Messages

1

[Max] Bug Reporting / merge material from other scene merge also objects from this scene ---bug

« on: 2023-07-13, 21:23:25 »

steps:
open clear max and material editor
open material library from other max file with project and geometry
merge any material from this library to material editor
instantly you get a piece of geometry from another scene into you clean open max in layer with
with a layer name addition "_Recovered"
is very difficult when you want to get material from another project
i think it has something to do with materials containing connections like Corona Distance map

2

[Max] Resolved Bugs / Re: CoronaSelect + CoronaSky

« on: 2023-01-27, 11:50:11 »

Same thing with Volume Effect in corona sky and Corona Select map/
If turn on Volume Effect in one Corona Sky map, this affect to turn on this effect on all sky maps in others slots in Corona Select map, even if it is disabled in other maps.

3

[Max] Daily Builds / Re: The new Corona Converter feedback thread

« on: 2022-05-26, 21:35:58 »

I have to say, wither you regard it as a step forward in material creation, physical accuracy or anything else, it is a huge step back in workflow and usability. Converting almost all materials to metals and a load of materials to max physical materials is totally useless and makes it completely unusable.

The old converter was excellent, and to say if you are not including a converter for legacy materials because it is not the way forward it is incredibly arrogant. We need the tools to do our jobs so get it implemented so we can work, and then when you get a working Corona 7/8 converter phase out the old one if you have to.

I have very little interest it converting from corona 6 to 7 or 8, we wouldn't render jobs across 2 different versions. What we NEED is a quick and reliable way to get models from clients and get them in a state where we can start improving them. Not re-texturing them from the start.

Please put your users first not your ideals.



Rant over
thanks :)

+++100
I don't remember when was the last time I used a new converter in last Corona versions/  it is absolutely impossible to use it because you will never be even approximately sure of the final result. especially nice with multimaterials from others models libraries/ I just kept the old converter as a script.

4

[Max] Resolved Bugs / Re: amount of lights and viewport/max performance

« on: 2022-05-13, 14:46:52 »

It could be 3ds max problem more than anything else - some helper types are known to slow down viewports.

As Tom says, lights can be hidden in the viewports and still render with the 'Render hidden lights' option checked in Corona's renderer setting.

as well to change helper type for Corona Light :)
as I noted earlier
/Hiding light cannot be used because-- /for example/ scenes with days and night lighting in one max file/
same for /Render Hidden Lights option in max
Hiding light in filter option in veiwport not usable because
/Its still a pain if you have to change something and make them visible again though../ as clemens_at say

5

[Max] Resolved Bugs / Re: amount of lights and viewport/max performance

« on: 2022-05-06, 16:47:17 »

Are these Corona Lights, and does the same thing happen with default Max lights? As a note, LightMtl renders as quickly as a Light with the exception of spherical lights, so guessing these are spherical lights? Is hiding the lights in the viewport an option since this seems to be viewport performance that is affected?

in most scenes for urban views spherical light sources are used as a priority/
for night windows of the buildings as example/
Hiding light cannot be used because-- /for example/ scenes with days and night lighting in one max file/
Now only open layer with many light sources taking about 2-10 minutes/
I'm not talking about for lagging with interactive rendering for the same reason.in addition, I specifically checked the standard Max Omni light and it's a completely different story. Omni has no effect on viewport performance at all/Same with Vray sphere light/

6

[Max] Resolved Bugs / Re: amount of lights and viewport/max performance

« on: 2022-05-06, 15:33:04 »

Using geometry is light source cause for extreme increase in render time/
Another question is why is this happening?
light is no geometry/ it is only icon in viewport/
In other renders things like that don't happen, etc/ Vray and others/
even with 300 light sources feels significant degradation in viewport/max performance.

7

[Max] Resolved Bugs / amount of lights and viewport/max performance

« on: 2022-05-06, 12:38:52 »

Big problem for big projects/
1.create a new scene in 3dmax/
2.create lights in instance mode in the amount of about 3000.
after that 3max viewport starts freezing, lagging all time/ deleting, hiding and moving of several lights takes an infinite amount of time/
with the addition of light sources, the problem increases.
the scene almost becomes unedited.
Please solve this problem as soon as possible
it becomes completely impossible to work on large projects.

3dmax 2022
Corona 8
Video Card  GeForce GTX 1070 8GB
AMD 2970wx 24 core
 
same thing on intel i9-10900F
with video card GeForce RTX 3090 24 GB
Thanks

8

[Scatter] Feature Requests / Re: Chaos Scatter feedback

« on: 2022-02-11, 18:39:17 »

please add options for areas with surface edge mode for scaling and density/
Also need adding free paint areas mode for painting include/exclude areas, not only with splines

9

[Max] Bug Reporting / copying material from a scene to another scene

« on: 2021-12-04, 18:23:25 »

copying material from a scene to another scene also transfers geometry from old scene/
and this applies not only to materials with /Distance map, AO or other materials with /Exclude-Include/ selection sets and
and does not depend at /Parent selection or select unfluences option in 3dmax/
thus when transferring materials
sometimes you have to clean a new scene from unnecessary geometry, and sometimes it is very difficult to determine which layer this geometry comes to.
very inconvenient and very interfering with work with complex scenes/
it all started somewhere with version 6 .

-------------------
max 2020/ corona 7 /

10

[Max] General Discussion / Re: Saved render is different than VFB

« on: 2021-08-11, 13:44:29 »

Hi There,
I am facing an issue while saving render. The saved render is different than the VFB.
Please help me out.

problem with gamma
you have to check if you have /override gamma 1.0/ when you save the image/
must be Automatic 2.2

11

[C4D] I need help! / Re: Excluding Sky from 1 object

« on: 2021-06-26, 00:02:26 »

The title says it all. I know that you can turn off reflections and refractions on sky and it effects the entire scene but you cant target a single object to not be effected by the sky like you can the sun. Whats the best method to exclude a single object from the skys reflection?

 I could render the object in a separate scene and overlay but id be doing about 200 product images and want to avoid extra photoshop editing if possible. any suggestions?

may be will try
Reflect BG override
Refract BG override
In object materials
:)

12

[Max] Daily Builds / Re: Discussions about people's expectations, Corona developement, life and other things

« on: 2021-06-06, 22:11:56 »

After Effects--for example. how they work in all normal studios.
I think also for freelancers:)
Same filters-same color grade-same compositions-same resolutions--only update image from renders--0.5 sec of working time:)besides, it never happens that your post process is 100 percent satisfied with the customer. and a lot of things that simply cannot be added to raw renders.
absolutely in any case a third-party application is used

You are biased AF dude. Fact that probably all bigger studios work this way doesn't mean they are the "normal" ones and those that don't use it are somewhat ... I dont know ? Worse ? Not normal ? One might thinkt that is what you suggest.

Up until recently there was no other way of doing this as renderers focused on producing basic raw image or would let you tonemap it with bullcrap reinhard inside in a limited way and that's it. Specialised software existed to push things further. This also exists because large studios are big structures not as elastic with their pipeline as the smaller ones where changing pipeline is a matter of day(s) unlike the biggies with tens of artists.

As everything evolves there is no need for that workflow with fancy software for people who want to push things just a little behind the line without the need to resolve to soft as AE, Davinci and the sort.

You're assuming that this is the only organic way of growth - want to postproces better - do it external. It isn't. More controll here would totaly sufice many many people. And I see what I get instantenously while I develop it. Without the need to shuffle in and out of max and VFB and opening it in external soft. Sort like the move from buckets to interactive. From Grant Warvick multilayered materials to simple GGX.

We also regularly work with clients in live preview sessions - how do you expect me to show them the final result if I have to go through fifty additional steps to show them the finished image ?
Thins are going WYSIWG way in many fields.
I don't need super advanced pipeline with 5 softwares inbetween a render and finished image. My profile does not force me to incorporate one and more and more people dont need it. I need more controll inside the VFB.

They way you're using this software isn't the only way. The purpose you're using it isn't the only one for which it can be used.

Do not try to invalidate other peoples feature requests only because you do not need them. Other people do and judging by the "most wanted features" thread many people want to get this upgraded.

I bet there is no one more motivated than the corona team to get tone mapping out. It really looks like they are taking it seriously and trying to do something exceptional, witch often means things taking much longer than expected.

I'm sure whoever is working on it is taking it seriously. No doubt about that. The question is how many devs are assigned to Corona for Max these days, and their seniority. It looks as if there's only one person working on this and he isn't Ondra or Maru.

This. Valid point. We suppose to get features. Turns out some are postoponed undefinitely for release after a release, some most highly anticipated like tonemapping after finaly getting to be worked on seems like might take almost two years to get to final stable release (not mentioning time people were vigorously discussing it on the forum). We have a team of developers, Meanwhile Fstorm is developed by just a single guy and I understand that some might argue that it is still not production ready and whatnot but still, one guy.

Here no communication. Zero explanation as to why. Silently removing a feature to next release.

no need to worry so much dude (;
I am sure that a brilliant Corona team
in the end will cope with the task for your peace of mind.
I didn't dissuade anyone from anything because it's not very smart. it's just that there are many other problems worthy of a solution besides the "post-process in VFB'" :)

13

[Max] Daily Builds / Re: Discussions about people's expectations, Corona developement, life and other things

« on: 2021-06-05, 21:11:30 »

Edit 2: And let's be honest, who thought they could do a new physical material AND a new tone mapper for the same version?

They said they will. People might or not make decisions based on that. If they do not introduce new tonemapper then what the hell took 10 months here ? Half the new sky system was done in previous release. Not taking into account mat library as this is not coding. That leaves us with displacement optimizations and basically new shader.

v8 release is expected in Q1 2022, that potentialy leaves the door open for people that need a stable environment and can't fiddle with dailies to get the new tonemapping in worst case scenario in march 2022 ? It is another  9 months from here ! Wrapping up almost two years !

Edit: On the other hand we're getting Aerial perspective and an improved sun & sky model, which I haven't seen yet but hope it will be great.

Awesome reasoning. I ordered a Mercedes, they deliver Dacia for a few months as a substitute. Well nothing happened, it still has wheels right ?
Not to mention that Reworking tonemapping is next to GPU/hybrid and new shader voted as the top 3 most wanted features in the forum.

hi,
I am a little bit  surprised by this strong demand for improvement of "tone mapping". I'll be curious if a lot of people use Vray's new "ACES" workflow which seems like a gas factory to me. I do not really believe in ready-made solutions because what matters in the end are the images produced ... After obviously all improvements are welcome but I do not believe too much in the revolution of "tone mapping" for the architectural image ... but that's just my point of view ...

mienda

totally agree. anyway task
"do absolutely the whole post-process"  in Frame Buffer
I personally find it completely unrealistic and unnecessary because there will always be certain applications that make more accurate corrections and post-processing. yes of course it can make the work easier also in post-processing and possibly get a more attractive look, but what has been done now in Vray in this direction is just ridiculous. just try to play with all these bells and whistles with a resolution of 8-k in Frame Buffer with huge heavy scene in 3dmax/[:

And this advocating in form of "why do we need that feature, it can be done in other software"... Sure it can, but imagine a situation where you render dozens of images per project and you need to provide absolute consistency. Why would I import it to other external software to do postprocesing when I can do it straight in the VFB and not waste any more time ?
This workflow is as valid as the one with postpro in external soft. Your arguments are not in any way superior.

After Effects--for example. how they work in all normal studios.
I think also for freelancers:)
Same filters-same color grade-same compositions-same resolutions--only update image from renders--0.5 sec of working time:)besides, it never happens that your post process is 100 percent satisfied with the customer. and a lot of things that simply cannot be added to raw renders.
absolutely in any case a third-party application is used

14

[Max] Daily Builds / Re: Discussions about people's expectations, Corona developement, life and other things

« on: 2021-06-05, 12:35:17 »

hi,
I am a little bit  surprised by this strong demand for improvement of "tone mapping". I'll be curious if a lot of people use Vray's new "ACES" workflow which seems like a gas factory to me. I do not really believe in ready-made solutions because what matters in the end are the images produced ... After obviously all improvements are welcome but I do not believe too much in the revolution of "tone mapping" for the architectural image ... but that's just my point of view ...

mienda

totally agree. anyway task
"do absolutely the whole post-process"  in Frame Buffer
I personally find it completely unrealistic and unnecessary because there will always be certain applications that make more accurate corrections and post-processing. yes of course it can make the work easier also in post-processing and possibly get a more attractive look, but what has been done now in Vray in this direction is just ridiculous. just try to play with all these bells and whistles with a resolution of 8-k in Frame Buffer with huge heavy scene in 3dmax/[:

15

[Max] Feature Requests / Re: The most wanted feature?

« on: 2021-05-07, 21:08:53 »

highly recommend adding an option noise amount, pass amount and denoiser amount  in Corona Camera to be able to adjust theses  parameters per Camera view/
for for huge render time savings per camera/because each view sometimes requires visually less or more noise amount or passes which theoretically can greatly reduce render times.

I highly recommend using a plug-in that does exactly this (along with many, many other features) called Pulze scene manager.

It's honestly the best plug-in for max and makes it a much more friendly software to use.

thanks
instead of one simple option, get a whole set of unnecessary things to deal with them and also pay additional funds for it.
a little unreasonable