Messages

1

[C4D] Feature Requests / Re: Materials and node editor

« on: 2022-01-20, 10:13:54 »

Hi. I am very fond of corona. But I must say I strongly agree on the following points:

"By the way, I think making "base layer" such a long/tall tab, putting together diffuse, glossiness, ior, edge, bump, anisotropy and rotation of the anisotropic highlight was a terrible mistake. It was so much cleaner when they were in separate tabs, there was no need to scroll to look for it (and i also find scrolling in this menus kinda risky, because you can end up scrolling a floating slider or a drop-down menu)." 

Quite right - from a user experience point of view it hides the common settings, but keeps the occasional settings visible. The old way was cleaner and involved less clicks.

"I don't really see the point of having the normal map under the bump channel. To apply a normal map you have to go to base layer, scroll down to bump, enable it, click texture -> plugins -> corona -> normal. Wouldn't it be easier to have it as a category"

Definitely agree.

I'd like to add another point which has been mentioned before I think. Many other renderers have the ability to visualise a channel (ie. noise) directly on the model by pressing a hotkey. This would be really useful. Currently you would connect the node to the luminosity channel to preview it on the model.

I vastly prefer working in Corona to Octane. But that doesn't mean things can't be improved a little.

2

[C4D] I need help! / Re: What is the advantage of using OpenEXR for Passes

« on: 2022-01-03, 15:00:35 »

Photoshop is pretty old fasioned TBH and doesn't read EXR layered data properly. (Ridiculous really, as Affinity does, and that is mega cheap.)
People often use EXR for more more motion based compositing softwares such as Nuke.
There may be no advantage if your workflow is stills in PS

3

[C4D] Daily Builds / Re: Iridescent material - another thread?

« on: 2021-12-17, 15:07:32 »

Although... In fairness i would also like to know a technique for building this in the new Physical material too.

Any Corona people got a good workflow now that the reflection colour is not in the material? The Legacy method doesnt work anymore.

4

[C4D] Daily Builds / Re: Iridescent material - another thread?

« on: 2021-12-17, 08:15:49 »

As I said. very simple.
Just put the (native C4D) Thin Film shader in the reflection colour slot. Colours can be controlled by the 'thickness' setting within the thin film dialogue.

5

[C4D] Daily Builds / Re: Iridescent material - another thread?

« on: 2021-12-16, 21:41:38 »

Show an example of what you want to achieve exactly please. I don't see that there is a problem here. It should be perfectly acheivable
Either an coloured gradient fresnel in the reflection slot or a thin film shader shoulds both work fine.

6

[C4D] I need help! / Re: Material below water make edges wet?

« on: 2021-12-12, 11:04:29 »

Dont think that's possible. (ALthough why not use a cube instead of a simple plane which would cover the bottom part).

I don't think the geommetry clipper is implemented in the c4d version yet? (Looking forward to it a lot!). But when it is, you could use that to seperate the above and below sections.

7

[C4D] I need help! / Re: Should I use Corona Bitmap for all my material maps?

« on: 2021-12-10, 13:55:28 »

So I've just discovered one reason not to use it. If I drop in a photoshop file I can't choose which layer set to use like I can with a normal C4D bitmap. I like to create my maps with all the diffuse/gloss/bump/alpha etc in the one layered file (it's just quicker). Seems like I can't do this with the Corona bitmap.

This is my workflow too. PSD support is super useful!

I dont think there is any advantage to using the Corona bitmap unless youre using some fancy pipeline or UDIMS etc

8

[C4D] General Discussion / Re: Physical material tutorial

« on: 2021-12-06, 19:41:59 »

I'm really glad that you're making these films. It's definitely needed!

To agree with ShahynRox some of the simple stuff can be moved over a bit quicker. Most users are not rank beginners.

The real need is to address some of the new ways of working - which to existing users are definitely not more intuitive.

Example below...  a simple bottle with greenish glass where it's thicker. Simple using the legacy material.
But the same settings give a completely different result in Physical. I have no idea how to set up my glass now - so just stick with legacy 99.9% of the time.

Can you enlighten me?

Thank you for the feedback, appreciate it!

For your particular example, I'm guessing you have the roughness set to a value quite a bit higher than 0% which is making the material ... Rougher.

We'll tackle this in the upcoming tutorials in the series but the roughness parameter affects both the roughness of your reflections as well as your refractions. So set that to match what you have set in the refraction channel in the legacy material and it should look similar. The physical MTL does use a different physical model for calculating refractions so values that aren't 100% glossy won't match 1:1, you'll probably want to tweak those slightly.

.


Hmmm how strange. It wasn't the roughness setting, the glass was completely clear until I activated the volumetrics. Only then did it become cloudy. Thats why I found it so odd.

However, testing on another machine it does indeed work as expected! So it may have been some sort of bug. I deleted the old file unfortunately. But I'll flag if it happens again.


EDIT. Gah! My bad. I forgot that I'd plugged a noise into the glossiness slot of the legacy material. Of course when I copied it into the Physical material it was in the Roughness slot instead as that field has changed. So the noise had the opposite effect to what I was expecting.

9

[C4D] General Discussion / Re: Physical material tutorial

« on: 2021-12-06, 15:44:26 »

I'm really glad that you're making these films. It's definitely needed!

To agree with ShahynRox some of the simple stuff can be moved over a bit quicker. Most users are not rank beginners.

The real need is to address some of the new ways of working - which to existing users are definitely not more intuitive.

Example below...  a simple bottle with greenish glass where it's thicker. Simple using the legacy material.
But the same settings give a completely different result in Physical. I have no idea how to set up my glass now - so just stick with legacy 99.9% of the time.

Can you enlighten me?

10

[C4D] I need help! / Re: Material below water make edges wet?

« on: 2021-12-03, 19:07:22 »

Come now. Ya gotta believe man ;) if I can do it anyone can
See below...

11

[C4D] I need help! / Re: Material below water make edges wet?

« on: 2021-12-03, 17:54:15 »

No spheres needed! The parameter is driven by whatever you want. In your case the water plane.

Just open the distance shader and drag the geommetry into the field.

12

[C4D] I need help! / Re: Material below water make edges wet?

« on: 2021-12-03, 08:51:48 »

The Corona Distance shader can control a layered material by proximity to the 'puddles'. So you can combine the wet and dry versions of the material like that.
(See attached where the red materail is added by proximity to the floor disc)

13

[C4D] Daily Builds / Re: v8 Daily Build on M1

« on: 2021-11-18, 08:18:34 »

Okay then. Thanks for clearing that up. I'm afraid to even look to see what C4D will cost if I want to upgrade now.

Yep - I'm in the same boat. I'd like to get an M1, but have absolutely no desire to move from my perpetual R21 to subscription r25 with the expense that that entails.

14

[C4D] General Discussion / Re: How to create silk using physical Material.

« on: 2021-11-12, 20:07:41 »

There is a silk material in the Corona material library. You can easily adjust the colours of that in the mixture shader. This already gives you the 2 colour effect.

If this is still too subtle, then I'd add a coloured fresnel texture into the clearcoat layer. That should give you the effect you want.

See the screengrabs below.

15

[C4D] Feature Requests / Re: clipping plane with fill option

« on: 2021-11-12, 09:05:28 »

VERY happy ho hear this.