Author Topic: New Corona Physical Material (PBR) playground!  (Read 42841 times)

2020-12-11, 02:14:11
Reply #15

agentdark45

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 577
    • View Profile
Am I correct to say that you guys implemented oren-nayar diffuse model ? This looks really really promissing !

Would like to know more about this for sure. The Arnold examples posted a while ago really benefited from the diffuse model.

Also, is there a guide for how to use legacy reflection and glossyness maps with the new PBR material?

Also, under what circumstances would you use the metalness/non-metal workflow? For example; semi-polished concrete, dark antique/tarnished bronze, polished marble, silk rugs, car paint e.t.c. I'm a bit confused as to where the cut off point is where materials have a reflective but also strong diffuse component. Or am I misunderstanding metalness?
Vray who?

2020-12-11, 06:19:21
Reply #16

cjwidd

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 1041
    • View Profile
    • Artstation
I don't think there is such a thing as 'legacy reflection and glossyness maps' in the context of the physical material(?)

2020-12-11, 08:12:27
Reply #17

Ondra

  • Administrator
  • Active Users
  • *****
  • Posts: 8964
  • Turning coffee to features since 2009
    • View Profile
So if we have to specify metalness (metal or non-metal) at the top of the material, which do you choose if both metal and non-metal surfaces are represented in a single texture set?

In that case you will set a metalness map, and the dropdown will become greyed out, signalling that it is no longer used. Both options for metal and non-metal material become unlocked.

Rendering is magic.
Private scene uploader | How to get minidumps for crashed/frozen 3ds Max | Sorry for short replies, brief responses = more time to develop Corona ;)

2020-12-11, 08:15:39
Reply #18

Ondra

  • Administrator
  • Active Users
  • *****
  • Posts: 8964
  • Turning coffee to features since 2009
    • View Profile
Also, under what circumstances would you use the metalness/non-metal workflow? For example; semi-polished concrete, dark antique/tarnished bronze, polished marble, silk rugs, car paint e.t.c. I'm a bit confused as to where the cut off point is where materials have a reflective but also strong diffuse component. Or am I misunderstanding metalness?

metalness should be really used only for materials made of metal - so concrete, marble, silk are non-metal. Darkened bronze would be probably done with metalness map (metal bronze vs. non-metal "dirt"). Car paint is very complex and specific material, neither metal nor non-metal will represent it 100% physically, so I guess it would be possible to fake it with both
Rendering is magic.
Private scene uploader | How to get minidumps for crashed/frozen 3ds Max | Sorry for short replies, brief responses = more time to develop Corona ;)

2020-12-11, 08:33:58
Reply #19

Bormax

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 534
    • View Profile
New material is really great! Thank you!

The Clearcoat layer is the thing I was missing for very long time, nice to get it now. Some idea came to my mind about it.
Now the Base bump affects the Clearcoat layer and Clearcoat bump gives possibility to Add bump to this layer. Would it be nice (if it's possible) to have kinda lock between Base bump and Clearcoat bump in order to imitate the bumpy surface covered by the polished transparent layer of lacquer? Something like on attached picture where I've created the geometry of the covering layer and assigned different material to the inner and covering surfaces.
According to this idea if the Lock is active Base bump affects the Coatlayer, if it's unlocked only Clearcoat layer's bump affects the Coat layer.

2020-12-11, 08:34:57
Reply #20

GeorgeK

  • Corona Team
  • Active Users
  • ****
  • Posts: 596
  • George
    • View Profile
I've made some quick tests and I have a question about the visible brightness of new material.
Scene is made of 2 planes, 2 teapots and 2 spheres.
On part marked as NEW - new shader is applied, on part marked as OLD - Legacy Material is applied.

1 Corona Sun (size 1, value 1)
Environment - CoronaSky

Legacy Material settings:
Diffuse color: Corona Color R:180 G:180 B:180
Reflection: 1,0
Glossiness: Corona Color R:80 G:80 B:80

NEW: (same as above, switched from roughness to glossiness)
Mat settings:
Base Color: Corona Color R:180 G:180 B:180
Reflection: 1,0
Glossiness: Corona Color R:80 G:80 B:80
Non-metal

I can see that part with new material changes brightness quite hard depending on viewing angle. I believe the plane should be brighter when viewed towards the sun and darker in opposite direction?

Another issue seems to be visible when the camera is perpendicular to sun - I can see some changes in visible brightness of the plane from left to right.

Is that correct behavior?

Thanks

That is indeed expected as the new diffuse model is somewhat retro-reflective at low glossiness.
For solutions, troubleshooting, ticket requests please visit - [link]

2020-12-11, 08:45:12
Reply #21

88qba88

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
I've made some quick tests and I have a question about the visible brightness of new material.
Scene is made of 2 planes, 2 teapots and 2 spheres.
On part marked as NEW - new shader is applied, on part marked as OLD - Legacy Material is applied.

1 Corona Sun (size 1, value 1)
Environment - CoronaSky

Legacy Material settings:
Diffuse color: Corona Color R:180 G:180 B:180
Reflection: 1,0
Glossiness: Corona Color R:80 G:80 B:80

NEW: (same as above, switched from roughness to glossiness)
Mat settings:
Base Color: Corona Color R:180 G:180 B:180
Reflection: 1,0
Glossiness: Corona Color R:80 G:80 B:80
Non-metal

I can see that part with new material changes brightness quite hard depending on viewing angle. I believe the plane should be brighter when viewed towards the sun and darker in opposite direction?

Another issue seems to be visible when the camera is perpendicular to sun - I can see some changes in visible brightness of the plane from left to right.

Is that correct behavior?

Thanks

That is indeed expected as the new diffuse model is somewhat retro-reflective at low glossiness.

Thank you for the answer:)
It doesn't look like a huge problem, especially considering photorealistic renderings, but when you start creating for example packshot images or renderings with lots of flat surfaces it looks a little bit like there is some smoothing groups problem in 3ds max!
By the way - I really like the new shader with all its possibilities! I like the UI and workflow changes that comes with it.

2020-12-11, 12:23:02
Reply #22

marti_d

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Hello everyone, just a simple question. When working with the new material where is one supposed to plug in the Reflection Glossiness map the old material used?
Tried different methods but didn't seem to work the same way.

2020-12-11, 13:04:16
Reply #23

GeorgeK

  • Corona Team
  • Active Users
  • ****
  • Posts: 596
  • George
    • View Profile
Hello everyone, just a simple question. When working with the new material where is one supposed to plug in the Reflection Glossiness map the old material used?
Tried different methods but didn't seem to work the same way.

That would be your base roughness or base glossiness slot, but keep in mind that you have to invert the values of your glossiness map if you are using roughness. Alternatively, you can change the mode by going to your CoronaPhysicalMtl > Advanced Options and change the Roughness mode to Glossiness.

You should get the same glossiness between CMTL and PBR, if you plug the reflection glossiness map to Base glossiness for PBR, do note that your PBR result will be slightly brighter, even with the same IOR.
For solutions, troubleshooting, ticket requests please visit - [link]

2020-12-11, 13:39:51
Reply #24

agentdark45

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 577
    • View Profile
metalness should be really used only for materials made of metal - so concrete, marble, silk are non-metal. Darkened bronze would be probably done with metalness map (metal bronze vs. non-metal "dirt"). Car paint is very complex and specific material, neither metal nor non-metal will represent it 100% physically, so I guess it would be possible to fake it with both

Great, thanks for clearing that up.
Vray who?

2020-12-11, 14:07:01
Reply #25

marti_d

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Hello everyone, just a simple question. When working with the new material where is one supposed to plug in the Reflection Glossiness map the old material used?
Tried different methods but didn't seem to work the same way.

That would be your base roughness or base glossiness slot, but keep in mind that you have to invert the values of your glossiness map if you are using roughness. Alternatively, you can change the mode by going to your CoronaPhysicalMtl > Advanced Options and change the Roughness mode to Glossiness.

You should get the same glossiness between CMTL and PBR, if you plug the reflection glossiness map to Base glossiness for PBR, do note that your PBR result will be slightly brighter, even with the same IOR.

Hello, I tried just that but I am not getting the same result. Is this how it should look like?This is the reflection pass. Old has the map plugged in the reflection glossines the new one has in the base glossiness.
Also in the translucency tab there is no more translucency fraction should we control the amount with the map only now ?

2020-12-11, 16:05:07
Reply #26

GeorgeK

  • Corona Team
  • Active Users
  • ****
  • Posts: 596
  • George
    • View Profile
Hello everyone, just a simple question. When working with the new material where is one supposed to plug in the Reflection Glossiness map the old material used?
Tried different methods but didn't seem to work the same way.

That would be your base roughness or base glossiness slot, but keep in mind that you have to invert the values of your glossiness map if you are using roughness. Alternatively, you can change the mode by going to your CoronaPhysicalMtl > Advanced Options and change the Roughness mode to Glossiness.

You should get the same glossiness between CMTL and PBR, if you plug the reflection glossiness map to Base glossiness for PBR, do note that your PBR result will be slightly brighter, even with the same IOR.

Hello, I tried just that but I am not getting the same result. Is this how it should look like?This is the reflection pass. Old has the map plugged in the reflection glossines the new one has in the base glossiness.
Also in the translucency tab there is no more translucency fraction should we control the amount with the map only now ?

We will look into this further, as there might be cases where this is an issue.

In regards to your second question, the translucency fraction is still there labeled as "Translucency" you can enable it and use it without the use of a map simply by enabling the Thin Shell (no inside) option above Base Layer. The color of the translucency depends on your base layer color.

Thank you.

(Report ID=CRMAX-71)
« Last Edit: 2020-12-11, 16:26:06 by GeorgeK »
For solutions, troubleshooting, ticket requests please visit - [link]

2020-12-11, 16:53:41
Reply #27

marti_d

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Hello everyone, just a simple question. When working with the new material where is one supposed to plug in the Reflection Glossiness map the old material used?
Tried different methods but didn't seem to work the same way.

That would be your base roughness or base glossiness slot, but keep in mind that you have to invert the values of your glossiness map if you are using roughness. Alternatively, you can change the mode by going to your CoronaPhysicalMtl > Advanced Options and change the Roughness mode to Glossiness.

You should get the same glossiness between CMTL and PBR, if you plug the reflection glossiness map to Base glossiness for PBR, do note that your PBR result will be slightly brighter, even with the same IOR.

Hello, I tried just that but I am not getting the same result. Is this how it should look like?This is the reflection pass. Old has the map plugged in the reflection glossines the new one has in the base glossiness.
Also in the translucency tab there is no more translucency fraction should we control the amount with the map only now ?

We will look into this further, as there might be cases where this is an issue.

In regards to your second question, the translucency fraction is still there labeled as "Translucency" you can enable it and use it without the use of a map simply by enabling the Thin Shell (no inside) option above Base Layer. The color of the translucency depends on your base layer color.

Thank you.

(Report ID=CRMAX-71)

Yes but before after you plugged in a map you could still control the amount of translucency with the fraction now you can't. You have just the map and that's it.

2020-12-11, 18:56:58
Reply #28

marchik

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 115
    • View Profile
New material is really great! Thank you!

The Clearcoat layer is the thing I was missing for very long time, nice to get it now. Some idea came to my mind about it.
Now the Base bump affects the Clearcoat layer and Clearcoat bump gives possibility to Add bump to this layer. Would it be nice (if it's possible) to have kinda lock between Base bump and Clearcoat bump in order to imitate the bumpy surface covered by the polished transparent layer of lacquer? Something like on attached picture where I've created the geometry of the covering layer and assigned different material to the inner and covering surfaces.
According to this idea if the Lock is active Base bump affects the Coatlayer, if it's unlocked only Clearcoat layer's bump affects the Coat layer.
+
yes, current implementation of bumps interaction is a little bit strange :D

I think you can focus on the implementation as in the standard physical material with "affect underying" concepts
One more great addition is that of the Sheen layer which is responsible to represent an approximation of microfibers on cloth-surfaces like velvet or satin or other varying organic and rough surfaces. With a proper bump map it is now possible to emulate such cloth materials without the use of falloff, but by glossiness/roughness anisotropy and sheen layer alone.
As for fabrics and sheen, if possible I would like to see an example of a photorealistic silk or velvet/crushed velvet shaders using as said detailed bump maps, for example these
« Last Edit: 2020-12-11, 19:57:22 by marchik »

2020-12-12, 11:13:26
Reply #29

Kyle

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 14
    • View Profile
As far as I can tell the Substance Painter to 3ds Max workflow is working very well.  Just found an old model I made from a Blender tutorial slapped some smart materials on in Substance Painter, exported Albedo, Metalness, Roughness, Normal and Height maps.  Just slotted them into the new material and all seems to work as expected.  Took about 10 mins to do all together. Great work on the new material Corona team!