From CGSociety forum, Mies van der Rohe Farnsworth House with surrounding vegetation, rendered with Mental Ray.

This is the kind of results Vue should at least be able to match to be rightfully claim to be a high end application.

Bye...

Judging by the comments from the viewers, those results are very impressive even for regular users of the applications he used. It's not only the application which achieves results, the person behind is equally important, not to mention the time one dedicates to it. Therefore, I find your last sentence to be completely nonsense. You'd have to compare also the users.

Anyway, compare the prices of the apps he uses with the price of Vue. Maya costs $5000, AfterEffects costs $1000. He could buy more than 6 Vue copies with that money...

So, again, your comparison makes no sense whatsoever.

Anyway, thanks for sharing the link, it's really impressive.

Well, it's quite difficult to compare two different softs with different approach and technology. Yeah, it looks amazing, but it is more about the artist as Rutra said and you can  see it at CG as well, someone commenting - @This looks better than a V-Ray render! I guess its the skill of the artist, not the tools that he uses.@

 That guy used paint effects for Maya to create the landscape. They're basically photo clip maps applied to 'tube' 3d geometry. Sorta like how Vue creates leaves. I've seen the same done many times using other non-biased renders. They work great at a distance, just don't zoom up on them. I can only imagine the howl the Vue community would make if all our plants were created in the same manner.

Silly comparison actually. More like associating the skill of a great water color painter to the kind of brushes he uses.

Alexcoppo, most of us here know this simple fact: it's not the tool, it's the artist. There are a number of photoreal images (and animations) done with Vue by terrific artists. One only needs to look in the gallery here or at e-on to see many of them.

Vue needs Mental Ray to have any chance at rendering something similar.

If one of these Vue artists (links below) agreed with that premise, I might be inclined to go along with your opinion. I tend to take more seriously those who have the skill to push Vue to the max.

[ http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=1092797&member

](http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=1092797&member)http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=1758999&member

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=398922&member

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=1782571&member

Those images are missing the jaw-drop factor.  Read the CGsociety comments again.

Quote -
Anyway, compare the prices of the apps he uses with the price of Vue. Maya costs $5000, AfterEffects costs $1000. He could buy more than 6 Vue copies with that money...

So, again, your comparison makes no sense whatsoever.

You should check E-On pricing. 7 xStream (the version which integrates in a modeling application like MentalRay) is 1535$ (in the US) and if you get maintenance you can get up to 2530$ so your estimate of Vue at 1000$ is somewhat "optimistic". In addition, the current trend for renderers is to be able to work also with lower cost applications (there is a rush to support even Blender) and therefore the price gap is even lower.... so sorry, but the comparison does make sense, it is just that you don't like the outcome.

The real message is that the best things real professional application can do are so far above Vue capabalities (even in the hands of the best Vue-ers) that E-On quest for competition in that field is a textbook example of wishful thinking, componded with the negative fallouts that this strategy has for the mass of Vue users.

B.T.W. a few minutes ago I was amusing myself with another example of delusions and arrogance: the current F1 results of the Ferrari team. They keep on telling everybody that they are the best (as they used to), and they are still at 0 points, while other teams work hard with no propaganda and get results.

Bye...

Quote - Those images are missing the jaw-drop factor.  Read the CGsociety comments again.

It appears you missed my point.

Quote - The real message is that the best things real professional application can do are so far above Vue capabalities (even in the hands of the best Vue-ers) that E-On quest for competition in that field is a textbook example of wishful thinking, componded with the negative fallouts that this strategy has for the mass of Vue users.

I'm sorry someone at e-on somehow kicked your dog and you've felt it your challenge to talk down Vue ever since. 

Wikipedia describes a troll as:

Quote - An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

The Maya renderings are impressive but keep in mind many of the veg elements used in the scenes were effectively alpha maps of photos.  He did a great job of integrating those elements together beautifully.  You can achieve very similar results in Vue with the right lighting and atmosphere setup.  I haven't done any architectural/veg scenes but I've rendered a few nature veg scenes that are quasi photo-real like these:

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=1722771

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=1822400

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=1829504

There are many other artists like Ken Was, Rutra, Sacada, and Czarnay that have done stuff that is totally photo-real.

Totally photo-real?  I'd like to see some posted or linked here.

Terrific images for sure, but hell if I wanted that level of realism in what I personally do with Vue, I'd buy a camera, it's be cheaper!

Quote - Totally photo-real?  I'd like to see some posted or linked here.

Here's some that I think fit the category of Photo-real or nearly photo-real from the e-on Pic of the day site.   There are many others, I just selected the first 5 I found

http://www.e-onsoftware.com/showcase/?page=11&Index=3412

http://www.e-onsoftware.com/showcase/?page=11&Index=3388

http://www.e-onsoftware.com/showcase/?page=11&Index=3383

http://www.e-onsoftware.com/showcase/?page=11&Index=3374

http://www.e-onsoftware.com/showcase/?page=11&Index=3346

This one seems pretty photoreal: (picture by Eran Dinur) 

Quote - "You should check E-On pricing. 7 xStream (the version which integrates in a modeling application like MentalRay) is 1535$ (in the US) and if you get maintenance you can get up to 2530$ so your estimate of Vue at 1000$ is somewhat "optimistic"."

Why would you compare the price with maintenance? That doesn't make any sense. At most, you'd compare with the $1535 and so the $6000 of Maya+AfterEffects amounts to only 4 licenses of Vue XStream. I'm soooooo sorry I made such a big mistake before by comparing it with Infinite and saying it could be 6 licenses. ;-)

Quote - "The real message is that the best things real professional application can do are so far above Vue capabalities (even in the hands of the best Vue-ers) that E-On quest for competition in that field is a textbook example of wishful thinking, componded with the negative fallouts that this strategy has for the mass of Vue users."

To whom are you sending your "real message"? This is not an e-on forum, we're not e-on employees, this is Renderosity, remember? We're just users, just like you. So, what is the point of your message? What are you really trying to do? Discourage us from using Vue? Convince us all to leave Vue and embrace Maya? Why don't YOU do that and leave the rest of us alone? This would be nice!
 

They are quasi photo-real.  Except for http://www.e-onsoftware.com/showcase/?page=11&Index=3374 which does look quasi when viewed in full screen.

The key to rendering good Vue scenes is keeping the Sun from going behind the camera.  Vue materials don't hold up well to blinding sunlight.

Thanks for the tips on the 'key to rendering good Vue scenes'.

Perhaps you don't mind enlightening us with one of your masterpieces? Here's a little something from one of my rendering toolkits:

Vue, for what it is, is a good renderer, it's just way too finicky to get near -photorealism results though IMHO.
But then, Maxwell can do photorealism but is an utter PAIN to work with the materials and is not capable of any editing beyond basics like scaling.

Vue's renderer is better now than it was, but Vray etc usually cost an additional $500+ and more bucks. And you still need an app to run them in, so, you have to buy Max, Lightwave etc on top AND if you want pay for better maintenance cause they offer that service too..

So you're being very biased in your appraisal. (though I agree that Xstream price is a bloody RIP OFF!)

Could Vue be better? yes it sure could. But you're taking about a difference, a REAL difference in costs of a minimum of $1500 (FryRender and Lightwave) to $6000 (Maya and Maxwell)
Then add in optional Maintenance packages for them too, which iirc run from $300 to $800 for standard contracts.
Remember, I bought maxwell in Apha so it was a hell of a lot cheaper!

eventually all render engines will go to unbiased, but it wil take a while, and anyway, it's not always desired, I don't want a lot of my work to be photorealistic, it's meant to be a specific artistic style, not realism! :)

IMHO, Vue does need work to improve the render engine UI etc to help new users, hell, even me!
See Chipp's interior lighting pack, I've had a hell of a trouble getting things to look anything close to what he did, lol.

one of my Maxwell renders, from Rhino, of model I was working on, test shot

Vue doesn't do Mental Ray masterpieces.

But you'll notice, Chipp. Most Vue renders that have the Sun in front of the camera come out better than if the Sun is behind the camera.  Chipp.  I know you are trying to sell Vue content.  But your renders are only slightly better than what Bryce can do.  And Bryce rendering is nowhere near photo-real.

As I said before, no jaw-drop factor.  Everyone on Rendo gets "Excellent render!" and "Great work!" comments from the same users on their gallery uploads.  But that doesn't mean the uploads are photo-real.

And don't confuse non-photoreal as meaning terrible.  It just means non-photoreal.

I guess whatever jawdropping means is in the eye of the beholder.  The one other thing to keep in mind about Vue is that you can also animate the veg which you cannot do in the other high end packages.  I've seen plenty of jaw-dropping animations using Vue as well.

Shawn, since you have no Vue masterpieces, please show us one of your jaw-dropping Mental Ray masterpieces. If you cannot, then I still contend it's not the tool, it's the artist. And while I admit some Vue renders are not jaw-dropping, the same is true for Mental Ray renders as well.

Apart from GC issues, those images sent me chills along the spine.

Imagine a decade or so in future, sitting in an interrogation room confronted by a cop showing you a surveillance video in which you are killing somebody, and having no means to demonstrate in court that it is a fake...

Bye.

P.S.: people on CGForum are busily looking on the floors for their jaws, so those images are a tad more than remarkable.

Quote - eventually all render engines will go to unbiased, but it wil take a while

Please [insertdeityofchoice] no !!! I want my renders to have some chance of finishing this century!!
:biggrin:

(ps.  Alex - MentalRay is a render engine not a modeller)

 Here's a quick render in Vue using 2 different clipmaps- one for the grass, another for the trees. Keep in mind I set this up in minutes-- but I think it shows the potential for doing the same sort of think in Vue that was done in Mental Ray.

Quote - I guess whatever jawdropping means is in the eye of the beholder.  The one other thing to keep in mind about Vue is that you can also animate the veg which you cannot do in the other high end packages.  I've seen plenty of jaw-dropping animations using Vue as well.

Jaw-dropping as in when comparing CGSociety comments posted about the International Style house Mental Ray render with the Rendo gallery comments posted about the best Vue render.

Quote - Jaw-dropping as in when comparing CGSociety comments posted about the International Style house Mental Ray render with the Rendo gallery comments posted about the best Vue render.

So, for you the determining factor for a 'jawdropping image' is the amount of slobbering going on regarding someone's render. Hmm..but wait...wasn't it you who said:

Quote - Everyone on Rendo gets "Excellent render!" and "Great work!" comments from the same users on their gallery uploads.

Are you saying slobbering over at CGTalk is more juicy than slobbering over at Renderosity?
LOL.

First you deny the render quality comparison, Chipp.  Now you deny the comment quality comparison.  Come back when your Vue renders look as good as the OP's link.

Quote - Come back when your Vue renders look as good as the OP's link.

Ouch, coming from one of your obvious talents, that smarts!

In anycase, taking only a few minutes, grabbing images off the web and using the same clip map procedure, I was able to create this image below. While certainly not up to Allesandro's standards (as if anything I ever did could compete with his incredible talent), it does point out the ability of Vue to ALSO use clip maps to create more photoreal images.

Please feel free to post your own Mental Ray efforts. I look forward to seeing them.

That's awesome Chip.  Hell hath no fury like a fellow geek with something to prove - especially when it's grounded in logic.

FrankT,
lol, wrong mate ;) (about the unbiasd engines)
Maxwell is a HELL of a lot faster now that it was before due to a newer PC and improvements in Maxwell (from pentium4 to a quad core 64 bit it's a hell of a diffference!!)

for model work, I get good images in an hour or two with Maxwell :) I do not pretend to be much use with it, I only do model renders for fun and it really helps me with model work to see problems or ways I can improve them. I do my real texturing in Vue, not Maxwell.

So, in years to come, I see no reason why more powerful CPUs, and perhaps GPU use as well, plus better software, won't make unbiased renders afaste rand the standard method :)

Now, this is only basic Maxwell textures, I'm too used ot Vue materials to want to mess with Maxwell's, and this isn't an art render, final textures are a hell of a lot better, but Vue can't do such photorealism so I want folk to compare them, pardon the big images!

Model render in Maxwell
http://www.silverblades-suitcase.com/rhino/2008/hammership44.jpg
Somewhat realistic-style render in Vue
http://www.silverblades-suitcase.com/sj/hammership/cloud_hammer1.jpg
Art render ( msot of my stuff is not meant to look realistic)
http://www.silverblades-suitcase.com/sj/hammership/hammership_depth.jpg

At the end it is in the eye of the beholder...

Well I hate to promote my own work...  But ;-)

I find this one coming close to photorealistic. Maybe a bit to clean..  but that can be fixed.

Interestingly, I've been messing around with an unbiased render plugin for Blender called LuxRender.  It's a bit on the slow side but does produce some very nice renders (from what I've seen lol)

One thing that did strike me is that Blender uses Python to write the exporters - they normally write the "Scene" file to something that can be read by the render engine.  Vue supports python but I don't know how much of the scene geometry could be written out to a file and imported into something else.  Maybe one of our Python guru's (Chipp or Dave) could comment ?

Quote - Interestingly, I've been messing around with an unbiased render plugin for Blender called LuxRender.  It's a bit on the slow side but does produce some very nice renders (from what I've seen lol)

One thing that did strike me is that Blender uses Python to write the exporters - they normally write the "Scene" file to something that can be read by the render engine.  Vue supports python but I don't know how much of the scene geometry could be written out to a file and imported into something else.  Maybe one of our Python guru's (Chipp or Dave) could comment ?

It can certainly be done in VuePython for static objects, but for things like ecosystems and procedural terrains, it would be impossible

darn - oh well, was worth a thought

Quote - Maybe one of our Python guru's (Chipp or Dave) could comment ?

Hi Frank,

Just so there's no misunderstanding...Dave's the Python Guru. I'm just a wannabe when it comes to Vue Python.

BTW, how do you like Blender? The interface has always put me off.

I'm kind of getting the hang of Blender now.  There's some modelling things it doesn't do very well so I do that in Hexagon.  One good thing about it is the number of plugins and stuff.  I currently have 3 free render engines and VRay as plugins which is pretty nice. 
It's a complicated bit of software though - I'm looking forward to the 2.5 release

Quote - Interestingly, I've been messing around with an unbiased render plugin for Blender called LuxRender.  It's a bit on the slow side but does produce some very nice renders (from what I've seen lol)

LuxRender is nothing to snear about. It simulates the physics of image rendering and uses a physical correct model for lighting. For example, it can handle lights in which the energy distribution is far from the blackbody approximation like, e.g., sodium lights.

Bye!!!

True and I'm not sneering at it, it's just too slow on my rig to be a viable render engine choice at the moment.  The fastest by far is VRay but Yafaray is getting close to it