Compare Render (T2 vs Vue 8)

[Hetzen]

I believe there are higher render settings in Vue as well as tweaks under the bonnet that can give good results. But our Vue guy hasn't had much time to get much out of 8 due to the render cows issue we've had with Eon. I do know that the preset quality settings in 7/7.5 are a load of bull.

It maybe more interesting to give both scenes full welly to see the maximum they can do.

[dandelO]

Here is a link to a very concise Vue atmosphere/render settings .pdf. http://users.tns.net/~mwalter1/Vue_Render_Settings.pdf

I've never been much good with Vue but I was pointed to this a while back and it certainly has some really good advice on how to optimize the renderer, I noticed great differences in render time with the edited quality settings(about halfway down this .pdf page), most notable, I think, is the advice to keep the 'advanced effects quality' slider at 46% maximum and tweak your AA values etc. to get better results and much less render time than with the preset defaults.

[Terrafied]

Interesting results. How long did it take you to set up the Vue scene compared to the Terragen 2 scene? In my experience, you have to be very patient with Vue to get anything out of it. Terragen2 renders seem to be worth the wait and the product is way more stable than Vue.

Sorry, I just saw this thread and had to voice my opinion on Vue.  Vue can do some nice stuff if you're very patient. I spent quite a lot of time using Vue XStream with C4D. It doesn't work...unless you want one tree on your mountain . Infinite by itself will work but not the integrated Xstream version.  XStream would crash all the time, sometimes losing everything that was in the project, including corrupting the C4D project base, making me have to start from the beginning. I had two projects I tried to use it on and both times it's left me with very unsatisfactory results.  I then used just Vue by itself. I had to do a camera flyover for one project. It looked good in the previews and appeared to be working as low quality renders. The final rendered for 6 days straight. When it finally finished it had a huge flaw. As the camera flew over my trees some of the trees magically disappeared and then reappeared. Pop on, pop off and repeat. This wasn't something that couldn't be fixed.

Vue is good for wasting your time and money. I've had better luck with Terragen 2 in the matter of a week than I had with Vue in 4 months.

Plus Vue doesn't have a forum like this and the support for Vue is a joke. They make you pay for support when they've already charged you 3 times what it costs to get Terragen 2. It took me six months of compaining and phone calls to get any response from Vue. I finally got some of the money back so guess what I did. I bought Terragen 2.

I'm done. Thanks for letting me rant.

[MGebhart]

Terrafied,

I feel your pain. I have used Vue since version 6 and concur. This is why I'm doing a Comparison Document. I know there are many differences and capabilities (or lack of) so, I figured to try and do a side-by-side on similar features. Obviously I can't address wind simulations and other features Terragen currently does not support. I will attempt to be unbiased to the best of my ability and offer an honest summation.

All I will say to this point, as far as the future is concerned, look out e-on.

Marc

[MGebhart]

Here is another Vue render using a sample scene provided with the software. I made a couple of my own adjustments to the file and rendered. Mostly lighting and increased the render quality.

Marc

NOTE: I think the terrain is less than realistic.

[MGebhart]

@ dandelO,

I am acquainted with this document. It's a great starting point for most, non-animated renderings.

Marc 

[Matt]

If you want to compare render quality, I think you should try to make the lighting more similar. Right now the trees in the Vue scene are lit more harshly than in the Terragen scene, making it harder to anti-alias. Anyway, I don't think it's fair to judge Vue's render quality or speed based on a few contrived scenes. Any artist needs to spend time learning how to get the best out of any renderer, taking advantage of the things it does well and accepting that there are other features or settings that are weaker. Side by side comparisons are only superficially scientific. By trying to make both scenes similar, you may be imposing unfair disadvantages. What if you were to test features which you know are better in one app? How do you know you're not being biased?

[Jack]

what vue are you using you should render in vue 8i for a more un bias result also turn on global radiosity in vue as it is the best lighting model it seems also that you are not using the same tree models the vue plants seem to be solid growth and u need to bump up the settings in vue to ultra as its the HQ render setting and you can not judge a program just on render time you need to also take into account of its speed when handling objects and how stable it is during scene creation

[MGebhart]

@ wetbanana,

I'm running Vue 8 xStream. I agree with your statements and have considered them to be important in the review. There are enough differences between the programs that will require unique processes and procedures in both programs to get a good side-by-side. They are, generally, by no means "Similar" in the way things are attacked.

Thanks for your participation in this thread.

@ Matt,

"By trying to make both scenes similar, you may be imposing unfair disadvantages. What if you were to test features which you know are better in one app? How do you know you're not being biased?" Matt

Simple, if they are similar in a certain area but one does a better job, and I admit it, were is the bias?

I understand your logic and concern. Here is my thought, first I review the companies and their philosophy, customer and support services and other important after sale communications. What industries they focus more on and Forum attitudes.

One of my biggest disappointments is the overhead Vue requires in the act of setting up a scene. The Vue UI is s hungry beast. This would be one example were Terragen shines.

Also, When I get down and dirty creating highly populated, complex terrains and atmospheres I know what switches to throw that will be fair in comparison. I also have the option to use xFrog in both packages, which I will. As far as rendering, I know both packages and tricks to get the most out of the end result.

This is my statement from an earlier reply:

I will attempt to be unbiased to the best of my ability and offer an honest summation.

Marc

[Henry Blewer]

One thing I have consistently noticed about Vue renders. The objects and Terrain have a sort of plastic look to them. Marc's render above shows this very well.

[Matt]

Marc, that all sounds reasonable

[Oshyan]

As others have said, it is fairly well known in the Vue community that their render quality presets are pretty far off the mark of what their names imply. So you'll probably have to do some custom settings to get comparable (and fair, to both apps) results.

What I think makes most sense, at least for a start, is to compare based entirely on external assets, so that there is no element of procedural differentiation, etc. So this means using a heightfield that you can load in both apps, and at least one object available in OBJ format (e.g. Xfrog tree). This gives you a better opportunity for direct comparison. Then setup the sun angle the same, and adjust colors and strength and/or exposure to match lighting. Then you'll have a decent starting point for comparison. Now I will say this type of render does not highlight TG2's strengths with procedural displacement, but it would still be an interesting starting comparison.

After that it would be interesting indeed to test procedurals in a more relative way (since absolute direct comparison will not be possible). Create "infinite" procedural terrains in both, with similar levels of detail octaves, and standard (e.g. Perlin) noise functions, and see what results.

Clouds would be another interesting one, but again only comparable in a relative way, and even more variably than with terrain due to volumetric shading differences and different lighting models. This area would probably be most challenging to compare, but I'm quite interested in the results.

Also, I think it's fair to publish your level of experience in each app. It seems relevant to compare the learning curve of each as you go, too.

I'm glad to see someone has undertaken this project and I'm quite curious to see the results. I hope you stick with it long enough to get a couple of different comparable scenes rendered, and to create a good write-up on your experiences.

- Oshyan

[latego]

If you are using Vue, completely forget about predefined quality presets and create your own. The default ones are either too "coarse" or needlessly computation intensive.

To get an idea of what Vue can do, http://00angelicdevil00.deviantart.com/ is the place to go: I consider his images the best ones ever created with Vue.  You can also have a look at DOM1 http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/browse.php?username=dom1 gallery for a more painterly like approch. Some of the renders of Solo http://solosplace.com/default.aspx architectural models are done with Vue.

Everybodies else is doing little more than assembling prebuild components/materials and doing the n-th twist upon the most recent Geek At Play tutorial.

For Carrara, you have a look at http://www.howiefarkes.com/ renders (he has started to create content for Vue too).

Last, as a reminder that every program has its place, go to http://www.bambam131.com/ for space themed Bryce renders: they are among the best renders on this subject I have ever saw.

A personal opinion: currently, the best things you can do in Vue, TG2, and Carrara 7 are roughly aligned (some items are better, some are worse, there is no clear cut winner or loser)... and remember that behind TG2 there are 2+1 persons, while Carrara is handled (when developed) by a 10+ staff and who knows how many people are 8 hours a day working (piling bugs ) on Vue.

Bye!!!

[Walli]

as already mentioned, you really have to use same objects, same lighting and so on - otherwise this comparison is not comparable.
Apart from that - many Vue users go with presets only and most of the presets that come with Vue are ...lets say less then optimal ;-) By the way, I own Vue since version 2 but stopped (for now) with version 6. I used it as "toy" mainly, no often for work. But as Vue got more and more unstable for me...
Almost every render engine can render fantastic pictures...if the user input allows it. But all of that has been said already ;-)
Comparing render engines only have one important aspect to me - finding the weak areas of the one you work with and :
-ask developers to improve
-find ways around them.

[mr-miley]

Once again, PCPro (a UK based "Professional IT" magazine (I subscribe)) has done a review of Vue 8 http://www.pcpro.co.uk/reviews/software/354166/vue-8-infinite-xstream They have given it 4 & 5 star ratings for everything??? I don't know what they were testing with it but....   Nowhere is the extortionate support cost mentioned or the instability etc. The last time Tom Arah reviewed Vue in PC Pro I emailed him and asked if he were aware of TG2 and gave him some (good) examples from the gallery. His reply was rather dismissive, basically saying he thought the Vue renders looked better. Quite clearly he was judging upon criteria that us mere mortals can't see, because the Vue examples, though very nice, still had that "Vue" look to them, and NONE of them could have passed for photos. Has Planetside thought of submitting a copy of TG2 for review to something like PCPro? I think they should, as people like Tom Arah don't seem to think of it as a major contender