Messages

1

[Max] Bug Reporting / Re: File keeps crashing and I cant get to render on my main workstation.

« on: 2024-02-19, 14:22:38 »

Thanks Nazar,

The files are all uploaded to the original ticket that we have been talking in.

https://support.chaos.com/hc/requests/206895

2

[Max] Bug Reporting / File keeps crashing and I cant get to render on my main workstation.

« on: 2024-02-13, 18:43:39 »

I have been getting some really frustrating issues with certain files containing imported Revit or FBX(exported from Revit) files. And it only really effects one of my systems. I sent scene and dump file but support said because it is only happening on one system its not a Corona issue and a system issue. Problem is this system renders many other much heavier and more complicated files regularly. There might be the odd crash here and there but this specific file can not render even for 5 seconds (IR or Production) - even with grey material override, white background, no lights and very little geometry. Even after merging into a clean file + reset Xform + collapse to mesh etc. It uses very little RAM.  As I said I render many other files with people, forest packs, buildings, HDRIs many lights with no or very little problems.

Tested on 3 of my other workstations and that file renders fine. It only has issues with main workstation but as I said main workstation works with many other more complicated and taxing files. Also same crash with Max 2023 and 2024

Does anybody know where I can start looking? Have tried:
Installing older versions of corona
Latest Nvidia Drivers
HDD scan
Windows Memory test
Merging file into new scene etc as mentioned above.

System: 13900K Nvidia 3080 128Gig RAM Windows 11

Have added a two small videos. One is a normal file with lighting and everything rendering fine. Then after that I closed that and tried to render the other file which is the other clip.

3

[Max] Bug Reporting / Corona renderer 11 IR frame buffer scale

« on: 2023-12-11, 20:18:39 »

Strange one here. When I first started doing interactive rendering after having installed Corona 11 the renders looked blurry. I realized then that the pixels stated above look very little for the size of the window on my 4k monitor. Teh window looks double the size of what those pixels should look like. Enlarged.
2 of my monitors are 4K and I have the scale of those set to 150% (recommended).
Funny thing is when I render with production renderer and set to 1500 pixels it works fine and as expected. When I enable the interactive renderer in that same window the window stays the same size but the render pixels state 749pixels and the image is obviously blurry. (still says 1:1 in the brackets) Is this a new setting or something that I am missing?

edit: I reverted back to Corona 11 daily build (10-25) because it was crashing on render (every time at pass 7) and it has done that with other scenes previously. The frame buffer scale issue is also now fixed. The second time I reverted back and both times it fixed those issues.

4

[Max] General Discussion / Re: Corona 10 - Corona Render Assets loading very slow

« on: 2023-08-17, 09:54:07 »

+1 for this issue. Loading Corona assets seems long across all scenes.

I dont know if it is related but I have extremely low refresh rate for IR specially if there was an autosave. 20 mins+ for 13900k 128gb system autosaving to a high end SSD. Granted they are big files but we are used to working with big files and this is excessive.

5

[Max] Resolved Feature Requests / Re: Calculate Lighting for whole scene Like Unreal Engine

« on: 2018-04-23, 11:05:17 »

yes I did see that. In principle it seems simple to render out the lightfield. I think the difficulties come in with how to store it and play it back. It seems like a lot of information to process in real time. I did not read too far though maybe its explained somewhere.

6

[Max] Resolved Feature Requests / Re: Calculate Lighting for whole scene Like Unreal Engine

« on: 2018-04-19, 20:39:01 »

Thanks for the replies.

@maru thanks I am already using Datasmith. The only reason i would go into Unreal at all (for now) is to have the functionality of generating several images of a space quick. I am not using the interactive output yet because I feel the end user (people who buys condos and hosues etc) can not interact with the media that well yet (wasd with mouse and keyboard or tethered to a HTC Vive). I'm sure this will change in the future but for now gearVR with stereoscopic panoramics from Corona in a tour suffices + the quality is far better than UE (very succesful at launch events etc). It is specifically for generating lots of perspectives fast with Corona render quality that I was interested in this idea.

@Ondra Thanks for the explanation. I realised that this was similar to what we did in the old days with rendering animations in VR with precomped light Cache + Irridiance and also UHD Cache with Corona animations. I think my misunderstanding could be that I was under the impression one could separate the GI from the Path tracing pass out from things like reflections/refractions and only deal with the latter in render pass which in my mind would make things fast. But I dont actually know about this in depth so I'll take your word for it ;)

@romullus funnilly enough I have actually been looking around to see if there are any 3D lightfield renderers out there. Corona level rendering with 6DOF in VR would be great although I think playback might be an issue :)

@rambambulli I have thought about this for realtime web based playback. but for the specific purposes of generating a lot of renders that seems like a lot of work and in that case I might as well just do more renders with Corona. Its not that slow :D

Thanks

7

[Max] Resolved Feature Requests / Calculate Lighting for whole scene Like Unreal Engine

« on: 2018-04-18, 09:47:05 »

I think n nice feature would be to calculate the Lighting (or even just GI) for the whole scene (or a selected area - maybe within bounding box) so that you can then quickly generate multiple perspectives from that area. One of the great appeals of Unreal Engine at the stage is that you can generate many perspectives for you client that they can use in all sorts of ways. I'm assuming the UHD Cache would be easy to save but was wondering if it would be somehow possible to save the Path Tracing information. For example when I render with a spherical 360 cam for VR a lot of the lighting is calculated for the whole space. Would it not be possible to save that and then only render the raytraced passes like reflection and refraction from the different angles? I'm assuming the additional angles would render really fast.

Thoughts?

8

Gallery / Re: Backyard

« on: 2018-04-12, 17:05:20 »

Very good work. People always show work of impressive architectural structures but those speak for themselves and are not as hard to make attractive. It is often a lot harder to make meager spaces look impressive. Well done!

9

Gallery / Re: Hillside house

« on: 2018-03-14, 21:56:33 »

Truly great! Some of the best I've seen and I've been locking for more than a decade. You have great mastery of your tools. If one has to nitpick I agree that some forest colour variance in the trees would be the only thing but meh. Awesome job.

10

[Max] Resolved Bugs / Re: corona 1.7 interactive render problem

« on: 2017-11-05, 19:42:17 »

2017. i can see if I can replicate the problem in 2018?

11

[Max] Resolved Bugs / Re: corona 1.7 interactive render problem

« on: 2017-11-01, 13:18:47 »

we have had the same issues. prior to 1.7 interactive was rendering fine with scenes with lots of grass and gardens (forest packs). preliminary troubleshooting suggests it has to do with the corona camera. when we switch to Max physical camera it takes the same amount of time to engage (roughly 90 seconds) but then works as expected (even though slowly). with corona cam it seems to go into a loop of trying to refreshing the whole time even if there is no movement (spinning windows circle). we can not recover max because you have to hit stop in the split second it refreshes so we have to end task.

I have attached a screenshot of the scene to give you an idea of what we are dealing with.

Hope that helps.

12

[Max] General Discussion / Re: VrayColor vs CoronaSolidTex

« on: 2014-03-25, 20:38:10 »

Thanks Rawalanche understood. IMO if Keymaster puts in gamma override button most people will use override to match what you did with the CC node. For me it just makes sense to gamma correct your colour map along with the bitmaps which are being corrected by the Max bitmap input override. Even when I was using Vray this was the only reason I found to use Vraycolor ... if not I could have just used the colour picker in the diffuse slot.

Thanks for clearing things up. At least now I know I am not working in the wrong direction :D

13

[Max] General Discussion / Re: VrayColor vs CoronaSolidTex

« on: 2014-03-25, 19:23:11 »

Thanks for all the info guys and for the tips on Metal. I was using CoronaSolidTex all the time and am happy with the WYSIWYG approach. My brother was the one debating the merits of the VrayColor and he has some point at least for getting very dark levels in diffuse.

A gamma override will def fix this but for those who are interested I can show what I mean by the difference.

There is no particular material I am having a problem with (I will always find a away) it is just I think that the CoronaSolidTex was not gamma corrected in a 2.2 workflow which does not allow for some lower black levels in diffuse - hence the workaround of CC with .454 Multiplier. I just know now that if I want a raw diffuse colour lower than 21;21;21 I will need gamma corrected colour. (See attached) - this is  a blank scene with standard white background and no adjustments to exposure.

Increasing colour levels vs rendered result is as follows:

Diffuse Colour: 0;0;0      Rendered Result: 0;0;0
Diffuse Colour: 1;1;1      Rendered Result: 21;21;21
Diffuse Colour: 2;2;2      Rendered Result: 28;28;28

In the exact same scene the VrayColor (and Colour Correction CoronaSolidTex) with a 2.2 gamma value has following results:

Diffuse Colour: 0;0;0      Rendered Result: 0;0;0
Diffuse Colour: 1;1;1      Rendered Result: 1;1;1
Diffuse Colour: 2;2;2      Rendered Result: 2;2;2
etc

Thanks for the override button Keymaster!!!!!

I am pretty new though so dont have daily build but can use workaround till Alpha 7 or start getting some renders up ;)

14

[Max] General Discussion / Re: VrayColor vs CoronaSolidTex

« on: 2014-03-25, 16:02:22 »

Ok! So it is recommended that I use the standard CoronaSolidTex and rely that the way i see it in my material editor is the way it will render. However...

My brother was not using VrayColor for RGB accurate colours, instead he was complaining that he could not get a dark enough defuse for some of his metals with CoronaSolidTex in a 2.2 envrironment. Within the scene discussed above CoronaSolidtex goes from a render sampled value of 0;0;0 to a sampled value of 21;21;21 when you increase the value from 0;0;0 - 1;1;1 in the colour picker inside the material editor. So increasing the "brightness" from 0-1 had the resulting increase from 0-21 in the render which means he lost those levels of dark and the darkest black above 0 was 21. I guess in that case where you want variations of blacks darker than 21 then it is best to use a gamma mapped CoronaSolidTex or in his case Vraycolor set to gamma 2.2.

Thanks again for your insight.

15

[Max] General Discussion / Re: VrayColor vs CoronaSolidTex

« on: 2014-03-25, 15:21:49 »

Thanks for the quick reply Rawalanche!

Is this the recommended method of working though? It doenst seem like a big problem to other people if they haven't implemented it yet so it gets me thinking I am wrong in using this method.
Maybe they (other Corona users) dont work with 2.2 Gamma or they use the Colorcorrection/Vray color workaround? Or they dont care to gamma correct solid colours? I just assumed we work in gamma 2.2 like vray... is this recommended?

Thanks