Messages

76

[Max] Feature Requests / Re: All Color mapping/postproduction feature requests

« on: 2016-06-03, 07:33:44 »

What about the "lens Effects" from Maxwell. That stuff adds amazing atmosphere to the renders.

http://support.nextlimit.com/display/maxwelldocs/SimuLens

http://support.nextlimit.com/display/mxdocsv3/Lens+Scattering

That would be incredible, also if corona could emulate, or buy vfb+ and implement it that would be amazing.  I havn't tried vfb+ yet, but i've just seen the video and it looks great:

http://www.monotoneminimal.com/vfb

77

[Max] I need help! / render to texture script

« on: 2016-06-01, 03:55:11 »

Hi

Can anyone create a script which:

Creates a layer called baked
Creates a layer called un-baked
Moves all original layers into "un-baked" layer (keeping hierarchy)
renders selected object/objects to texture (including reflection/refraction based on active camera)
generates a standard material for each and applies the rendered texture to the diffuse with map id set to user specified number.  (corona material is no good for fbx export)
duplicates each object and sets all polys to mat id 1
assigns the new standard materials to the duplicate objects
moves duplicate objects to "Baked" layer
hides "un-baked" layer.


Cheers

Michael.

78

[Max] Resolved Feature Requests / find and render most complex part of image to ascertain necessary pass limit.

« on: 2016-06-01, 03:41:32 »

I'd like a button which analyses the image and finds the most complex part of the image, then renders a small portion of that area in order to quickly ascertain the pass limit required to achieve the desired noise limit.

The resulting suggested pass limit could then be used when rendering the whole image on a render farm (as currently the noise limit option seems to be incompatible with DR, i'm guessing due to each section of an image which is being handled by various nodes having different amounts of noise, resulting in unequal passes/banding).

Cheers

Michael.

79

[Max] I need help! / render to texture

« on: 2016-06-01, 03:26:04 »

Hi, i'm trying out render to texture for the first time.  The plan is to bake everything (diffuse, reflection, refraction, lighting), so that I can use my models in 3rd party apps (unreal, sketchfab etc).


i'm rendering the corona_beauty pass into the unwrapped model, and I have a few questions:


How do I specify which camera is used for reflections/refractions?  At the moment the reflections aren't being baked into the beauty pass.

How do I render multiple objects at once and have max generate new standard materials and assign them?  (choosing "create new material, standard Blinn" doesnt seem to work, it creates a corona material instead....which wont export to fbx.  I'd like to avoid manually creating a standard material for every object in the scene.

Is there a way to recreate the models automatically and change all polygons to mat channel 1, so that the new standard material is applied to the entire object?



If anyone can offer some guidance, or point me towards a tutorial which can, that would be much appreciated.

Cheers

Michael.

80

[Max] Resolved Feature Requests / exclude from denoise by material

« on: 2016-05-24, 09:41:04 »

I'd like to be able to exclude certain materials from the denoise operation in order to maintain texture detail whilst still denoising the rest of the scene.  This would come in handy for floor boards, course stonework, bark, etc.

Also a checkbox in the denoise settings to only denoise materials which don't have textures in the diffuse slot (solid colours) would be great.

81

[Max] Resolved Bugs / Re: noise limit and denoise doesnt work on render farms

« on: 2016-05-23, 21:33:25 »

I've just had an email from pixel plow.  They think they've fixed the problem in a messy temporary work around, see below:

Michael,
 
We believe to have scripted proper handling of both the use of a noise limit and the corona.exr output.  In case a noise limit is defined, our system won’t strip render the scene.  As well, if the VFB autosave is enabled, we will not strip render and should direct the output to a location where it will be delivered to you.  Full description here:
 
http://www.pixelplow.net/support/corona-renderer-scene-file-handling/
 
We have not taken the time to test every option, so let us know if something doesn’t work as we’ve documented it on our site.
 
Thanks,
Pixel Plow Support



It would be great if you can get a proper solution together though so I can still get multiple nodes working on the farm on still images...and also so I dont have to open every frame of an animation individually to modify the denoise amount.

82

[Max] General Discussion / Re: RANCH Renderfarm

« on: 2016-05-22, 05:54:16 »

Hi Ranch, are you guys able to compete with pixelow on price?  They charge $0.005 per ghz hour, and renders start immediately every time.  They've had a few reliability issues though recently, so i'm looking for a backup option.

83

[Max] General Discussion / Re: good render farm?

« on: 2016-05-22, 05:39:55 »

I guess we'd need to know how many subscribers corona has in order to get a good idea of server capacity requirements for a central hub.

My jobs average out at between 300-600mb each, so say disk capacity would need to be corona subscribers * 1gb (to be safe), 1 job stored per user at any one time.

First step would be to write the code to manage the data handling and node communication though, and then test on a smaller scale.

Perhaps corona should consider setting up/running the hub.....if this service was included with active licences I think it would be a good anti piracy measure, and definitely a competition killer if successful.

To encourage people to participate, maybe base available ghz hours on a % of how long the user has made their own computer available to the system.....say 500%.  So every time you leave your computer on for 10 hours overnight you would gain 50 hours acess to the communal nodes.

84

[Max] Resolved Bugs / Re: 1.4 Forest Pack and VrayHDRI issue..

« on: 2016-05-22, 04:05:03 »

I've had problems with vray hdri crashing out in interactive.  I'd trust Ondra, i'm pretty sure he wrote the engine...

85

[Max] Resolved Bugs / noise limit and denoise doesnt work on render farms

« on: 2016-05-21, 23:08:26 »

I've tried the noise limit and de-noising function on the render farms, the images returned are unusable due to banding.

There needs to be a controlling service which:

• Listens to all nodes current noise % and current pass count.
• When one of the nodes reaches the specified noise % it stops the node with the highest number of passes and stores this pass count.
• Stops all other nodes when they reach the pass count of the stopped node.
• Stitches the slices together
• Runs the denoise process as a whole.

After this the corona exr needs to be saved along with the de-noised image so that the farm can return both files back to enable the end user to load into the vfb locally and amend de-noise amount in post.

A Utility to load an exr sequence would be extremely useful so that the de-noise amount can be set for all frames of an animation in one go, either with the same amount for all frames, or via a graph with a bezier/linear curve.

86

[Max] General Discussion / Re: good render farm?

« on: 2016-05-21, 20:09:29 »

I leave mine on permanently anyway :). plus I pay way more in render farm charges than I do on electricity.

87

[Max] General Discussion / Re: good render farm?

« on: 2016-05-21, 19:05:53 »

I wonder if there's any way the corona community could start our own online free render farm, powered by us just making our pc's available for rendering when we are'nt using them?

88

[Max] General Discussion / Re: good render farm?

« on: 2016-05-21, 18:20:28 »

Cheers Specto, sounds ok.  Still 4x more expensive than pixel plow though unfortunately.

89

[Max] General Discussion / Re: Let's share noise limits!

« on: 2016-05-21, 05:29:03 »

what is the noise radius exactly?  I thought it might be pixels, but then noticed it went to decimals.

90

[Max] General Discussion / Re: good render farm?

« on: 2016-05-21, 05:23:36 »

Naa, they're waaaay too expensive.