3d Max And Vray
Quintin Downing
I uploaded a sample with two instances of the same block, one with vray material and the other with Rhino material.
It should also be noted that the mapping coords established before making the block become lost when switching to Rhino renderer but they are respected when switching to Vray renderer.
I make a separate object file and using Texture and Texture mapping then Insert that in my main file!! But When I want to make a render in Main file, more Clamps Apear on my Block textures!!!
WHAT IS WRONG??
On a Machine B, we open the same file produced by machine A from the server, to do the simplest thing on earth, just pressing the render command and see exactly the same results as in Machine A. It looks like this is not possible. Lights do not even appear in the vray asset editor, although they do appear in the scene.
We then try to export a VRScene from Machine A, importing it back to Machine B, but what we get is a duplication of the objects from the original file, also badly meshed on the screen, showed as a block. The program asks even for a proxy position insertion point. Therefore we have, effectively, two identical objects and the result look similar.
This is exactly how it is designed to work. Basically you can add a complete render ready scene file into another file or render it directly using the batch render tool. The mesh is just a preview mesh to keep viewport speed high. In general the insertion point is just 0
Are we saying that a rhino file with vray lights, materials and settings can only be rendered/edited by the same machine which created it, otherwise, if opened on another machine, you have to recreate the entire scene from scratch??
First: Make sure you have enabled + loaded + set V-Ray as current renderer on the target machine BEFORE opening the file. If the V-Ray plugin is not loaded, Rhino will not call our deserialization code
just a couple more ideas I would try:
de-install and then re-install latest V-Ray on both machines (4.10.02)
Start a new scene on both computers and add the same assets in both, then try to open up scene created on A on B and vice versa to see if it makes a difference.
Get a good camera setting and put a very normal amount of lights in your scene (by normal I mean what would exist in the physical world), setup your glass to affect all channels and shadows so the sunlight finds its way into your scene, and I typically override the environment GI with a Vray sky map.
Portals only take the color from what's behind. I understand it as transporting light info (colors, intensity, etc) into the lit geometry. With a VRay Sky overall, portals or not wouldn't make any difference. (I'm tlaking about VRay plane lights on windows)
Might it be that before Gamma 2.2 LWF practices were commonplace that portals were necessary to drive light deeper into the interior scene and now that more people are running LWF that light naturally travels further into interior scenes?
Using portals will help drive light/color information into a your interior, but at the expense of severe noise.. On the other hand, you'll get better GI distribution and thus you can do with lower GI settings.
Sir pls can anyone help me with this vray information..i am looking for a skylight portal option in vray 5 3ds max there used to be an option for skylight portal in vray in the old versions have they removed that option in the new versions?.. if not where can I find them.
"With the Adaptive Dome Light, Skylight Portals are no longer needed. It automatically figures out which portions of the environment to sample and which ones to ignore. This makes it much easier to set up and much more efficient."
I occasionally work in FormZ and I can't help but notice that its renderings using Vray are superior to what I can get in Vectorworks 2023 (usually using Renderworks Interior Style Final). This is especially true with imported OBJ realistic human figures. These are complex meshes with complex mappings. In Vectorworks they look OK, but there are missing triangles and the maps are hyper-glossy in places. In FormZ/Vray, they look great as do the shadows and shadings. Plus, there are more controls available, etc. In short, it is a much more robust system. Even the lighting is easier to manipulate. This isn't saying the VW renderings aren't good, they are. Since implementing the Cinema4D rendering engine the quality is 100x better, but I get the feeling we are getting a watered-down version of the lights, cameras, and rendering engine found in C4D. Is that so? If it is true, can we expect a more robust version in the future?
Anyway, right now having everything in one application trumps everything else. I love keeping everything in one app. After all, Vray can go bad and having to resort to a third party is a pain, especially one as small as Chaos. I am encouraged that VW has come so far in its rendering capabilities, but can we expect this improvement to continue within the base application (in my case, Architect). I hope so! What are your plans?
I abandoned VW's realistic rendering a long time ago for this very reason. I love that it can create OpenGL renders, hidden line renders, anything but realistic style. Once I started rendering in C4D, and then C4D with Redshift, I never looked back and neither did my clients. Even if I liked the quality I was getting out of VW's realistic style renders, I couldn't deal with the amount of time it takes to produce a render.
I am always excited each time VW adds new capabilities to the rendering engines, because like you, I prefer to keep my work in one program. But for now, I need to render in another program, whether it's C4D or Twinmotion.
Their modelling capabilities are excellent, but they bring sculpting, motion graphics, etc. to the table. Having said this, you can start many of the processes that C4D has in VW's. For example. You could develop a Terrain model in VW's, send to C4D and sculpt out complex creeks.
Wholeheartedly agree, but realistically do you think it's a high priority considering how much attention they would need to give it? The standard for renders these days is unreal/unity or the renderers of vray/octane/arnold/redshift. So how do they compete with that?
Yes, rendering has come far, but still needs some work. For example, Redshift is a total bust. Not only is the quality bad and full of bugs, but it also takes just as long as the Renderworks Interior Final which I assume is true raytracing. I had great hopes for Redshift dashed. Same for the Twinmotion plug in. It's great if you are doing full buildings, but for interiors or anything up close: ugg. It is awful. The rendering quality is fine for animations, but dead in the water for stills. Plus, I don't really feel like redoing all my texture maps. Some translate, but some don't. I just use the walkthrough built into VW since the Shaded render HAS gotten better.
Hi grant_pd, that is a very fair question. I suppose I see it as a lost opportunity to up the quality and control of lights and rendering to where CD4 is. The software is already in-house; it's not re-inventing the wheel. I can't even control the falloff distance of lights in Vectorworks, something I was doing with Strata3D two decades or more ago. Stuff like that.
I would like to see some constancy of nomenclature throughout the 3D world. XY and Z and inconsistent between VWX and Vision, let alone other programs. Yaw, pitch and roll are used in other apps but not really throughout VWX.
I think shaders should provide an accurate preview for Renderworks, RedShift and other render types. It is closed to Renderworks, now, but only ,IMHO, a preview. I should only have to prepare a file once for different rendering engines and similar results.
I wouldn't compare a modeler like Blender to a CAD app like Vectorworks. Blender, like 3D StudioMax, is made for video and animations. In short, the screen image is the final product. Both are not useful for architectural work like I do, thought that does not stop these apps from dominating the industry. In my business (museum design, trade show booths, and other specialty interiors), the final product is produced in a wood or metal shop, not on a screen. I can't stand the lack of precision in apps like Blender, StudioMax and even FormZ (bless its little lost heart.) I think Rhino has great tools, but not really useful for me--overkill, really--since my products are produced from sheet stock (plywood) or stick-built from lumber and metal. Vectorworks is really the perfect solution for what I do and is why I've always used it. I just wish I had more control over some of the rendering tools, but, with the addition of Pixar's modeling tools, there really isn't much I can't model anymore. It is more an issue of not needing to and, therefore, I have not learned all the new tools. Yet.
@MGuilfoile I had high hopes for redshift when VW integrated it. But for whatever reason it just doesn't as expected. I've been a redshift user in C4D for a few years now, I couldn't see ever going back to a cpu based renderer. I totally agree with you about twinmotion. So perfect for creating exteriors! Not perfect for controlled lighting situations like the television work that I do. So like you, I need to produce high quality renders (for the clients) and high quality drafting (for the shops). It is a crutch to go to C4D as you say. @Kevin Allen here would be my starting list to woo me back to renderworks:
I doubt it's going to get it though. There have been barely any improvements made to it for several years now. Meanwhile the new generation of renderers like Twinmotion etc progress incredibly quickly and I think it's assumed we'll all move to them while RW is quietly parked in a frozen state.
e59dfda104