I have been in the archviz industry for 20 plus years and as cool as realtime is the comparison is not a very good representation of a paid project. Most projects require more complex environments with 100's of assets and more complex shader setups. Also if you first put the scene together in Max and then export to unreal your doubling up on work. It would be interesting to see how it would handle a low rise residential project with full landscaping and high end interiors.
I agree the detail isn't equivalent on the UE render. I've tried UE before and your right. You need to build everything in 3ds max and then export. It's more work than staying native to 3dsmax. And when I used it years ago the UV mapping was a pain the a**e to use in UE. Box mapping didn't cut it (things may have changed now). I'm still not convinced.
@@studioadrianiz5519 Exactly. " Most projects require more complex environments with 100's of assets " But man... UE5 has Nanite and this engine is suitable for big games (with hundreds of assets) and movies, series etc. " doubling up on work " Why? I have to model the scene anyway. A few clicks to export to UE, where I set the lights, cameras, materials, etc. (I only create these in UE, not in Blender/Max AND UE.) And if you make a GOOD template project for UE, you can also save a lot of time.
And in reverse you need to bake every model textures in substance again if you want to move polygons and resulting models are not editable without repeating whole pipeline from 0. Corona IPR completely covers realtime feature in most cases enabling fast model and material editing what is unreal in unreal
the pathtracing in UE5 can get more details than the Lumen default viewport, but take much more time to render (with high details) and for the reflections with lumen, under render features there's an option to change the default reflection method to RayTraced
Thanks for this, I've been using Corona for a while and recently did an animation with Unreal 5 and was surprised how good it looks and how much faster it is.
The amount of extra work required to correctly bring a project from Max to Unreal is vastly compensated by the amount of content you can then output from Unreal...plus the possibility to create interactive experiences for your clients.
Thank you for sharing. For me, Corona probably only win the reflection...(it does really good actually), but consider the time and environment, UE5 >>> CORONA)
Great video. I definitely highly preferred the quality of the reflections in the glass on Ccorona, but with some tweaking I'm certain UE5 could look even better than the corona results. Excellent video and presentation, thank you for sharing :)
I Agree with Joe below. I also have 20+ years experience and the time difference of setting up complex scenes in UE vs Max or even just porting from Max to UE and then setting up is much more than the few minutes/hours you are going to save on rendering - scene set up is days compared to rendering which is minutes. Furthermore there is a marked difference for me in the overall lighting quality. The soft gradients and details in the shadows is what describes 3d objects and the space to the viewer and also what gives a more photorealistic look - which is where the extra resource overhead is going when rendering with corona - ie. more light bouncing around etc. The UE renders just look brighter and more colorful in some instances but this will take 10 seconds to achieve in photoshop - cant see how some people says it looks better. The UE renders look far more artificial in my opinion in terms of lighting, and in the case of this example is relying very heavily on the quality of the models and textures of the assets being used. If it was a space with plane bare walls and generic or custom made textures (which is mostly the case in Arch Viz) then the difference would be more noticeable because there would be more reliance on lighting and high quality GI define shapes. I suppose it depends on your application. If you are not interested in the highest quality and flexibility and your clients cant tell the difference then maybe UE is the answer. I would be more interested if we could use the engine straight inside Max somehow 😅
Thank you for your work and time man!) Hopefully you will share pathtracing method for same scene It Will be awesome! Because there is less videos like this Showing the real scenario usage for UE5.1 compared with Corona 9 Thank you 🤝🏻👍👍👍
If you consider how far Unreal Engine has come even in the last year, the things you point out here such as reflections will soon be rendered in real time and be perfect. UE is an amazing tool, for game creation, but now for renders in and of themselves. The only thing I don't use UE for is modelling etc.
I agree. The fact that it is a gaming engine with developers always on the brink of the newest technology is really exciting. It will be on par if not exceed traditional renderers in a few years.
Imo the workflow of UE5 is so slow that the realtime speed of it isn't really worth it e.g. you setup fairly complex exterior city scene in UE5 in 10 days and render instantly, meanwhile you can setup same scene in 3D Package in like 3 days and render in like 1 hour so you basically save 7 days of time using old 3D package workflow and get better result in that "imaginary" scenario since 3D Packages does everything better and way more efficient such as shading workflow, lighting, object/material outliner systems, animation, UI/UX, loading/processing times, etc. for example think about shading a car procedurally in UE5 vs Corona to get it photoreal using just few essential bitmaps, I could do whole car in Corona in like 1-2 hours, meanwhile it would take probably like 1-2 hours just to make basic glass or carpaint material in UE5. However huge advantage of UE5 would be for animations and likely (V)RAM usage, I guess you can throw a lot more textures in UE5 compared to Corona, etc and ofc there's Nanite.
Все равно отражения и преломления на cpu выглядят лучше. Но, unreal 5.1 очень хорош. Уже близко подобрался по качеству к corona. Да и время переноса в unreal тоже надо учитывать в реальной работе.
Fantastic comparison! For exterior I would say that UE5 looks better than Corona. Super interested in you making a video of an interior scene with both engines as well😊 Keep up the good work👍
You are comparing apples to oranages. Your render settings for exterior are not properly adjusted, such shot can be done in few minutes. You have wrong light intensity, temperature set between both renderers. This comparison has no real value. Im working with corona since alpha versions and i can render WAY more complex scenes with vegetation, grass and trees in few minutes. This is just wrongly adjusted and unoptimised scene in corona.
Thank you for your effort, excellent job. While Lumen is still amazing, especially for animations, Path Tracing is still better for stills. if Path Tracing doesn't require an Nvidia RTX card, and you have the time, can you give it a try and make a comparison between the 3 please? (Max Corona, UE5 Lumen, UE5 Path Tracing)
Very good comparison, awesome work man. One question, the building reflections became better with Raytracing, but pool reflections were much worst, I wonder why that happened.
I use both Corona and UE5 but I am not doing ArchViz. This was a very interesting video to me, thank you! In the middle of the video I was thinking I would like to see the sources and good you have put them available too. Big thanks!
Hey I also started learning UE5 just this year! Got a good price on a ThinkPad P1 off Kijiji and now I'm flying. Hope your progress is fast! I've been so bogged down learning the technical side I've only touched landscape and foliage creation so far. Making my model in SketchUp just because I'm familiar with it, but now I'm increasingly looking to do everything in UE5. So. Many. Modelling. Tutorials. But UE5 continues to get ahead of all the other programs due to Nanite, Lumen and Megascans compatibility. It's fucking SICK I love this program not to mention the fact that it's free.. like.. whaaaaat?! It's so crazy to me. So, good luck to you! (Good luck to you too @stan3dart but you don't really need it... you are clearly already a pro)
UE5 cant hold up to Corona in detail? How? 😂 Nanite actually enables you to render tenthousands of assets in realtime and with correct lighting thanks to Lumen and raytraced light and reflexions, realtime. You all just dont know shit about UE5 as it seems. 😳
Unreal is fun, until the client needs changes. still, the corona render is extremely useful for this industry. just try to set up Architectural Glass in Unreal, 50 clicks until the materials are visible.
Glass remains the UE's weak point so far only in Lumen mode. But with each Engine update, real progress is visible. When working with Path Tracing, the glass is very easy to set up.
Thank you for your efforts and time, Stan!!! Watch this video, I'm really love and want to learn Unreal Engine asap!!! Thank you so much and hope see more video tutorials from you brother!!!
LMAO people defending offline rendering in 2023??? for real??? UE is a revolution, I personally give offline renders 1, 2 years tops, the insane gain on render time and real time previs with an almost final quality look is unheard of, that only without even mentioning libraries, FX, ease of use, interactivity is enough to kill all other render engines. so Offline rendering is finally dead!! Thanks Nvidia!
This comparison is awesome. Truly beautiful images. I also use UE5 for archViz, and i have made the transition from Vray to UE about 3 yrs ago when Raytracing dropped. I noticed you did not use high-resolution mode (tiling) for your images. I am using a RTX 3080, and I found that if I needed to get resolutions above 4k my card could not handle an "average medium-sized" rendering of a housing development. However, I notice that UE5.1 hi-resolution mode seems to be now broken and any renderings over 2k crashes unreal! For that reason, I have moved back to UE5.0. Have you experienced this during your testing?
Good content. btw you can get the same Megascans result with the original source file or normal bump setting. But you need to customize Datasmith export, not the default one. The default export setting will give the result as yours. I would like to see a comparison video with Megascan quality in 3ds max and UE after you change Datasmith export and download settings (Scoure file or normap). Source file is very detailed and high poly so if you want to optimize, use corona proxy or chaos scatter. If you appreciate my suggestion, I would like to see comparasion video of Megascan quality (will be useful for the most people) .
I don't use either but IMO this is really not a fair comparation, Corona is a full CPU path-tracing meant to be the most realistic possible, not to take big shortcuts to be fast possible, Unreal 5 is a game engine and so uses many cleaver tricks and workarounds to achieve its image in real time, in detriment of realism and quality. For example in UE5 (and UE4 before it) the water caustics, aren't real caustics, calculated in real time using raytracing and real physics calculations they are a pre rendered basic texture animation in a shader. So UE5 takes less time, because it calculates way less things, if that matters in the end? To me today no, real time rendering has reached a acceptable level for basic archviz but for a movie like Avatar or someone trying to make the most realistic and physical accurate possible renders, Corona certainly looked more realistic to me for that, at lest the shadows, lighting, the water (like i said unreal one is fake caustics) and reflections looked better, in corona there's also real light refraction, that UE5 doesn't do. Ok perhaps apart from the rock floor that looks way to smooth and washed-out in corona but that is perhaps the way you setup the scene materials and lighting not really the render being less accurate there. Just my opinion.
unreal etc is nice, but i prefer corona more at this test. looks and feels way more realistic and precise (ate least with building model), with litte of post processing, it would be stunning. now with raytacing and all that, unreal will probably catch up, but render times will increase, you also would need super fast and super expensive gpu card (or more of them), which is similiar to high count cpu cores or multiple of them. what i want to say is that things are more and more similiar, no vice versa. we slowly coming to high pracise raytraced renders, that once existed and were and still are top quality archvis works on the market, when true masters are present. now it will slowly shifted to gpu based render engine, nothing else.
in corona can render it 5 minutes per image on AMD 5950x with intel denoising and lack of detail on background mountains because of wrong materials settings i think BUT i think UE can do precise contact shadows soon and it change all static renders
hi, I can't get rendering with the vray engine in 3dsmax, rendering can't be started even though I've assigned a light and camera, what do you think could be the problem?
Muy buen tutorial para poder comparar, muchas cosas. Gracias y saludos desde España :) Very good tutorial to be able to compare, many things. Thanks and greetings from Spain :)
at 6:10 there was some unreal 5 artifacts at the low edge on the ceiling, i tried to recreate it with simple cube objects, there was no light or shadow artifacts in viewport at least.
well you cna expet as much from UE engine wihc os more of a game engine that also has addityional bonus features while other engines/softwares were SPECIFICALY madewith something in mind. Yes UE is slowly becoming from strictly a game engine into basicaly jack of all trades BUT as alwasy it will be lesser to some otehrs due to resorces to develop is going all oevr the place while otehrs are more focused and fousing their resorces and development on specific thig for a specific task.
Yes, I can not agree with you. But for me personally, it is important to have a multifunctional and flexible tool for solving various problems, especially at the stage of coordinating the project concept with the customer.
Thank you for this comparison. Very beautiful and comparable results for both. It is really high praise for where unreal is. I do have objection to your scene setup. You are using real-time software, like unreal that uses proxies for every stage of the render. It is not fair to compare it to non-denoised corona with artificially high noise limit- like you've set- to 1.7%. Using Corona high quality denoising and a much more appropriate denoise limit, instead of arbitrary pass count, you could get much faster and cleaner results. Comparing those results with other limitations of unreal, you would find that Corona is still noticeably better. This may change sometime in the future, but that time is still not today. Either way, unreal is getting very impressive.
