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 - pokoy

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 115
1
It could be that Max internal physical light doesn't take into account emission vs area distribution. when using directionality. I also remember Zap mentioning that light units in physical lights are wrong in some situations but have no further details unfortunately... not sure Max lights and Corona lights can really be compared 1:1 with the same values.

2
Seems the Embergen guys have sorted it out. Just got a VDB file that opens fine in Corona, so the problem is probably solved in an upcoming Embergen update.

3
Just tested it and it's true - Corona will always report the VDB as 'empty' regardless of the settings and tweaks I'm using in Embergen.
I've posted a question on their discord, let's see if I get a response. It's really strange as it worked for all the alpha/beta builds of Embergen, no idea why it fails now.

Maybe something with the new possibility to custom name channels.
I've tested without changing any name, but maybe they put by default wrong ones (caps or something) ?
Who knows... Initially I thought it maybe was a decimal separator problem. If they rewrote their exporter I thought maybe they didn't check for automatic conversion and proper parsing of the file but changing my OS from comma to dot didn't help unfortunately. I provided some more info to their support and it appears other apps also have problems with VDBs from Embergen 1.0. I'll keep you posted...
Let's hope they have a fix out soon.

4
Just tested it and it's true - Corona will always report the VDB as 'empty' regardless of the settings and tweaks I'm using in Embergen.
I've posted a question on their discord, let's see if I get a response. It's really strange as it worked for all the alpha/beta builds of Embergen, no idea why it fails now.

5
I have used VDBs from Embergen without problems.
I've not tried yet with v1.0 (VDBs from Embergen beta definitely worked) but from what I've read they have introduced the possibility to use arbitrary names for VDB channels in v1.0. Maybe that's the problem: channels aren't named 'correctly' and Corona expects them to follow a certain naming convention?

6
[C4D] General Discussion / Re: Reflections doubts
« on: 2023-03-24, 15:08:39 »
I think you are struggling to understand the principles of how light is reflected and what exactly a mirror plane does vs what you as the observer (or the camera) sees. If you look at reflective surfaces in the real world around you you'll probably see many of these seemingly 'wrong' reflections happening.

7
[Max] I need help! / Re: CShading_SourceColor
« on: 2023-03-12, 18:37:58 »
In Corona the shadig element includes diffuse color plus shading normal while the other one displays diffuse color only. I believe this is a long standing request, not implemented so far.

8
[Max] Daily Builds / Re: Camera Inside Volumes Playground!
« on: 2023-03-02, 17:58:10 »
Great that it's possible now.
One thing since it shows nice in your last image - it seems sun is not dimmed correctly when it's behind a thick volume. Even if the volume is thick enough to blocks any light the sun disc will still remain visible. Hopefully this can be resolved, it's certainly an undesired effect in some situations.

9
[Max] I need help! / Re: upgrade to corona9 from corona6
« on: 2023-02-27, 21:17:00 »
No, most if not all settings have stayed, and a few new have appeared. Corona will prompt you to switch to a few new features (refraction behavior, bloom and glare) but you can choose to go with the old settings and switch later. You will see a new physical material but the old will still work as it did before.
Some of the experimental tracing engines have been removed but they were never set as default (and didn't work too were limited anyway) so your render result should be the same but with better performance.

One of the few things that may differ is Corona's multi map randomness result.
Another one will probably be handling of masks - these support reflection and refraction now and handling within materials is a bit different. Not sure if this was already in v6 or not...
Can't think of much else right now.

In general, it's totally worth it as there are quite a lot new great features compared to v6. Maybe you can test for a few days it and still go back to v6 if there's a need?

10
[C4D] General Discussion / Re: Realistic VDB cloud
« on: 2023-02-18, 12:15:40 »
If you use the density channel for scattering you are basically diminishing it where the density increases - while it gives you some additional artistic control, it's technically wrong. Scattering should be a constant color, and then play around with the value - it has a ceiling value where it won't change with increased values. It should produce a better result.

I always set scatter to 100% white, no channel at all. So, please take it seriously and accept that Corona volume is not deep scattering enough for cloud.
If you mean my response, I was referring to Stefan-L, not your tests.

I'm really taking this seriously as this is important for my work, and I have done many tests and am a bit torn on this topic myself. But to make it a serious conversation, not just a random "Here's a better looking result" thread, my question still is - what is the *other renderer* in the pic you posted?

11
[Max] I need help! / Re: issues with Corona bitmaps
« on: 2023-02-17, 17:37:35 »
Ouch, yeah this doesn't look too good. Sorry for misleading you, I thought it might help.

12
[C4D] General Discussion / Re: Realistic VDB cloud
« on: 2023-02-17, 17:35:28 »
If you use the density channel for scattering you are basically diminishing it where the density increases - while it gives you some additional artistic control, it's technically wrong. Scattering should be a constant color, and then play around with the value - it has a ceiling value where it won't change with increased values. It should produce a better result.

13
[Max] I need help! / Re: issues with Corona bitmaps
« on: 2023-02-17, 16:49:49 »
As I 've learned recently, Corona bitmap viewport resolution is affected by the 'baked map resolution' in the viewport setup dialog, not the general texture resolution parameter.

14
[C4D] General Discussion / Re: Realistic VDB cloud
« on: 2023-02-17, 16:42:24 »
I've tested the Moana cloud some times ago in Corona (for Max), and while it was slow - I agree - it looked quite good.
There are a couple things to keep in mind for a fair comparison. Do you have similar phase function settings across all renderers? This is one of the most deciding factors for how realistic rendered clouds will look. The 0.5 value in Vray's examples will be typically too low to generate dark edges, a more realistic value is in the range of 0.7 to 0.9.

Corona's performance tanks once you use higher values for the phase function (positive values mean forward scattering) and it'll be quite slow for values close to 0.9 - generally increasing this value will result in slower rendering since way more samples are needed to resolve the scattering within the cloud.

Another factor is how many bounces you use. Corona's default will be way more than most renderers. However for a realistic result you'll need to go even higher.

Also... what's the 'other renderer'?

Ofcourse I set all of them is 0.7 at directionality.  Depth ray = 100. Butafter many tests i have to admit that the light passing through corona cloud is not deep enough to form cloud shading

Judging from the render you posted above your density is too high, your cloud looks too solid. For me, density for the Moana cloud had to be around 0.4/0.5.
For darker shadowing you have to play with the scattering multiplier.

Again, what's the other renderer?

15
[C4D] General Discussion / Re: Realistic VDB cloud
« on: 2023-02-17, 15:16:24 »
I've tested the Moana cloud some times ago in Corona (for Max), and while it was slow - I agree - it looked quite good.
There are a couple things to keep in mind for a fair comparison. Do you have similar phase function settings across all renderers? This is one of the most deciding factors for how realistic rendered clouds will look. The 0.5 value in Vray's examples will be typically too low to generate dark edges, a more realistic value is in the range of 0.7 to 0.9.

Corona's performance tanks once you use higher values for the phase function (positive values mean forward scattering) and it'll be quite slow for values close to 0.9 - generally increasing this value will result in slower rendering since way more samples are needed to resolve the scattering within the cloud.

Another factor is how many bounces you use. Corona's default will be way more than most renderers. However for a realistic result you'll need to go even higher.

Also... what's the 'other renderer'?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 115