I wanted to compare a side-by-side render of Terragen 2 and Vue 8 using similar render settings.
Vue 8:
640x480
Render Quality = Final (Internal Render Engine) Raytrace = Yes
Preset Sky = Daytime
Preset Procedural Terrain, Rocky Desert (Material Preset, Stone Rubble)
EcoSystem = Bulky Conifer
Render Time = 11:30
Terragen 2
640x480
Quality 0.6
AA 4
Fractal Terrain (Default) Fractal Color Shader, Displacement Amplitude 0.5
Low Level Cumulus Layer, Edge Quality 35, Samples 64
Object Population (Tree) = Xfrog, California Red Fir
RayTrace Objects = yes
Render Time = 13:47
Computer Configuration:
HP
AMD Duel 2.8 GHz
4 GB RAM
nVidia GeForce GTS 250 1GB memory
Windows Vista Ultimate, 32 bit
Voice your Opinion.
Marc
ok, so in order to bring down the TG2 render quality to the level of this vue render, you can set the detail setting in TG2 down to 0.4 and then compare render times again.
Could be the TG2 vegetation might even look better at detail 0.4, maybe even at 0.35.
Cheers,
Frank
I think in order to make a comparison the same scene(objects and so) should be used .
It is not so easy as it seams in my opinion , MGebhart .
Kadri.
Hi Frank,
What I find interesting is the Vue 8 is set to what they consider Final Render. The Quality is pretty awful for a "Final" render setting. You can see the render times are not to far apart with close render settings. Also, navigating and moving the camera in Vue really taxed my system where Terragen was a dream to use.
Go figure.
I'll post a render with your suggested values in T2.
Marc
Kadri,
It's darn near impossible. The packages are just too different. All you can do is estimate. I think with my years of 3D experience and being familiar with multi applications, I get it pretty close.
Marc
Ok ! It seems you know this kind of problems ;)
Kadri.
Here is a comparison using Franks .35 quality setting suggestion.
Most high-end rendering packages use terms like Draft and Production for test and final renders. However these are presets and can be adjusted as with Vue 8. Vue 7.5 had VRay available but only as a plug-in for MAX and I think XSI. VRay makes a giant difference in quality. This, of course requires more upfront money.
Marc
Render Time: 7:33 All other settings remain unchanged.
TG2 render time ?
Edit : You edited it now as i wrote .
Kadri.
Yes, T2 render time. Vue 8 was not rendered again. Only the quality setting of .35 was changed in Terragen.
Marc
Guys there are some nice renders done on the internet with Vue . How is that possible ?
In this Vue final render setting the quality of Vue isn't on par with TG2 on draft quality.
Kadri.
Kadri,
Very true observation. Later when I do some rather complex renderings in both programs (This will be in the Terragen 2 vs Vue 8 Comparison Guide) we should see some dramatic differences. In my mind I know what the results will be. As an example, if you look at Seth's Troh Peekal rendering you will see some amazing work.
In some Vue forums I have read where Vue users where wondering how to achieve Terragen quality in their Vue renderings.
Marc
Thanks :)
thanks but, long time ago I've read this : http://www.thomaskrahn.com/Tutorials.The_making_of_Aragiaua.htm
and i still think by myself that Vue can do good renders if it is used by a good user ;)
edit : when i read this tutorial, i tried Vue and did one render (hehe 2 years ago): http://seth93.blogspot.com/search/label/Vue
I never gave Vue another shot I think ^^
but I know that Buzzzz did some renders with Vue and they were damn good !
http://buzzzzz.deviantart.com/art/Tropical-Vue-69726483
Quote from: MGebhart on January 19, 2010, 03:05:10 PM
In some Vue forums I have read where Vue users where wondering how to achieve Terragen quality in their Vue renderings.
If they want Terragen quality, why don't they just get TG2?
Quote from: MGebhart on January 19, 2010, 02:47:55 PM
Here is a comparison using Franks .35 quality setting suggestion.
Most high-end rendering packages use terms like Draft and Production for test and final renders. However these are presets and can be adjusted as with Vue 8. Vue 7.5 had VRay available but only as a plug-in for MAX and I think XSI. VRay makes a giant difference in quality. This, of course requires more upfront money.
Marc
Render Time: 7:33 All other settings remain unchanged.
In Vue 8 the image seems too blown out, the highs in the trees and skies. The edges of the leaves seem pixelated.
Checking that link Seth gave though, I agree if you know what you're doing with lighting the foreground and background you can come out with some pretty nice images. I do think in the end however TG2 offers more vividness and photorealism when used right
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
@ dandelO,
I am acquainted with this document. It's a great starting point for most, non-animated renderings.
Marc
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?
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
@ 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
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.
Marc, that all sounds reasonable :)
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
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/ (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 (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 (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/ (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/ (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 ;D) on Vue.
Bye!!!
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.
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 (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 >:(
Quote from: mr-miley on January 21, 2010, 08:53:12 AMThey have given it 4 & 5 star ratings for everything??? I don't know what they were testing with it but....
If you were a editor and bills to pay, would you publish the review of a program developed by one of you big advertisers writing "to sum up, it stinks"? I don't think so and this is one of the reasons why I have stopped buying computer magazines years ago.
With the internet, computer magazines are totally obsolete: whatever information you need is freely accessible using a search engine; in addition, you if you add the keywords "sucks" or "sux" to the search, you are sure to access all the applicable bad stories about anything.
Even programming books are obsolete, because either a search engine or dedicated sites like stackoverflow provide you all the needed information, quickly, freely and without advertisers imposed censorships.
The only magazine I am still buying is Computer Grafica by http://www.imagonet.it/ (http://www.imagonet.it/) because it is a glossy print with wonderful images and renders and because it is not terribly biased.
Bye!!! ...and save some real world trees!
So far we haven't had great luck with software review mags. This may indeed be due to the aforementioned advertising tie-in as we have yet to do any significant print advertising. Maybe we'll magically see a great review if we start up some print campaigns. ;)
- Oshyan
latego, the reason I get PCPro in particular, is that if they think something stinks (software or hardware) they'll say so. Many times I have seen a 8 page glossy spread from a PC manufacturer only to see a couple of pages further on a review absolutely slateing a PC featured in that same advert. The clue is in the title... pc "PRO" It is aimed at the professional market. You don't keep a big PC review mag going for many years that's aimed at IT professionals by not giving true reviews. People in the business would soon realise that they were talking out of their backside and just stop buying it. And by the way, I can't remember the last time I saw an advert for Vue in the magazine and I've been a subscriber for 6 years....
the truth is probably in the middle.
Print treats customers who regularly buy ads more cautiously than others, BUT they shoot themselves in the foot if they consciously make false positive reviews.
That being said, if you want a great review, you just have to accompany the tester all the time. You need to be in touch with him/her from the day you send the software to them. Be on the phone with them, or if possible visit them in the office, show them around the product. Especially when a product is complicated, chances are the tester is just not savvy enough getting good result. That's the trick: don't leave them alone.
Cheers,
Frank
The idea of this thread is good, but the execution is ...less than ideal, and indeed a little biased. I don't want to offend anyone and this posting is not intended as a reply to any particular message in this thread because most of the answers here are quite objective, but there are enough other threads in this forum and in other places where people can't stick to facts as most of you do :(. I am sick of reading rants over rants on Vue with no substantial criticism.
Let's get things straight:
I have been using Vue Infinite since version 5, and I've upgraded all the way to 8 now. I love this software package, although as of lately I've been more frustrated with its bugs and instability than ever. The price policy is a whole different story that doesn't fit in here. One of Vue's biggest strenghts is also one of its biggest weaknesses: The ability to include presets for virtually everything, ranging from atmospheres to materials and render settings. This is done because of e-on software's modular approach. You can start out with a free-of charge version for absolute beginners (Vue 8 Pioneer) and then buy modules to add several new functionalities to your software. This way you can upgrade all the way to Vue 8 Professional (some Infinite features are not obtainable through modules).
Believe it or not, I find this to be a good approach. An absolute novice that has no experience with 3D artwork whatsoever would be overstrained even with Pioneer without any presets and scenes to study and dissect. In fact, Pioneer is aimed especially at the "point-and-click to make art" group. And what's so bad about that? Everybody needs to start somewhere, and really serious artists will soon want to create their own atmospheres and materials in order to create something of their own from the ground up. Vue makes this approach very easy, because you have enough presets you can study to see how things are done and then you will realize that they are just a starting base and that you need to improve upon them. So the reason you see so many bad Vue images is the novice's approach of the software package, but that doesn't mean you can't do good things with Vue. Please show me one single 3D novice who's looking at his first render and who's thinking something along the lines of "Oh my god, the final render preset is bad, there isn't nearly enough antialiasing on my plants, TG2'S preset is better". ::) Those people do need render presets more than anything else, and for their first images the quality provided by the "Final" render preset is more than enough. In your opinion, what should e-on call those presets? Final = "Fast and lousy settings for beginners"? Ultra ="Good quality for advanced users that are too lazy to tweak the settings by themselves?" Come on, you can't judge a software renderer on its preset render settings. I don't believe that the best TG2 artists around here don't tweak TG2's render settings, but rather use the standard ones. You can tweak Vue the same, and the results can be amazing while keeping render times reasonably low if you know what you're doing. The most distracting things about Vue are those people who go like "I've fired up Vue once, loaded a preset terrain, a preset atmosphere and a preset render setting, and it looked like cr*p. Conclusion: Vue is bad, I'll never use it again." I wonder what a Terragen 2 image might look like with a standard heightfield without tweaking, a most simple surface and an untweaked atmosphere. Does it look ok? Maybe. Does it look like true art or even realistic? I don't think so. If you want to truely criticise a software package you should have some experience with it that goes beyond a five minute point-and-click adventure .
That said I do think Vue has a lot of issues that cause a lot of frustration in regular intervalls, but the render quality is not one of it. Vue 8 is the buggiest version for me so far, and I am really mad at e-on for still not fixing some of the most serious bugs since V6. It's a love-hate relationship: I love Vue for its possiblities and workflow (when it does work as advertised), I hate it for its shortcomings and instability. The difference between me and a lot of other people who criticise Vue is that I've used the software extensively and don't just repeat things other people said. My frustration is based on personal experience, but so are also my positive experiences and my judgement on render quality.
I've purchased Terragen 2 with Xfrog plants a month ago, and I've been reading Tutorials ever since. I find Terragen to be much more stable than Vue, but much less accessible. Slowly I am getting the hang of it now, and I do think I can create a lot of things with some experience that wouldn't be possible in Vue, and vice-versa. I bought TG2 because of my frustration over V8, for some of its features and for its excellent support that you get in this forum and from planetside. The pricing doesn't hurt either. For a lack of long-time experience I can't comment on the render quality of the Terragen 2 renders in this thread, but I'd never say TG2 has a bad render engine because I've seen renders with low AA settings circling around the internet. In fact, I am so looking forward to learning this package in detail and using it together with Vue to get the best out of both worlds.
To contribute something to the topic, I rendered a scene in Vue 8 with the XFrog California Red Fir, a custom atmosphere with standard (very flat) lighting, no quality boost, the same infinite procedural terrain that Marc used and the "Final" preset. Render time was 5'33'' on a Core i7 @ 2.6Ghz. If you use a Core 2 Quad you might have to double that render time.
To Marc:
I do think that this might become a very interesting comparison chart, and I appreciate the time and effort you're going to spend completing this. I suggest you use the tips from wetbanana, Walli and the Planetside staff to make the comparison more useful and fair :)
Oh, and by the way: The sample scene depicted at page two of this thread ("Cerro Verde") which has a "less-than-realistic" terrain is a sample scene that came with Vue 5, which was 5 years ago! Why e-on kept this scene on Vue 8's sample CD is beyond me as it is outdated by now. However, the scene itself is still great and in 2005 it blew everybody's mind. If you want to judge Vue 8 on its sample scenes then you should probably use a sample scene that wasn't created with an older version :)
Daniel
Quote from: FrankB on January 22, 2010, 04:21:01 AM
That's the trick: don't leave them alone.
...as they might be so foolish to have a look under the carpet (garbage) and inside the cupboard (skeletons) ;D.
Yes, that's a good way of handling this issue; in addition, if the contact person is a fast talker good at handwaving, he/she might even persuade the reviewer that certain "things" are actually features.
Oh, in a previous post I forgot another of the few real Vue pros: you can find his work at http://nukeation.deviantart.com/ (http://nukeation.deviantart.com/).
Bye... and forget about "Cerro Tolo"!
P.S.: a few months ago I saw in Renderosity Vue gallery an image which was little more than Cerro Tolo plus some tweaks ...and it got good comments, would you believe it?
Bluestorm,
Thank you for your input. This is the kind of thought out response I was hoping for. Excellent.
My approach will simply be to provide company history and philosophy, demonstrate the abilities of each program and let the reader decide. I will not provide my bias, feelings or allow others to influence the information. My opinion means nothing. A personal objective approach is meaningless.
As you can tell, I am rethinking on how to tackle this challenge. This is due, in part, by the the overwhelming number of reply's to this thread and the verity of opinion. Some good, some questionable.
This task will certainly take a great deal of careful execution.
Thanks again,
Marc