Author Topic: PBR kinda materials  (Read 72069 times)

2016-07-07, 23:03:32
Reply #45

ASaarnak

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 43
    • View Profile
    • The Highlight
I saved my third post for something important! In feature request poll it´s basically tied for places 2-6, so I hope it´s looked into.

2016-07-07, 23:17:23
Reply #46

romullus

  • Global Moderator
  • Active Users
  • ****
  • Posts: 8885
  • Let's move this topic, shall we?
    • View Profile
    • My Models
I didn't vote for Disney PBR material, because i don't care much about it. But i really would like that this low glossiness glowing would be fixed finally. Would change my vote if getting PBR means glossiness fix as well.
I'm not Corona Team member. Everything i say, is my personal opinion only.
My Models | My Videos | My Pictures

2016-07-08, 13:11:05
Reply #47

maru

  • Corona Team
  • Active Users
  • ****
  • Posts: 12794
  • Marcin
    • View Profile
I am sure our dear developers will investigate this thread soon. If they spent more time on the forum, you would complain that they are not devoting enough time for new features and bugfixes. :P
Marcin Miodek | chaos-corona.com
3D Support Team Lead - Corona | contact us

2016-07-08, 17:24:28
Reply #48

Ondra

  • Administrator
  • Active Users
  • *****
  • Posts: 9048
  • Turning coffee to features since 2009
    • View Profile
Well... I am watching this issue, do not worry. But our materials guy (Jarda) is right now on vacations. We will find a solution until 1.5 is out. It is a bit tricky though, because we are caught between 2 approaches: straightforward oldschool "each control is 100% separate and influences only single aspect" and PBR "lets remove a bit of control so the materials always look reasonable". Right now I dont know what will be the solution - if we will make our material with oldschool controls work better, or if we just go for broke and implement fully PBR material with different set of controls + revert Corona Mtl to its 1.4 state.
Rendering is magic.How to get minidumps for crashed/frozen 3ds Max | Sorry for short replies, brief responses = more time to develop Corona ;)

2016-07-08, 17:28:44
Reply #49

Juraj

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 4768
    • View Profile
    • studio website
The Redshift material actually didn't remove that control, they blended both approaches into super-shader :- ) That way it serves pretty much everyone, but it could look a bit confusing... it can be tidied up a bit.
Please follow my new Instagram for latest projects, tips&tricks, short video tutorials and free models
Behance  Probably best updated portfolio of my work
lysfaere.com Please check the new stuff!

2016-07-08, 17:37:46
Reply #50

romullus

  • Global Moderator
  • Active Users
  • ****
  • Posts: 8885
  • Let's move this topic, shall we?
    • View Profile
    • My Models
Could you just leave CoronaMtl alone and introduce new CoronaPBRMtl? That way compatibility would be kept and everyone would have freedom to choose material that suits him better. Or that's not possible?
I'm not Corona Team member. Everything i say, is my personal opinion only.
My Models | My Videos | My Pictures

2016-07-08, 17:53:20
Reply #51

lacilaci

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 749
    • View Profile
Well it's great to hear that it'll get solved :)... I can sleep well now again :D

2016-07-08, 18:10:18
Reply #52

sebastian___

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 197
    • View Profile
Keeping CoronaMtl (mostly) unchanged (maybe just fix certain bugs from it) would make sure all those wonderful tutorials on your youtube channel - would still work.
And introducing another Corona material, the PBR one or something.

2016-07-08, 18:22:33
Reply #53

pokoy

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 1874
    • View Profile
Keeping CoronaMtl (mostly) unchanged (maybe just fix certain bugs from it) would make sure all those wonderful tutorials on your youtube channel - would still work.
And introducing another Corona material, the PBR one or something.
Yes, probably the most reasonable thing to do since we really don't want any of the previous scenes/presets/libraries to be 'broken':
- fix reflection low glossiness rim in CoronaMtl so it looks correct (~ like the examples posted in this thread)
- introduce a new CoronaPBRMtl that will work in a PBR fashion

I guess the code is easier to maintain that way, too. You could of course go the route of the Physical Material with two UI definitions, Standard and Advanced, but to be honest I don't like that approach. Having two different materials seems the better option to me.

PS: Please think about adding a diffuse roughness parameter for 1.5 if it fits in your schedule somehow.

2016-07-08, 20:23:07
Reply #54

GabaCGStudio

  • Guest
Well... I am watching this issue, do not worry. But our materials guy (Jarda) is right now on vacations. We will find a solution until 1.5 is out. It is a bit tricky though, because we are caught between 2 approaches: straightforward oldschool "each control is 100% separate and influences only single aspect" and PBR "lets remove a bit of control so the materials always look reasonable". Right now I dont know what will be the solution - if we will make our material with oldschool controls work better, or if we just go for broke and implement fully PBR material with different set of controls + revert Corona Mtl to its 1.4 state.

means that we have to use the GGX fix method in 1.5 DB again? :/

2016-07-08, 21:17:54
Reply #55

dubcat

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 425
  • ฅ^•ﻌ•^ฅ meow
    • View Profile
Let's not over-complicate things here.
The Redshift material can look intimidating, but that's because it has Multiple Scattering SSS, Clear Coat, Optimizations, Advanced tabs and about 1 gazillion map inputs. These have nothing to do with what we are interested in (Right now).
Let's only look at the Diffuse/Reflection part, and see how elegantly Redshift has merged old-school IOR and PBR. Nothing needs to break in CoronaMtl. (Refraction has the same settings as Reflection, no need to include that here).

Look how similar the materials are.
That's only two new drop downs, people who don't give a shit about PBR can just leave those two drop downs alone and all the old materials will work as they did before.

"Weight" is the same as "Level" in Corona, only with map support, so don't get confused by that.



Let's have a look at the PBR portion of Redshift.

So what has happened here? We changed "Fresnel" to "Metalness".
- This disabled "Weight" aka "Level".
- "IOR" got changed to "Reflectivity" and "Metalness".

The default "Reflectivity" value is 4% the same as IOR 1.5, same result.
When "Metalness" is at 1, the specular color is sampled from "Diffuse Color".



As you can see, it's not that complicated to have both worlds in one material. Nothing will break for existing materials. People who don't care about PBR, can just leave that "Fresnel" drop down alone.

Welcome to Corona 1.5 where everyone is pleased!

 

EDIT:
I forgot to mention that Redshift is handling the Roughness/Glossiness issue pretty nicely too.
Roughness is default, which is the most logical solution if you ask me.

But inside the material you have this option



It will invert both values and maps, very clean and nice solution.

Corona could do something like, the first time you open a legacy scene, this checkbox is on. So the material will read everything as Glossiness.
But for new materials the check box is off, roughness as default.

All the problems are solved.
« Last Edit: 2016-07-09, 00:48:48 by dubcat »
             ___
    _] [__|OO|
   (____|___|     https://www.twitch.tv/dubca7 / https://soundcloud.com/dubca7 ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) choo choo

2016-07-08, 21:23:25
Reply #56

Juraj

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 4768
    • View Profile
    • studio website

Yes, probably the most reasonable thing to do since we really don't want any of the previous scenes/presets/libraries to be 'broken':
- fix reflection low glossiness rim in CoronaMtl so it looks correct (~ like the examples posted in this thread)
- introduce a new CoronaPBRMtl that will work in a PBR fashion

I agree with this too, I think this is the most reasonable.

Standard (CoronaMtl) would stay, but with fresnel fix ( the material behaves wrong, it's not even about PBR, it's just wrong). Optionally, glossiness remap. There is no reason to have the cutoff there.
Introduce additional Extender shader (CoronaPBRmtl, whatever) at same time. The one Redshift have, is pretty epic, it's hard to get better, even though it's bit convoluted.

I like Dubcat's solution too....but I want the glossiness convention to simply die. I don't want to keep inverting maps between applications. Roughness was and will the only correct term. Having the existence of both will confuse people from get go.
And I like the additional tabs for coating/other specular layer. Almost every material has some kind of coating, it's nonsense to keep creating multi-layered material for such simple thing.
Please follow my new Instagram for latest projects, tips&tricks, short video tutorials and free models
Behance  Probably best updated portfolio of my work
lysfaere.com Please check the new stuff!

2016-07-09, 15:09:18
Reply #57

maxpyane_2k5

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
How about implementing physically plausible material just like from 3delight engine ?

2016-07-09, 17:03:09
Reply #58

Sintel

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 37
    • View Profile
One of the big mistakes in my life is not to vote for PBR Shader in that topic TT
« Last Edit: 2016-07-10, 01:32:54 by Sintel »

2016-07-09, 17:56:29
Reply #59

Frood

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 1932
    • View Profile
    • Rakete GmbH
You can always retract  and vote again there :] But it will not make any difference. This issue will be solved either way. Quite a few brains are occupied with this atm I presume.

Good Luck

Never underestimate the power of a well placed level one spell.