In the grand scheme of things, I think you could get 2 renders looking similar using both cycles and V-ray. It looks like V-ray has slightly more restrictions as to what is supported on the GPU compared to cycles (currently the only thing not supported on cycles GPU to my knowledge is subsurface scattering, which is on its way). Vray even have camera, Its a render view.
This allows cycles to have unique optimization strategies for rending, but it costs in its ease of use in my opinion.Īlso cycles seems to be built for use on the GPU. The camera angle is not even the same, these images have quite a lot of differences, which wouldnt do much on the render time but still having the same angle and camera lense would be good. In Vray, glossiness is just a parameter for the material.
You can have to take care to scale parameter if you use 3DS in Blender.
Use 3DS from SketchUp to Blender or SKP import add-on in Blender (because you work on PC Windows). Example would be to do a normal looking material in cycles, you have to mix diffuse with "glossy" shader. It seems to work nice from Blender to SketchUp. In terms of realistic rendering and animation, Blender would be a great. V-ray seems to take a more traditional approach in just having a giant material with lots of settings. The speed leaves a lot to be desired coming from VRay, but thats a complaint. In cycles we define materials using "nodes". The differences is in their implementation and ease of use. V-Ray and Cycles use similar methods to light a scene (path tracing, global illumination).