Ha! adv. renderer is better than vray thats why I didn't bother with vray.

hahahahaha! thats liek the funniest thing ive ever heard!... as far as 3d stuff goes anyway. Maybe if AR becomes faster and more accurate, i might go back to it; but unless vray changes its reputation of being the best multi-platform (3d platform, not just OS) with the most accurate and fastest GI algortithms, there's not much chance.. or rather no chance at all. vray is simply too good to use anything else. Ive gone to the trouble of trying out the other players too like maxwell and fR but none compare.

--
Do not do unto others, what you would not want done unto you

Seriously man I saw comparisons of adv. rendere vs vray in a C4D Cafe' review and to be honest I prefere adv. renderer, and its all full of stuff like shutter speed and ISO and other photography terms to sound badass, in adv. renderer that stuff IS there only its in simple english.

Although I must admit render times are endless with adv. ren.!

and thats precisely why one of the main reason why i like vray. It's not really aimed at the n00bs who havn't a clue what GI is but rather at the more professional artists who can tell the difference between a brute force render, AO, and an irradiance map. Like when i first got started with GI in c4d, the whole GI classifications like "Standard" gi or "Stochastic" gi just confused the hell out of me. Later when i found out that they were actually like irradiance mapping and brute force i completely understood.

as for the speed. Well yeh, i don't wanna waste 28 hours of my life rendering up a photoreaslitic room in AR when i can achieve the same result (if not much better) with vray in about 1 or 2 hours. Not to mention that it then brings into focus the whole posibility of GI animations. Don't get me wrong, the quality with AR is quite nice indeed but i guess i might just be too impatient when it comes to it, considering that i can achieve the same result in a lot less time, just by going about it a different way.

One thing i dont like with vray though (along with fR) is that you gotta make ur own BDRF materials. I mean i can see the advantages of it by having multiple specular and diffuse layers but really i do have to say i prefer to good ol' fashion c4d ones.

But like before, i won't budge from vray until i find something which is both faster and gets me the same if not a better result... not that the results i get are good anyway coz im so bad at 3d lol! haha

--
Do not do unto others, what you would not want done unto you

Well yeah some stuff is simplified in AR which can mean lack of customise-ability, and render times may be the whole reason to switch to v-ray, especially if you work in 3D and have deadly deadlines! lol

Yeah with C4D you can make decent materilas in an instant but you can still manage every variable of a meterial if you want to which is a +.

My point is; why pay for a software which will get me the same results of the software I alreay own? AND yes AR can get the quality Vray pros get, I have seen pros using AR and its amasing!

Nice work!Would be nice to see 1 of the pokeballs open with a blue glow emerging out.

--
~Pyro Blizzard

Content Creator

Leaflink MMORPG In Production now!!!!

Site: [link]

yeh like on the cards eh. not a bad idea really. I've still do some neon-related work in vray first tho i think.. just to get the hang of self-illiuminating materials and how they work in vray. I did a little before (tried to do a lightsaber) but it turned out looking like anything BUT a lightsaber so.. i duno, kinda lost faith in self-ill objects at that point.

--
Do not do unto others, what you would not want done unto you