Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Klaus Cornell Box in 3DSMaxDesign 2012

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
    #1

    Klaus Cornell Box in 3DSMaxDesign 2012

    Made some test renderings using Klaus cornell box in 3DSMax Design 2012. http://revitforum.org/showthread.php...hlight=cornell

    To better prevent burn out areas, Klaus 20000 lumen/1KW power beamer was replaced by a 6000lumen/2x35W OOTB fluorescent fixture.

    The rendering in Revit with Klaus custom settings took 14min on my machine.

    The file was linked as fbx via FileLink manager and no adjustments were made to materials, lights or cameras.
    The exposure value and the light burn coefficient are exact the same as in Revit.
    (There is a difference how Revit and Max apply gamma values))


    Following rendertechnics/engines were used:

    1) iRay: Rendertime: 14min, just hit render


    2) MentalRay: FinalGather:

    Rendertime:12min

    Final Gather Precision: Medium, FG Bounces: 0
    Image Precision: High, min 1, Max 16
    Soft Shadows Precision: 8x, High Quality
    Glossy Reflection Precision: 5x, High Quality
    Glossy Refraction Precision: 3x, High Quality


    Rendertime:13min

    Final Gather Precision: High, FG Bounces: 0
    Image Precision: High, min 1, Max 16
    Soft Shadows Precision: 4x, High Quality
    Glossy Reflection Precision: 3x, High Quality
    Glossy Refraction Precision: 2x, High Quality


    3) MentalRay: Importons and Irradiance Particles:

    Rendertime: 11min

    Importons: Density: 0.2 Trace Depth: 0, Traverse
    Irradiance Particles: Rays: 256, Indirect: 3, Interpolate All, Interpolation: 128
    Image Precision: High, min 1, Max 16
    Soft Shadows Precision: 8x, High Quality
    Glossy Reflection Precision: 5x, High Quality
    Glossy Refraction Precision: 3x, High Quality
    Final Gather: Disabled


    Rendertime: 13min

    Importons: Density: 0.3 Trace Depth: 2, Traverse
    Irradiance Particles: Rays: 384, Indirect: 3, Interpolate all, Interpolation: 128
    Image Precision: High, min 1, Max 16
    Soft Shadows Precision: 8x, High Quality
    Glossy Reflection Precision: 5x, High Quality
    Glossy Refraction Precision: 3x, High Quality
    Final Gather: Disabled


    Rendertime: 18min

    Importons: Density: 0.4 Trace Depth: 2, Traverse
    Irradiance Particles: Rays: 512, Indirect: 3, Interpolate all, Interpolation: 192
    Image Precision: High, min 1, Max 16
    Soft Shadows Precision: 8x, High Quality
    Glossy Reflection Precision: 5x, High Quality
    Glossy Refraction Precision: 3x, High Quality
    Final Gather: Disabled


    Conclusion:

    MentalRay in 3DsMax does the job better in the same amount of time.
    Especially the new Importons and Irradiance Particles method is far superior than the native revit method.

    -rpict
    Attached Files
    Tags: None
    #2
    Great test rpict! Thanks.

    Not surprised that Max does a better job in less time, but very cool to see the different results. Just installed the premium suite last night, so maybe it´s time to dig back into Max - It´s been years since I last had the opportunity to use it, hope I still remember just a little :beer:

    Would be so cool to have the same engines and possibilities in Revit, but that´ll probably never happen - Because then we won´t buy Max (Or update to Premium) and Autodesk will make less money.
    Klaus Munkholm
    "Do. Or do not. There is no try."

    Comment

      #3
      Originally posted by Munkholm View Post
      Would be so cool to have the same engines and possibilities in Revit, but that´ll probably never happen - Because then we won´t buy Max (Or update to Premium) and Autodesk will make less money.
      Ah, but just as possible; if Revit could do those great renderings and use the office farm to do it fast, that would make Revit an even more compelling platform, and might just bring over some converts, making Autodesk even more money.
      Option 1 assumes the Microsoft mentality of forcing people to buy your stuff whether they really want to or not. Option 2 is a more Apple like idea of making your stuff so good people want to buy it. Short term, and on paper, the Microsoft approach looks better. But long term in the real world my money is on Apple's approach.

      Gordon
      Pragmatic Praxis

      Comment

      Previous template Next

      Related Topics

      Collapse
      Working...
      X