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 - iliyang

Pages: 1 [2] 3
To reduce the noise in the caustics, make the ground plane as small as possible. The larger it is, the more photons traced from the sun are wasted.

Gallery / Re: I love CORONA! My renders made in.
« on: 2013-05-12, 00:20:40 »
Earthworm Jim! I love that guy :)

Off-Topic / Re: SIGGRAPH 2013
« on: 2013-05-11, 00:50:31 »
I'll be there. I'll buy you a mexican beer ;)

Porting and API / Re: Corona for 1 additional software
« on: 2013-04-25, 13:04:04 »
Awww, another raid :D

You should have warned people that you will only count the opinion of users who have registered before asking the original question :)

Having that said, I also agree that Cinema4D is the better choice. It seems to be a more established product, with a larger user base. This will give Corona better publicity, which is important for initial adoption.

this is a feature. What I should do is separate "directly visible" and "visible in reflection" checkboxes, then you would uncheck only the first one and it would work ok

In either case, the intensity of the light shouldn't change. Only it's visibility and potentially the noise. That is, the "visible (in reflection)" setting should be accounted for in the MIS weights. Even with the current implementation the intensity shouldn't change depending on the setting.

Gallery / Re: Tetris bedroom
« on: 2013-04-24, 04:04:50 »
Alright, alright, I authorize putting the image in the gallery on the front page :)

[Max] General Discussion / Re: Vote for new Corona logo
« on: 2013-04-22, 23:11:02 »
I actually like the first and last ones from the image above Keymaster posted. It also seems suitable for a material test object like this one from LuxRender:

Just stumbled upon this:

Apparently there are decent free texture resources.

As far as I know, VRay doesn't use any epsilons for secondary (including reflection/refraction) rays, but instead tracks the last hit primitive.

It is not a hack to texture the directional emission of a light source. It's the same thing that IES does, but generalized to the full spectral emission, not just the intensity. Now, making emission dependent on the distance from the light is a hack.

Do I understand correctly that you want to essentially texture the directional emission of the light sources? All renderers already provide texturing the radiosity at any point on the light source surface. What streamline900 seems to want is the ability to also control the radiance emission at each point, i.e. the directional distribution. As far as I know, IES profiles only texture the intensity, not the color, right? I guess this could be achieved by attaching a (hemi-)spherical map to the light source. I find this a pretty reasonable feature request, and I can imagine that interesting results can be achieved with this. Does any other renderer have such a feature?

Gallery / Re: Noname #1
« on: 2013-02-16, 15:56:48 »
Maybe you can reduce the blurriness of the leaves by increasing the opacity texture resolution. I think that the smaller the resolution is, the blurrier they will appear. The texture is probably being bi-linear interpolated, which smears the edges of the objects.

[Max] Resolved Bugs / Re: MirrorZzzz Crash
« on: 2013-02-15, 15:59:40 »
This seems to imply you should set some maximum ray depth for the Corona settings, thereby preventing users from causing such stack overflows.

[Max] Resolved Bugs / Re: Glowing corners
« on: 2013-02-13, 21:55:33 »
Looks like a too large ray offset epsilon to me, which makes rays escape the scene and hit the background. First, make sure that the triangles at the corner share the same vertices. Then try enlarging the two walls on the corner slightly so that they intersect each other. This should fix the problem.

[Max] Resolved Feature Requests / Re: direct light sampling
« on: 2013-02-12, 14:12:02 »
The sole reason that it seems better in some particular settings is that geometry light is interpreted as a separate light for each triangle. So you end up with 320 lights instead of single one. If you have 100 other lights, you end up having higher probability of sampling one of the 320 lights from 420 lights total in light-as-geometry case, than the probability of sampling 1 light out 101 (it is actually only about 50% higher).

I didn't get the last thing in the parentheses, but from your reply it seems to follow that the probability for choosing a light source that has been defined as a mesh depends on the tessellation of the mesh? If so, this is certainly undesirable. You either need to have a sampling scheme that picks a point on any emitting surface proportionally to the total emitted power at that point, and/or have mesh light objects, and not break the meshes into individual light sources.

Pages: 1 [2] 3