Ahahah Absinthe, your last comparison with C4D was very funny (posted in C4D forum not here) : the render quality was completely different between your Vue and C4D pictures. Please try to compare things which are comparable. Not an easy task.

Concerning my post in the Cinema forum: To YL: The render quality difference is because of two simple things: First Vue uses ambient light, which makes a flat look. And I used no ambient light in Cinema. Second I used raytraced soft shadows in Vue and mapped soft shadows in Cinema. Therefore the shadows in the Vue render are not as sharp as in Cinema. This was no beauty contest between Cin and Vue but a time comparison with more or less standard settings for each prog, without a thousand tweaks and trys to optimized something. I use Vue Pro only since 4 days and I never had Vue desprit before. So with exception of the Vue 4 Demo I am completly new to this program.

Who are you really ? Why have you no gallery at renderosity ?

Hi Here is the latest render. Radiosity Strength=50% Accuracy=30% Ray Depth=30 Shadows=soft Time=13.31

and here a closeup one of the trees. Same settings as above but the time=12.36. More work needed on the texturing I think, as the scene was exported in the first place at a low setting, Mesh=6.90 Meg Tex=2048 Polys=345648 It took about 12-15 mins to export 3ds. I will try bigger settings for the mesh/tex and see what happens. I will post back later prob tomorrow. Videodv.

Sorry forgot to say rendered with the ozone plugin it gave a better result than the imported atmos, with the standard atmos I had to use a low strength setting about 20% else it washed out the sky and was just a little darker. Videodv.

not to shabby, course it's low-res but still... not bad! thanks!

Videodv, you managed to get rid the black around the trees, great!! You said you exported to .3ds; why didnt you convert it to .c4d format?

Absinthe you said XFrog trees rendered slower than Vue Pro Trees; how much slower? Can you render a similar scene using XFrog (I know you cant make an exact match) and post the numbers?

Dave

OK a quick update as I have to get ready to work I have just done a quick export of the cherry tree at the following res mesh 30.50meg and texture size 4936, and even with the camera right in the tree it was just about spot on with the leaves. Perfect! I think if you have a low spec machine like mine it is better to export the parts indevidualy so you get a better export, and go for as high a res as you can get away with. Things are realy starting to look up, will post new results tomorrow. (will try c4d format too, but seems to work fine with 3ds!) Videodv.

Absinthe, quote: "I use Vue Pro only since 4 days and I never had Vue desprit before. So with exception of the Vue 4 Demo I am completly new to this program" Guys, let's move on to another thread. Seems that we're dealing with an amateur here...

Here's a simple test I ran last week. Rendered in C4d with aa set at best. Took 1 min 29 sec. I haven't tried a lot of trees, yet. But the meshing and maps were set to be a higher res which helps a lot. Ignore the big lumps in the background.. they were an experiment that failed.

I used ozone for the atmosphere, and the rest was exported from pro.

One thing to note; not all terrain maps generated by pro look as good as the ones presented in this thread. It seems pro doesn't use the bump settings for a material when it generates the map. For some terrain materials, the bump settings are very important. Sure hope this is something e-on can change.

now that doesn't look bad at all. i'd like to see more shots as you feel to post them. good job!

This image is more in line with what I was expecting, though the bark and branches are still missing the texture. Try exporting the same tree in .C4D format; Im curious to see the differences if any. Dave