Bump Converter

[Juraj]

Odd thought, but why couldn't "Bump Converter" be hard-coded into the Corona shader ? Basically every time you would put shader network into bump slot, Corona would act like there was 'BumpConverter' node on top of it.

I am still confused why Corona shader replicates 3dsMax limitations if it's property of Corona. I mean the bump slot could simply be called "CoronaRelief" or something random whatever, why does it need to share some property of 3dsMax ? Or is there some deeper reason due to integration ?

(And did anyone ever use the 'bump amount' inside 3dsMax bitmap ? I didn't even know what that crap was for, and now when it's explained, it just seems like some stupidity from DOS era that can be safely ignored)

[romullus]

Odd thought, but why couldn't "Bump Converter" be hard-coded into the Corona shader ? Basically every time you would put shader network into bump slot, Corona would act like there was 'BumpConverter' node on top of it.

I am still confused why Corona shader replicates 3dsMax limitations if it's property of Corona. I mean the bump slot could simply be called "CoronaRelief" or something random whatever, why does it need to share some property of 3dsMax ? Or is there some deeper reason due to integration ?

Dunno if that's good idea. I rarely use bump converter, because more often than not, i like max's native bump result more, even if it's not correct. Of course there are instances where bump without converter simply won't work and then it is like gift from gods :]

(And did anyone ever use the 'bump amount' inside 3dsMax bitmap ? I didn't even know what that crap was for, and now when it's explained, it just seems like some stupidity from DOS era that can be safely ignored)

It can be useful when bitmap is instanced into several materials' bump slots and you want to adjust bump strength for all affected materials at once.

[Juraj]

If one produces incorrect result than that's not very good argument for keeping it :- ).
One of reasons I stick almost 100perc. to normal maps these days.

The other argument is quite weird solution too to be honest :- ). Seems like out-of-the box way to do something that can be done much easier with more commonly accepted workflow. Even though that's currently CoronaNormal map loader.

But I am not negating the need for a useful node...I love nodes, options are options, flexibility is good.
Just not sure why "problematic" scenarios cannot be solved through hard-coding inside shader and instead introducing band-aid stemming from adhering too close to every quirkiness of host app. I would definitely ignore some outdated concepts from 3dsMax.

[Marijan]

Odd thought, but why couldn't "Bump Converter" be hard-coded into the Corona shader ?

I was thinking the same thing. If Bump Converter function is to adjust any map to be used as an input to the bump map channel why not just integrate it into bump channel.
Maybe I'm getting something wrong here. Is there a reason why some maps shouldn't be used through Bump Converter but only through regular bump channel?

[Ondra]

it might make sense to use it internally to replace known problematic shaders, but generally it is bad idea to use this as blanket solution, because bump convertor for example interferes with normal maps (normal map plugged in bump convertor should not work normally), is inefficient for bitmaps (regular bitmap should have better performance there), and generally it is violating conventions of 3ds max. 3dsmax offers every shader to do its own bump mapping, and some do it correctly, those should not be overriden automatically. Overriding those that are deemed to do bump incorrectly is fair game though.

[romullus]

But wouldn't that make even more confusion? I can imagine how Corona would recognize those malicious node if plugged directly, but what would happen if for example, bitmap and cellular map would be mixed in composite node and fed to CoronaMtl's bump slot. Would Corona inject converter code in case mix, composite, CoronaMix nodes are plugged and if so, would output be always correct and optimal?

[romullus]

The other argument is quite weird solution too to be honest :- ). Seems like out-of-the box way to do something that can be done much easier with more commonly accepted workflow.

Here's even better example: bump amount contol directly in texmap, is irreplaceable (was irreplaceable before bump converter), when one wants to mix several bump maps and retain bump amount control on each of them :]

[dj_buckley]

Just to reignite this as this is something that’s completely slipped me by.  But is there a list anywhere of nodes that don’t work without the bumpConverter?  I’ve been fighting for weeks with multiple bitmaps in a composite node and never knew it needed the bumpconverter

[Njen]

Generally, if you are doing anything more than loading in a straight height/bump bitmap into the Bump slot, then you should use a CoronaBumpConverter, or most likely experience incorrect results.

If using a normal and a bump/height bitmap together, then use your normal map as you would normally do (pun intended) by plugging it into the 'Normal' slot, then same as above, you are doing anything more than loading in a straight height/bump map into the 'Additional Bump' slot, then you should use a CoronaBumpConverter, or most likely experience incorrect results.

[Njen]

Something to add: when I use a normal and bump/height bitmap together, it seems that the CoronaBumpConverter multiplies the intended result by 10x of the expected result, and I usually find that most of the time I am setting the 'Additional Bump' to '0.1' to get the desired look.

[dj_buckley]

Aweseome thanks for the response Njen

[steyin]

Something to add: when I use a normal and bump/height bitmap together, it seems that the CoronaBumpConverter multiplies the intended result by 10x of the expected result, and I usually find that most of the time I am setting the 'Additional Bump' to '0.1' to get the desired look.

I think this is a point that needs clarification as I've noticed similar things without even using the bumpconverter. When I use the normal map combined with a bump map I usually increase the bump amount in the CoronaMTL settings and have the additional bump value within the Normal map at a very low number. Normally with just the bump bitmap alone, that value within the CoronaMTL would be much higher, so I feel the normal map does some odd multiplication effect also that I was completely unaware of until I started fiddling with it more.

So I guess the question is: is this the intended effect? And what values should be used/are safe for the normal map value/additional bump value within the normal map, and for the CoronaMTL bump value when using these in combination.