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 - mantaskava

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
Hardware / Re: Personal render farm that is not local
« on: 2021-03-22, 14:57:05 »
I see. Well I thought I cannot be the first one that thought of this idea here in corona forums, someone should've done it already. And I still hope that someone shows up and directs me the right way:) If not, I'll try searching answers somewhere else.
Why MAXON though? I'm using Max, you meant Autodesk maybe?

Hardware / Re: Personal render farm that is not local
« on: 2021-03-21, 10:43:20 »
I thought I am asking a pretty simple/straightforward question, but now I'm thinking I might have been wrong.
Is it such a complex thing to setup so no one knows? or it's not even possible? or what?

Hardware / Personal render farm that is not local
« on: 2021-03-07, 19:32:05 »

How would one setup a mini "render farm" so few people can access/use it while not being in the same (local) network? Anyone can direct me the right way?
Basically we're a team of few, everyone working from home. And we would like to have our own/shared render farm (even if it's only one pc).
Thank you.

I suggest that you need to add a very understandable and detailed chapter on helpdek site, explaining this "new" material approach with comparison to traditional one, and how one should migrate to it, filled with examples and tutorials.

Totally agree with Anatoly on this one.
I want to see various examples of various materials converted correctly from legacy to new PBR material (or in other words, in a way developer intended). All with clear explanations, like what bitmap goes where and why.
I don't want to spend another weak experimenting and guessing if it's the most efficient/correct way of doing this or that or not.
Hope you'll consider this and make it real.


many 3d models do not need PBR materials, for web app, mobile app, mobile games etc. As we work close with game models like in megascan it have all PBR maps but for mobile games they not needed. Also some product render of mechanical parts etc does not need PBR, and CAD software i believe do not support PBR, archicad, fusion 360 etc

Yeah but who makes professional/commercial renderings with native (and not third party) render engines inside archicad or fusion 360 anyways? Let's take Unity, Unreal, Vray, Corona, Redshift, Cycles, Octane, Fstorm, Arnold, Keyshot, Lumion, Maxwell - I believe all of them will render your materials physically correctly, although workflows and results will vary and you're gonna have to adapt to every render engine a little bit differentely (meaning results won't look exactly the same in all of them out of the box).
So what exactly makes or brakes "PBR" model(material)? Say a client asks for a model with two versions, one PBR and one not PBR. How it will affect the material you're making? For me - the only thing that changes is the software I'm rendering/setting up the material in (although textures remain the same).
Again, it's either that I am missing something here or PBR term really doesn't say/define much.

For now I see it like this - take one model and try rendering it in all of previously mentioned render engines (and try to get the same result), you're gonna HAVE to tweak the textures/materials in all of them to get some decently similar results. Then take some render engine that doesn't support PBR (like someone here mentioned Archicad's native renderer) - you're gonna have to tweak materials/textures too. Long story short - in ANY of render engines you won't get the same (good) result without some manual tweaking of the settings and/or textures. Even if you take two "PBR" engines, results and workflow will be different. And that's probably why it doesn't say much.
Shouldn't we all  be more specific and mention the exact render engine instead? Until there's some "true" PBR which makes same material look exactly the same in all of render engines, without any additional tweaking.

EDIT number two:
Let's take Megascans for example - I've seen lots of textures (albedo) where sRGB values goes well below 30-50 ("correct" PBR values for totally black color). Does this mean megascans models/materials are NOT PBR ready? And as far as I'm aware they say it's PBR, but that doesn't make sense then.

EDIT number three:
So what exact criteria a render engine has to meet so it is considered PBR? And then the second part of the question - can you guys mention these render engines that are not PBR?

Is it only me or the term PBR is badly over used these days? Isn't like 99% percent of render engines "PBR ready" nowadays? Only thing that differs a little is a workflow (e.g. metalness vs specular vs layered mtls etc), but all them are PBR still.
Can anyone name a few render engines that doesn't support PBR yet? Haven't done the research, but I cannot think of one.
Often times clients ask for "PBR models" which always makes me smile because I see most of them don't even know what does that mean (and that it means pretty much nothing these days  IMO).
Personally, I don't think mentioning the term "PBR" since a few years back is worth it at all.
Probably a bit of off topic here but wanted to say this thought for a while now :) And what are your thoughts about this guys?

[Max] I need help! / Re: Ornatrix issues
« on: 2020-05-26, 18:19:18 »
I see. Waiting for these fixes then.


[Max] I need help! / Ornatrix issues
« on: 2020-05-26, 09:48:36 »

I'm having a few issues setting up ornatrix. Wondering if that's me who's doing something wrong or what.

Problem number 1:
I am getting this error message once I hit render IF Hair From Guides modifier is applied. Sometimes it just crashes Max and sometimes I'm able to click continue, but usually it crashes later on anyways.

Problem number 2:
Color from base mesh/object not working (using bitmap). Although it should work straight out of the box as far as I know, since it should be the default setting. What's interesting you can see in viewport it's actually working as intended (hair's getting color from base mesh), but in IR it's not. The only way to make it work I found is applying Mesh From Strands modifier and un-ticking "Per Strand UV coords". But IMO it's just a workaround.

Any thoughts?

Thank You.

[Max] General Discussion / Re: Tonemapping - Plz Halp
« on: 2020-04-24, 15:04:02 »

Not to mention that such filmic curves compress highlights so much that you will have to increase energy levels of your scene which increase realism but will also have an impact on render times (more overblown areas). Unreal engine implementation fakes it by applying a 1.45 gain before the post-process because they did not want artists to be bothered by the exposure loss (was a bad choice imho).

This doesn't make sense. Exposure increase is identical to increasing light source intensity. One stop of Light is double the light (since one is exponential and other linear). That's not opinion, that's fact.
None of this affect render times negatively per se, that's the purpose of MSI to control.

These threads are just getting weirder and weirder.

(Great tests Lolec! btw).

So here's a situation/scene - a single room with a single light in it. Now there's two ways to brighten it up, either you brighten your light or increase your EV/Exposure. Do I understand correctly that there's totally no difference which method you choose? Even if you would brighten your light to some crazy values (like 20 000 of whatever), it would still be okay? By okay I mean materials would still respond to light as expected etc.

So to confirm I made one last test with disp 2.5D + 1px size with autobump on and off and I can say shading is pretty much the same (correct).
In the end the conclusion is: 2.5D disp with autobump on works correctly, while the old disp with autobump on has some weird shading bug.

Okay so to get the most correctly shaded version should I leave autobump ON or OFF now? With 2.5D displacement I mean.

Okay newest version with the auto bump off (which indeed seems to be the cause).

New Disp 2px autobump off:

Old Disp 2px autobump off:

I assume it is a bug then?

Another thing I notice is that new version has considerably more shading "artifacts". And those artifacts gets worse the further you go from camera. Is this expected? Should I just decrease px size to like 1px and forget? Or there's something wrong too?

New test with glossiness value of 0.5

New disp:

Old disp:

Issue still remains basically.

Just re-done the test as Romullus suggested and it seems that results doesn't change too much.
Main problem isn't the difference in quality though, but the fact that the shading/reflections looks totally different, like the light would come from different direction in both of these cases.

Old disp 2px:

New disp 1px:

Difference is best noticed when switching quickly between the two examples.

So I'm baking this displacement map of the tiles in substance designer, but I notice quite a big visual difference between the two types of displacement when rendered in Corona (3DS Max).

Why is that? Or is this supposed to be like this?

Old disp:

New disp:


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5