Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Basshunter

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 19
+ please make it work with HDRI lighting/backgrounds too :)  Pretty much useless if it's only accessible in Corona Sky map.

[Scatter] Feature Requests / "Use object local axis" option
« on: 2023-10-14, 01:58:50 »
It seems impossible to make objects rotate on it's local Z axis ONCE they've been rotated on X or Y axis FIRST.

It would be helpful to have an "Use object local axis" option for both "Translation" and "Rotation".

My Goal:

Scatter Step 01:

Scatter Step 02:

Scatter Step 03:

Our dev team checked the behavior, but unfortunately it's completely outside of our control:
We update the IR based on messages that we get from 3ds Max, the parameters we get there are very brief. It is sometimes impossible to get any useful information from them. It gets the modified node (the modified object, not the camera), so we can't tell why it happens only when we are rendering from the camera. Also there is nothing like "before" and "after" state which we could compare to see if something really changed.
This is something that can't be fixed on our side. We just get from Max the information that the object is still moving, while it is not.

We may try looking into it again at some point, but the most likely scenario is that we just have to consider it a limitation.

How is it that V-Ray doesn't have this problem but you do?

Even Vantage lets you apply your LUTs in linear:

[Max] Feature Requests / Re: The most wanted feature?
« on: 2023-09-08, 18:29:32 »
I'm sorry for sounding rude. I don't want that.

It's frustrating though how little attention this feature is been given by the team despite the frequent requests from the users

[Max] Feature Requests / Re: The most wanted feature?
« on: 2023-09-08, 17:27:41 »
I hear mention of Vantage now and then, but I didn't get an answer when I last asked this question: everyone is aware that it is a paid product now, and costs roughly $600 a year? So when you say you want Vantage compatibility, you are saying you would be willing to pay that?

I'm pretty sure you haven't just heard people asking for it "now and then" since we've been asking for it all the time and everywhere. But it seems you guys don't want to make that move. Just Make a poll. Try to reach most people with it and you'll find out Vantage and GPU rendering are the most wanted feature.

I personally had to move back to V-Ray GPU/Vantage after getting a 4090 and the difference in speed is massive. It's just on another level. I do prefer Corona's more straight forward workflow and UI, but at this point in time that's all it has to compete. V-Ray development is way faster, GPU rendering is way faster, and now you have Vantage compatibility.

thanks, then I think it should be completely disabled unless one switches to HQ quality view mode. The way it is now at least, it just feels buggy and hard to work with. ANd most people don't need to constantly see an accurate interpretation in the viewport at all times.


[Max] Feature Requests / Re: Render Resolution per Camera
« on: 2023-07-20, 19:56:03 »
Recently started using V-Ray GPU and found out it's possible to set resolution per camera.
This seems to be the case with some other features that have been requested here from the beginning of times.

Vantage support

[Max] Feature Requests / Re: physical material
« on: 2023-07-10, 01:03:33 »
I can post example when I get time, but it's effectively a Cavity map, which is sort of detailed AO map that focuses on areas that wouldn't reflect because they're cavities :- ).
Got it. Once again, thank you for the insight. Really enjoy reading about this kind of stuff : )

[Max] Feature Requests / Re: physical material
« on: 2023-07-10, 00:01:35 »
Because most surfaces have cavities that might be wider below than above, so they trap a lot of light, effectively cancelling any reflection (because the light will bounce inside).
But simply using bump/normal map doesn't produce such light-trapping information, and even displacement does not. It would have to be vector-displacement, and very granular.

To create life-like digital twin of some real-world surface, the material + geometry have to fully replicate the total complexity there is. But usually the geometry in 3D is simplified, it's never as super complex and detailed, so the material needs to add that information. But the only way a material can add that remaining information, is by trickery. Thus, 100perc. PBR material will look uncanny, always smoother than should be.

And then there are special cases, like Wood. Wood has multi-directional anisotropy/SSS effect along the grain pattern, something that generalized shader cannot recreate (only true BRDF scan like ChaosScans).
So by doing some reflection mapping, you can at least partly fake it, and make it look more real.

Most people doing scanning have already realized it, it's why when you look at latest Megascans, they bake-down some cavity into Albedo, they don't diffuse it totally.

The reason why Dubcat advocated for IOR mapping, which you can now super simply achieve  just by using DisneySpecular slot :- ), is that CoronaPhysicalMaterial, though almost every generalized 3D shader, just by using either normal mapping or roughness, it doesn't modulate the specularity enough. At least when you compare to real-world sample of same material. Is the Shader wrong? I guess the Devs would say no, but we already went through how many shader models and they always had something wrong :- ). To me we're still long-way from something that behaves absolutely like real material and maybe that's not even possible with generalized shader. The metals are already there, the GGX with Tail can replicate any metal almost 99perc. But the non-metals, particularly materials that have deep micro-structure, like Fabrics and Wood, those still look wrong.

And what is "Sheen" after all :- ) ? Just nice to have non-PBR fake (not needed if you use super-detailed GeoPattern for every fabric, but that would be super impractical, so hence, fake solution to rescue).

Thanks for taking your time to elaborate. I found this really interesting.

Guess I should start incorporating this into my workflow. Still got lot of questions though. You mentioned fabric and wood as materials where a mapped reflection is needed and excluded metal and more simple materials like plastic and plaster. But I guess there're more materials whose reflection we could map. Terrains and dusty surfaces usually look too shiny to me, specially in V-Ray. Not sure if that's another good case for a mapped reflection.

On the other hand, I'm not sure how a reflection map should look like for these materials. So I wonder if there's any good lecture or tutorial you could recommend.

[Max] Feature Requests / Re: physical material
« on: 2023-07-08, 22:04:56 »
Mapping reflection is still necessary even for PBR, 100perc. physical correct materials would require microscopic displacement so yup, use that slot.

Hey Juraj. Would you shed some light on this please? I have always considered mapping the reflection a "not physically correct" practice and hence avoided it. What cases do you considered it to be necessary? What would be the difference between the effect produced by microscopic displacement and the one from roughness?

Dubcat once said something about IOR maps being necessary for most/all materials to look realistic. He tried to explained that to me but to be honest, I didn't fully understand (probably didn't frame the question right). Is this somehow similar to what you achieve by mapping reflection?

[Max] Daily Builds / Re: New Corona Lister Feedback
« on: 2023-07-02, 18:35:26 »
Can you add a list renaming feature?


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 19