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 - Nejc Kilar

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 72
That doesn't sound good, nope. Can you guys please try describing what's happening a bit more in detail please? Is it just 3ds Max that gets sluggish, is it the mouse cursor as well, is it just the rendering performance or is the whole system (Windows included) just a lot slower?

I apologize if I'm not understanding your question correctly but in Corona you currently cannot have the camera "inside" the VDB cloud - it won't render properly if you do. Same goes for volumetric effects that aren't global. So if you have a box with a Volume MTL applied to it you won't be able to position the camera inside that box and get proper volumetrics going.

We are aware of this limitation and we're keeping track of the requests so thank you for getting in touch!

[C4D] I need help! / Re: Volumetric's like I'm 5
« on: 2021-12-23, 13:53:12 »
Haha, I'm still laughing at the title, well done sir!

So what I'm about to write down is supposed to be taken as mostly oversimplification but hopefully it'll be a bit useful to you.

You can perhaps kind of think of absorption as a parameter that will affect how deep the light rays will go inside the volume. The deeper they go (and depending on the setting) the dimmer they'll become. So eventually after traversing through the volume for a certain distance, they'll be smothered. So kind of like saying after a certain distance the ray will completely "disappear". If you add color to the absorption then you know it's a similar story except only a certain light wavelength (color) will bounce back to your eyes.

So thinking about it like that the absorption will mainly only result in things becoming dimmer. (again, trying to oversimplify things).

Then, when you add scattering you can think of adding some "substance" to the volume. Tiny particles that will cause the light to scatter and not just pass through the volume in a straight line. Now once the light starts scattering that's when the visual magic happens because then you'll get the "god ray" effects going and all those fun things.helpdes

Emission then sort of adds some kick to the light as it travels through the volume. So light as it passes through the volume it will gain emissive properties (think glowing plasma effects).

Again, I'm trying to oversimplify things here and I'm not sure its entirely helpful but... Hopefully it helps :)

So 3990x is still the choice for me I guess. Do you think is there any possibility that the price drops after the new AMD releases? It $6,000 right now in USA 😭

Yas, I'm noticing pricing upticks in European stores as well although the cheapest 3990x deal I was able to find is still 4000€ which is on point with the MSRP (100€ more seems downright trivial compared to all the price hikes lately lol).

I wonder if that is because we're getting new parts and the old ones might get discontinued? Although that seems unlikely since there's only Pro Threadrippers seemingly coming out in the next 6 months.

On the topic of new Threadrippers, new leaks!

Based on the leak above the 5995wx will get 200mhz extra on the single core and -200mhz on the all core boost. I don't doubt it won't be faster than the 3990x but if I may think out loud the 3990x might still be completely competitive. Although it is true that we still don't know whether these will be Zen 3 parts or Zen 3 V-Cache parts plus who knows if the actual boost clocks will end up being like that anyway. Let's see if they really do unveil these at CES :)

Didn't properly read the specs. If those leaks are true then these aren't fitted with V-Cache, not that it should matter much because it's been widely speculated it wouldn't help much outside of gaming and a few niche(r) tasks.

Aaaaand this is just in...

So given the chatter it might actually be that we get Zen 3 Threadrippers in Q1 next year but if these are indeed going to be Pro models I think it might be smart to be thinking about a noticeable price increase compared to say a non-Pro 3990x.

Well, there's gossip about the Zen 3 Threadrippers coming out but apparently the leaker community is split on what we can expect - if anything at all. From the looks of it there might be Pro Threadrippers coming out like for example the 5995wx and the like but with those I'd personally expect a higher price tag - so the perf per dollar proposition might get worse. Especially so considering that the 3990x and 3995wx (Pro) have a grand and something between them already. If you don't need the Pro features (more PCI-E lanes is one thing) then I think the price tag might be quite steep.

Then again there seem to be some consensus that we might not get any Threadrippers at all until the next next gen. That's how it goes with "leaks" I guess, hard to plan things :)

Above is just my personal view and speculation obviously. It might just as well happen that we get Non-Pro Threadrippers that'll cost less than the current parts although I think we can all agree that in the current chip shortage climate that'd be kind of... Near impossible? :)

Just my 5 cents.

Not hearing much about Sapphire Rapids in early 2022 although I might be completely wrong. If these are planned for say Q3 and Q4 then they'll kind of have to compete with Zen 4 Threadrippers potentially and based on Zen 4 Epyc those _might_ go up to 96 cores but that's a problem for tomorrow. If Sapphire Rapids aren't scheduled for 1H 2022 then you know... It's a bit further down the road :)

I'd just like to say that Jan summed it up perfectly with this sentence "we do not want users to use the material incorrectly". It's not so much "taking away options from you" as it is "ensuring your materials make sense".

You'll notice similar behavior when you'll try to create a Metal material that has Volumetrics. Metals don't exhibit these kinds of properties so the Physical MTL will grey out that option for you because enabling would be incorrect / not physically realistic.

And if we are being even more specific, Translucency itself is basically SSS with the main difference being that Translucency is designed to be used with "thin" meshes. For SSS to work you obviously need thickness and there are so many cases where having actual thickness on the model would be impractical (think high quality tree leafs, if you add thickness you're like 2x-ing the poly count that can already be super high to begin with) so that's where Translucency will take that "thin" mesh and simulate the SSS effect like the mesh has some thickness to it. Obviously, for objects with "noticeable" thickness you'll probably want to use SSS or Volumetric Scattering but for things like leafs or pieces of paper... Translucency!

And so now that we know that I think understanding the behavior where you can't use Translucency if you don't have "Thin shell" enabled makes more sense. Why would you want to enable Translucency for objects that have thickness? That would be incorrect usage of the functionality - Hence, it is greyed out when you aren't dealing with a thin mesh.

Hope that helps!

[C4D] General Discussion / Re: Physical material tutorial
« on: 2021-12-06, 16:57:11 »
I'm really glad that you're making these films. It's definitely needed!

To agree with ShahynRox some of the simple stuff can be moved over a bit quicker. Most users are not rank beginners.

The real need is to address some of the new ways of working - which to existing users are definitely not more intuitive.

Example below...  a simple bottle with greenish glass where it's thicker. Simple using the legacy material.
But the same settings give a completely different result in Physical. I have no idea how to set up my glass now - so just stick with legacy 99.9% of the time.

Can you enlighten me?

Thank you for the feedback, appreciate it!

For your particular example, I'm guessing you have the roughness set to a value quite a bit higher than 0% which is making the material ... Rougher.

We'll tackle this in the upcoming tutorials in the series but the roughness parameter affects both the roughness of your reflections as well as your refractions. So set that to match what you have set in the refraction channel in the legacy material and it should look similar. The physical MTL does use a different physical model for calculating refractions so values that aren't 100% glossy won't match 1:1, you'll probably want to tweak those slightly.

I am on a 3970x machine for 6 months now, and I am thinking of adding a second one to render consecutively. I am between the same 3970x or a 5950x, but I think the first one makes more sense, since I am used to the times it takes to render etc.
It's also about 2000€ in my country, and generally available (I hope I won't regret saying that).
(Also I have read somewhere about the 5950x rebooting randomly, but that may affect a very small percentage, or may be have been fixed by now.)

I would like to wait for the next year to see if anything new comes out, but not only do I need the second machine quickly, I also hope that those two will not feel obsolete with the new generation.

I am thinking of operating the second one independently and not as a render slave (copying the files over through the network and firing up 3dsMax and rendering). It may sound silly, but I have not tried Distributed Rendering yet, and with some crashes I'm reading about I think It might be a safe and not very time-wasting option.

Well on a $ per performance I think the 3970x will come out as less optimal but if time is of the essence then it really is the only option (that or the 3990x :) )  - in my opinion that is.

One thing to consider is that if you want to be running 3ds Max + Corona concurrently on a second machine you'll probably need to buy another set of licenses. With DR you typically don't.

[C4D] General Discussion / Re: Physical material tutorial
« on: 2021-12-06, 09:58:24 »
I appreciate the new initiative for more tutorials as it is a still a desideratum for C4D users. But the “design” of the tutorials is not ideal. In my opinion the videos are far too long compared to the low amount of content. Too many repetitions and redundant information. I do not need to hear every 5 sec that the physical material is much smarter and much more realistic than the legacy material. If you do not explain WHY, it is enough to say that once and then bring relevant information how to use it. Try to condense the explanations to the real core information so that the videos are 5 minutes long. The first “tutorial” is 12 minutes long and has no info that is worth more than 2 or 3 minutes. The same with the second video (17 minutes!). You could communicate all relevant information in 5 minutes. The time saved could be used to produce more tutorials on other features of Corona for C4D.
I hope you do not misinterpret my critical review of the tutorials published so far. I really hope to see more videos! So thank you for the effort!

You are welcome! Yeah, the clearcoat tutorial is still on the way and I'm hoping it'll answer the rest of your questions. Clearcoat to me is one of those things that once you "get" how it works you really start to realize just how many things you can do with it.

Howdy! This comment definitely comes off as constructive criticism and we're happy to hear feedback like that, so thank you!

We'll keep that in mind for future tutorials and future series. That said, to give you a little background on why we've decided to make these longer rather than shorter... Well, this series is designed to be all about the basics - and we're hoping these will be a good starting point for novice users as well and so we've figured it's better to say more rather than say less.

There's more content planned besides this series so we plan on covering lots of different topics in the future. And as a tidbit of production info, the length of these doesn't really affect the time needed to get them out the door. Surprisingly so! :)

Thank you for your feedback as well! Appreciate the references and the kind words!

[C4D] General Discussion / Re: Physical material tutorial
« on: 2021-12-03, 14:44:27 »
Howdy! So we've been kind of hard at work getting a new series of tutorials out and... The first two videos are out today! The series is all about the Physical Material so hopefully they'll help answer most of your questions.

Check out the Cinema 4D version here -

Now because some of the tutorials are still in the making I'd like to try and answer some of your questions here as well.

Why does IOR get greyed out when in “metal” mode? Have I been setting up metal wrong for years?
IOR gets greyed out because metals aren't defined by a single IOR function to begin with - it isn't the wrong way to do it but it isn't quite physical either. It can be done more intuitively and that's what we tried to do with Physical Material.
Metals typically have a curve that is much more complex than the IOR curve. The biggest thing is what happens towards the edges, those grazing angles can even be of a different color and so with the new Physical Material you can use the "Edge color" parameter to define how that behaves - whenever you are using the Metal metalness mode that is. Now strictly speaking, the Edge color parameter is not a scientific way to define every metal - again, every metal has its own "reflection" curve. But, you know, it'll get you there better than that single IOR will. You can also use the Complex IOR feature inside the Physical Material but at that point you are basically splitting hairs - lots of effort for not a whole lot of a result.

What does the “Level” setting do in edge color?
It controls the strength of the reflections on those grazing angles on metals.

Cleracoat: what’s the difference between “Amount” and “Roughness” (when to use what)?
Amount basically defines the strength of it. It can visually also look like how thick that clearcoat is - full amount will look thicker, more reflective.
Roughness controls how rough the surface is on a micro level basically - same as with the base layer roughness just that it only affects that clearcoat only.

Hopefully these answers will be helpful for now. Do make sure to pay to attention to our Youtube channel for more tutorials that'll go more in depth into the new Physical Material :)

Why on Earth is the 3990x (64/128) priced at ~$6,000 in 2021? Are we basically just waiting for the 96-core Genoa chip before 3990x prices will drop? What about 5950x, or is it not sufficient to operate as a render node?

Ha, here I'm able to find a 3990x for around 4000€ but getting a non 1000€ motherboard for it is... An art form.

Given the leaks lately there's a chance there won't be any Zen 3 Threadrippers except potentially Pro versions but somehow I can't quite imagine that they'd be priced in a way that it makes sense - the 3990x Pro model (WX) costs north of 5000€ and with the global chip shortages plus no competition in the HEDT space, I'm kind of inclined to think that if there is a Zen 3 Pro Threadripper lineup, it'll cost a lot more than the 3990x currently does. I could be wrong though :)

As for the render node, I think the 5950x makes sense but only in the context of the entire rendering farm you have and your workstations. My opinion is that if you are riding on a single machine, say a 3960x, a 5950x will complement it nicely. Plus, it's $ efficient, especially so with the recent discounts (the higher up the stack you go the more power you get but in terms of $ per performance its diminishing returns style). Now if you already have a 3990x and a 3970x in your office, well, in my opinion then the 5950x starts making a little less sense because you already have a lot of firepower - and to notice a big difference you'll need to add even more firepower.

Just thinking out loud here but if a 3990x and 3970x net you 10 hours of rendering (let's say you do animations) then a 5950x is going to make a bit of a dent to that render time but not a whole lot more. Now if you'd add another 3990x to that mix, well, you'd take hours off that total render time. Conversely, the other way around, if you're sporting a 3960x and you add a 5950x next to it... Well, you'll cut your render times down significantly - probably near 40-45% is my guess.

Again, just a personal opinion. We just chatting here :)

[C4D] I need help! / Re: Volume light
« on: 2021-12-02, 09:04:16 »
I Found solution. Ambient Oclusion as Scattering. But with this Corona renderer slows extremly.

I'm not quite sure why you've used the AO shader in there but I would pretty much second what Tom has said here - scattering is key. Once you have some absorption AND some scattering (so just assign a color to it, can be white too) you'll get that effect from the reference you posted. It also helps if your light has some directionality to it.

Hardware / Re: 3970x RAM Upgrade - 3200 or 3600mhz
« on: 2021-12-01, 09:20:47 »
Take this with a grain of salt a bit but on my 3970x system changing the RAM speed from 3600mhz to 3200mhz doesn't seem to affect the speed in most tasks I do (modeling, rendering etc.). At the very least, the benchmarks don't show it.

I'm using the same latency too and I get scores equal to other 3970x builds.

Hopefully thats of any help, maybe someone else will chime in and prove us all wrong :)

Hardware / Re: Threadripper 3990x vs 3970x
« on: 2021-11-24, 14:43:42 »

Thank you for sharing! Just out of curiosity, could you give the Corona benchmark a couple of concurrent run and report back the effective clock numbers? Just interested in seeing what you are getting there :)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 72