torture ray" , but so far I'll keep my opinion.

[crezyoz]

while most of Vray renders always had that "plastic" look that just simply doesn't seem natural to me.

 

That's the only thing that has kept me from implementing VRay. I came to this thread because I am so weary of the process at render time of trying to minimize flicker. I use MR and for the most part I am pretty happy with it.. I have been using it since it was bundled with Max. Not my favorite part of the process though.

 

Lately I have been trying to get out some arch interiors and I have had one hell of a time getting final renders with MR. I hear a lot about VRay being faster and easier but the final renders I see look sharp, high contrast.. sort of plastic. Don't know any other way to describe it.

 

I wish I could just hit render and get what I see when I am creating the scenes. God.. that would be wonderful. I dread the flicker testing, FG caching.. interpolation FG points.. segments.. BLAH!!!! It takes so much time and I have to make so many compromises to get a render out in time. The flicker testing takes days to get right on every scene for some reason. I have to render full res.. with all the lighting and 60+ frames to see if things flicker.. then .. when I get walls and other things to work there is always a piece of metal or something flickering away in the scene..

 

MR does a beautiful job but it is truly painful. I wasn't aware that ILM and bigger houses used MR at all. I thought they used proprietary render solutions and Renderman mostly. As I use MR I can't imagine trying to render an animated feature with it. Of course I am alone here and I do everything... master of none. So it would kill me.

 

I'd like to try VRay but again.. the renders I see in galleries don't seem to match MR's realism.

[Vegeta_DTX]

^I completely agree. We obviously have absolutely the same experience.

 

Something just doesn't feel right about Vray renders even with the most complex and most awesome scenes.

That's what still keeps me from switching to Vray.

 

For example:

With interior scenes that involve a bright daylight and surfaces illuminated by the sun, I've been able to tell which one is MR work and which one is VR work

99% of the time. I think that alone speaks for itself...

If anyone wants to test me, he is more than welcomed to do so.

 

Don't get me wrong, don't take me as someone biased I don't work for Mental Images ...like I said many times I badly WISH I was wrong and I encourage anyone to prove me wrong, but so far I've been constantly proven that same exact thing.

 

I wish I could just hit render and get what I see when I am creating the scenes. God.. that would be wonderful.

I dream of that day.

 

Oh well, in the end I guess I'll have to master MR and all of its horrible workarounds

Edited October 25, 2011 by Vegeta_DTX

[crezyoz]

I think the fact that there is no renderer capable of simply rendering animations what you see in your stills renders without a great deal of hassle is frustrating. Not that I expect that we should all have one by now.. just that I wish it were possible, with the same render times it takes now.. just hours and hours less work tweaking.

[Mario De Achadinha]

Hi Tyson

 

Used Mental Ray for 6 years. Loved it and did some really high end renders for our studio. But made the switch to vray and won't ever go back to MR. Vray is brilliant and I have to say superior! Both are very Similar in a lot of ways but I just found that the simplest of things vray just does better and quicker. Why don't you try the vray trial and see the results then make the decision?

 

Mario

[Scott Schroeder]

As others have said. It's not the render engine, it's the user. I've seen great images and turds come out of both rendering engines. Neither Vray or Mental Ray will render a great scene unless the user actually not only understands the engine's settings, but the artistic nature of setting up the shots. It's more than tweaking settings. It's frame composition, light composition and good color balance as well.

 

If you've lived in a hole and haven't seen Alex Roman's work in Vray, I suggest you take a look at it if you think you can't get realistic, non-plastic, results.

 

Third and the Seventh

 

Silestone Commercial

 

Yet, Mental Ray can produce just as good quality.

 

Tenjin Visual: http://vimeo.com/25173018

[Vegeta_DTX]

As others have said. It's not the render engine, it's the user. I've seen great images and turds come out of both rendering engines. Neither Vray or Mental Ray will render a great scene unless the user actually not only understands the engine's settings, but the artistic nature of setting up the shots. It's more than tweaking settings. It's frame composition, light composition and good color balance as well.

 

If you've lived in a hole and haven't seen Alex Roman's work in Vray, I suggest you take a look at it if you think you can't get realistic, non-plastic, results.

 

Third and the Seventh

 

Silestone Commercial

 

Yet, Mental Ray can produce just as good quality.

 

Tenjin Visual: http://vimeo.com/25173018

 

Hmmm let me analyze...IMO first two videos are way better than the 3rd one. Third one doesn't even seem like Mental ray at all to me...although there are a lot of low-rez and sharp edged objects in the scene which also makes it look less realistic...and I also think the raytracing is low.

 

As amazing as first 2 videos are they still have that high contrast and dark feel. I guess vignetting contributes to it a lot in this case.

I guess that Vray is great at rendering dark and moody stuff, but IMO MR is much better for brighter scenes.

 

I guess I'll have to do that MR vs VR side by side comparison sooner or later, and if I do I'll make sure I post it here.

If by some chance I prove myself wrong, I am switching to Vray instantly.

 

Also check this out:

 

Take a close look at parts 1:03 - 1:08 and especially 1:56 - 2:04...I don't think you could get the same level of realism with Vray if you'd reneder that exact same scene with VRay.

Edited October 26, 2011 by Vegeta_DTX