Author Topic: Reflection IOR vs falloff for wooden floor  (Read 453 times)

2022-07-04, 18:17:01

mantaskava

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 80
    • View Profile
When creating some of the materials (usually it's wooden floor) I often times see people using falloff nodes to control varying degrees of reflection depending on the view/camera.
But isn't IOR/reflection IOR settings doing exactly that? Why then complicate things and use some additional nodes? Unless you need that extra control that falloff nodes give you. Or am I missing something else here?

Thanks

2022-07-04, 18:51:10
Reply #1

dj_buckley

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 558
    • View Profile
User preference? Different version of software i.e. legacy setups? etc etc

2022-07-04, 19:45:29
Reply #2

mantaskava

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 80
    • View Profile
I assume it's just that, but still, wondering if I'm missing something else here

2022-07-04, 20:39:05
Reply #3

TomG

  • Corona Team
  • Active Users
  • ****
  • Posts: 4587
    • View Profile
Nope, you aren't missing anything else :) It is either legacy workflows, old habits, or just preference to gain a specific result that is desired for artistic reasons.
Tom Grimes | chaos-corona.com
Product Marketing Manager | contact us

2022-07-04, 20:52:57
Reply #4

Basshunter

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 182
    • View Profile
When creating some of the materials (usually it's wooden floor) I often times see people using falloff nodes to control varying degrees of reflection depending on the view/camera.
But isn't IOR/reflection IOR settings doing exactly that? Why then complicate things and use some additional nodes? Unless you need that extra control that falloff nodes give you. Or am I missing something else here?

Thanks

You're talking about this video, aren't you?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhBsO-8Fbpo

If this is the case, I asked my self THE SAME question during the whole video! Why in heaven does a "PRO" artist use these kind of odd workflows that have no apparent benefit? At first, I thought I was missing something. Now I'm more with Tom on this.
« Last Edit: 2022-07-04, 21:00:47 by Basshunter »

2022-07-05, 10:25:32
Reply #5

mantaskava

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 80
    • View Profile
Quote
You're talking about this video, aren't you?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhBsO-8Fbpo

If this is the case, I asked my self THE SAME question during the whole video! Why in heaven does a "PRO" artist use these kind of odd workflows that have no apparent benefit? At first, I thought I was missing something. Now I'm more with Tom on this.

Yeah I was referring to this exact video in this case. But seen plenty of similar ones over the years.
BTW, as you can see in RenderFarm's answer (comments section of youtube), it looks like we're not missing something. It's just a personal preference, which maybe gives some more artistic control over the material.

2022-07-05, 11:24:18
Reply #6

maru

  • Corona Team
  • Active Users
  • ****
  • Posts: 11505
  • Marcin
    • View Profile
Feel free to use any methods you wish to achieve the desired results.

From a bit more technical point of view, it always makes more sense to:
- use the controls available inside the material rather than additional tools
- use native Corona tools rather than 3ds Max ones

So it's better to use the controls available inside the Corona Physical Mtl rather than plugging a Falloff map to achieve a similar result (for example, you can enable the Clearcoat layer and adjust its Fresnel IOR). This will give you the most physically accurate results and in many cases will also render faster.
Marcin Miodek | chaos-corona.com
Chaos Corona Support Team Lead | contact us