Messages

1

Gallery / Re: Laurel.

« on: 2025-01-03, 20:04:53 »

Amazing job.
That curtain. jeez!

2

[Max] I need help! / Re: Multimap: Control over UV channel on all connected textures

« on: 2025-01-03, 18:23:28 »

Is there currently a way to control the uv channel of all the textures connected to the multimap without going one by one on each bitmap node?

Unless you are into scripting, I don't think there is a way to do it through multimap - UV channel is an attribute of Bitmap/CoronaBitmap, so it needs to be controlled from there.

Depending on the case you have, possible workaround will be to plug the multimap into triplanar and use it that way (unified mapping for all connected maps).

Oh, ok. Thanks.

3

[Max] Daily Builds / Re: CoronaPattern playground!

« on: 2025-01-03, 18:21:33 »

 but given the limitations of 3ds Max it was the only way to implement it.

I figured. Nothing wrong with that. I just wanted to make sure I was in the right path or maybe I was missing something. Thanks.

4

[Max] I need help! / Multimap: Control over UV channel on all connected textures

« on: 2025-01-03, 17:34:21 »

Is there currently a way to control the uv channel of all the textures connected to the multimap without going one by one on each bitmap node?

5

[Max] Daily Builds / Re: CoronaPattern playground!

« on: 2025-01-03, 17:12:40 »

Corona Pattern can now use the mapping channel of the base object, or the pattern node, OR BOTH. Why is this big news? Mainly because it was not possible before and it allows for creating things like carpets where each of the pattern nodes has its own texture (e.g. diffuse color, bump, or other property) and the base geometry has another one.

It's already available in the daily builds - https://forum.corona-renderer.com/index.php?topic=41598.0

It can be a bit tricky to set up, so I am attaching a sample scene.

Hi all,
I'm not sure I understand how this works. The texture for the base object with a uv channel of 3 is controlled by a uvw map with a uv channel 1 in my tests, while the second texture has a uv channel of 2 and it's controlled by the uv's of the pattern object, even when the actual uv channel is 1 as well. It's weird, no?

6

[Max] I need help! / Re: Still no OPEN button to open a CXR in the VFB?

« on: 2024-12-17, 14:19:42 »

Hi, You should be able to do region rendering. Find the video attached below.

:/

So the steps to bring an existing CXR rendering to the vfb and select the area I want to re-render is:
1- open it in the history tab
2- click on the pencil button to edit it in the vfb
3- click on render
4- very quickly select the region before other parts of the rendering get ruined with noise

The fact region render is unavailable when editing the file is a bug.

Alternative solution that I cannot understand why the devs don't implement:
1- Click on open cxr from the vfb
2- select region
3- click render.

Why can't that be done?
Open, together with save, are the most basic functions of any software since the 80s.
I don't get it.

7

[Max] I need help! / Re: Still no OPEN button to open a CXR in the VFB?

« on: 2024-12-16, 20:38:56 »

Instead of clicking on resume you should click on edit icon.

Find a video attached.

I'm sorry, but one of the main reasons I need to just open a CXR is to draw a region and render it. The region button is not available when bringing an image the way you suggested.
Am I correct?

8

[Max] I need help! / Re: Still no OPEN button to open a CXR in the VFB?

« on: 2024-12-13, 15:22:45 »

Instead of clicking on resume you should click on edit icon.

Find a video attached.

Oh! ok.
Thanks!

9

[Max] General Discussion / Re: Corona 12 Update 1

« on: 2024-12-12, 17:15:32 »

I'm stuck in the past on both Max and Corona but judging from the posts here I think you should be adding info on which Max versions you are using, too. It looks like Max is not getting the QA that it needs/deserves and there could be issues with Max' internal notification system (there were some in the past) that could interfere with how a renderer accesses the API. For example, a seemingly simple thing like hardware hit testing in the viewports for example could slow down IR quite a lot.

I'm using Max 2024 (latest update), the only thing that has changed each time is the last few versions of Corona.  So that makes Corona the common denominator?

What hardware?

10

[Max] General Discussion / Re: Corona 12 Update 1

« on: 2024-12-12, 17:13:42 »

I'm stuck in the past on both Max and Corona but judging from the posts here I think you should be adding info on which Max versions you are using, too. It looks like Max is not getting the QA that it needs/deserves and there could be issues with Max' internal notification system (there were some in the past) that could interfere with how a renderer accesses the API. For example, a seemingly simple thing like hardware hit testing in the viewports for example could slow down IR quite a lot.

I use Changsoo's script for GPU hit testing and so far I didn't notice any slowdown.

Max 2025.3, Win 11 24H2, Corona 12 U1.
Ryzen 9950x, GTX 1080ti

11

[Max] General Discussion / Re: Corona 12 Update 1

« on: 2024-12-12, 02:58:36 »

Not happening here...
Everything's working as expected I'd say except for a few bugs, but nothing serious.

12

Hardware / Re: AMD 9950x

« on: 2024-12-11, 14:33:47 »

I've been working on 2 3970x machines (identical) for 3-4 years now and I've had zero issues. The only thing is after long rendering sessions the frequency may drop to ~3.45GHz (less than the advertised 3.7) but that may be to cooling (using Noctuas NH-U14S single fan). Otherwise pretty stable system!

Thanks.
I'll need to consider them the next time

13

Hardware / Re: AMD 9950x

« on: 2024-12-11, 14:04:57 »

A little off-topic but I see this processor is not that far away in bencharks than my own threadripper 3970x that I bought for 3-4x the price (some years ago). Is the consumer line of AMDs now that capable?

Pretty much yes I'd say. The Zen 2 Threadrippers are now like 5 years old and we had 3 succeeding Zen generations in between. The "problem" however is that the top end also got a lot faster which means sure, the 9950x is as fast / faster as the 3970x but then the top end chip is still like 2.75x faster than the 9950x :)

They come with issues though, right? I mean, threadrippers. At least with corona. That's my impression after several years of reading here on the forum that those using them were not able to get the full performance. So I was always hesitant to spend that kind of money on more problems.
Is that true do you think?

14

Off-Topic / Re: Clients and AI

« on: 2024-12-11, 02:27:52 »

But this seems to be an odd relationship. And I don't think AI is the issue.

Stockholm syndrome? :)

15

Hardware / Re: AMD 9950x

« on: 2024-12-10, 16:04:51 »

I recently bought my 9950x.

After some tests (testing with 4 of my scenes), the improvement over the 7950x is 16-18%.
(Scene 1: 16.63% improvement
Scene 2: 17.71% improvement
Scene 3: 22.32% improvement
Scene 4: 16.44% improvement)

BUT, I didn't have the 7950x overclocked because the temps were already high at stock.
AMD claims the 9950x is more efficient so I enabled PBO, which led to a higher difference.

Hope this helps.