![]() Yes - it is technically the same render engine, but if you put a Ferrari engine into a Volkswagon, you are still sitting in a VW. Cameras in Cinema are so much easier to use and more physically accurate. Parametric workflow - things like Extrude along path and sweeps are run by splines and generators in Cinema - keeping them as objects you can manipulate and update in real time.Ĭameras - there is no way to even compare the two. Render Speed - it just cooks faster all around.Ĭloner tool - think live, parametric duplicate array Redshift, Octane, Arnold, Unreal - we are rich with render options these days. That said - Corona is CPU based, but still offers a real time preview window to build your scenes with. Once you go to GPU rendering and get real time feedback on lighting and material creation, you cannot go back. I use Corona as my main render engine and use Redshift for all of my volumetrics. I haven't used the built in render engines in Cinema in about 5 years. Object handling - I can rotate millions and millions of polys in Cinema without it even blinking, where the same scene in VW is slow to refresh.Īdd on render engine support. Cinemas material system is miles ahead in ease of use and realism. Materials - I think the material system in VW is clunky and hard to use. Object management - the ability to see the hierarchy of your whole scene and manipulate it via a manager as well as per object in the scene makes the workflow much faster. Just the ability to move and point lights via gimbal alone makes this much faster to light scenes. Lighting - the entire lighting system is miles ahead in Cinema. I have so many thoughts about this, but I will try to keep it top line:
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |