Author Topic: New Corona Physical Material (PBR) playground!  (Read 39518 times)

2021-02-13, 22:34:18
Reply #105

burnin

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 1188
    • View Profile
Hi all,
the bump on base layer affect the clearcoat layer and consequently the surface reflection.
For my point of view it is should not, or this behavior is as expected?
Well... Isn't 'clearcoat' just a 'thin coat'?

2021-02-13, 22:43:54
Reply #106

lupaz

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 664
    • View Profile
Hi all,
the bump on base layer affect the clearcoat layer and consequently the surface reflection.
For my point of view it is should not, or this behavior is as expected?
Well... Isn't 'clearcoat' just a 'thin coat'?

It is, but like with snow, the upper surface should get evened out at one point. So it should/could have no or less bump than the base layer.

2021-02-14, 06:14:24
Reply #107

marchik

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 109
    • View Profile
Hi all,
the bump on base layer affect the clearcoat layer and consequently the surface reflection.
For my point of view it is should not, or this behavior is as expected?
Well... Isn't 'clearcoat' just a 'thin coat'?

It is, but like with snow, the upper surface should get evened out at one point. So it should/could have no or less bump than the base layer.
Thats what I'm talking about from the very beginning) we definitely need spinner to control a base bump influence on the clearcoat

2021-02-14, 10:12:13
Reply #108

LorenzoS

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 194
    • View Profile
this should be the correct result.

2021-02-14, 13:27:37
Reply #109

GeorgeK

  • Corona Team
  • Active Users
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
  • George
    • View Profile
this should be the correct result.

We already have this logged for consideration :)

(Report ID=CRMAX-85)
For solutions and troubleshooting please visit - [link]
Please submit your tickets here - [link]

2021-02-14, 14:22:14
Reply #110

burnin

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 1188
    • View Profile
this should be the correct result.
Right, I see now :)... since it has its own bump it should really be flat over when used & set in such way.
Sure then, a value (slider) to influence it and/or mix with bump under, could be another good feature to have.


///
Oof, am getting a bit slow, not interacting and brain storming as much as used to. 
« Last Edit: 2021-02-14, 14:28:39 by burnin »

2021-02-20, 13:08:22
Reply #111

ATa

  • Users
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
HI CORONA guyz... as a corona user over 2 years, i couldn't find out why we should have Corona mtl and this one (PBR) simultaneously with same behavior!? 🤔 instead of parallel parts i supposed that we see some dramatic improvements in VFX, caustics and speed of rendering for animating ANY WAY... infinite loop⁉ after Chaos group😐 plz be U r self_ forward thinking nothing more!

2021-02-21, 14:26:44
Reply #112

TomG

  • Corona Team
  • Active Users
  • ****
  • Posts: 3974
    • View Profile
HI CORONA guyz... as a corona user over 2 years, i couldn't find out why we should have Corona mtl and this one (PBR) simultaneously with same behavior!? 🤔 instead of parallel parts i supposed that we see some dramatic improvements in VFX, caustics and speed of rendering for animating ANY WAY... infinite loop⁉ after Chaos group😐 plz be U r self_ forward thinking nothing more!

Not sure what you mean, can you explain more? This material is not the same as the Legacy, e.g. the big obvious examples are that this one has Clear Coat and Sheen, but there are other differences under the hood too that makes this easier to use, less likely to create "fake" materials, and more compatible with other approaches to materials to make importing things from Quixel, Megascans, Substance etc. easier. All of those are the reasons why the material is changing.

As a note, the Physical Material is the new default and recommended to use - the old one is left in place simply for legacy scenes that use it, so you can continue to get identical results from your previous scenes (so that's why you end up with both materials, rather than just the new one).

The merger with Chaos Group has nothing to do with deciding it was time for a new material with more functionality and better compatibility, still entirely our own decision :)

2021-02-21, 16:04:28
Reply #113

LorenzoS

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 194
    • View Profile
Hi,
what the future of legacy materials in actual Library?

2021-02-21, 19:19:04
Reply #114

ATa

  • Users
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
TNX TomG, i mean why should we have the new tab as PBR? instead of improving current situation (corona MTL parameters) because after a couple of years users are completely compatible with them (any way, I'm worried it is just like another complexity or NT 🤔)

2021-02-22, 11:37:45
Reply #115

zaar

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
When looking at the new coat function, I'm thinking of something I wanted for a long time but never dared request: Wetness like in some game engines. So where there is a coat (of water) the underlying material gets darkened based on it's porosity, and maybe depending on how wet, the material either just gets damp/darkened (and gloss might be affected too?) and if it's really wet it gets a coat that also has a bumped edge?

It's not like this is impossible to set up. It's just that it would be very convenient to have built in to the material from the start. A lot of arch-viz people a lot of puddles :) And if the setup is smart I think it would interest some motion graphics and VFX-peeps too!?
Or maybe in future versions of Slate Max will let us make little macro nodes that multiply diffuse by an inverted wetmap and so on, so that you don't have to do this over and over if you have many ground materials that need to be affected by the same puddles.

disclaimer: I'm not on daily builds, just trying to keep up here on news about the new PBR material

2021-02-24, 11:56:04
Reply #116

Visuali

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
this should be the correct result.
Right, I see now :)... since it has its own bump it should really be flat over when used & set in such way.
Sure then, a value (slider) to influence it and/or mix with bump under, could be another good feature to have.

Maybe just a padlock on the Bump parameter of the Clearcoat layer would be enough to choose whether the two should have the same behavior as in the first image (Reply #104) or should be independent as in the second (Reply #108).

2021-02-26, 11:42:07
Reply #117

Yuriy Bochkaryov

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 71
    • View Profile
    • Home Page
this should be the correct result.
Right, I see now :)... since it has its own bump it should really be flat over when used & set in such way.
Sure then, a value (slider) to influence it and/or mix with bump under, could be another good feature to have.

Maybe just a padlock on the Bump parameter of the Clearcoat layer would be enough to choose whether the two should have the same behavior as in the first image (Reply #104) or should be independent as in the second (Reply #108).
I think it is a good idea

2021-02-26, 14:43:35
Reply #118

marchik

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 109
    • View Profile
I think it is a good idea
Base layer bump intesity slider or  some "coat water level" or maybe fake "coat thiсkness" slider can be very usable for fast recreating porus absorption effect, espessialy on laquered wood without having to create a new bump map or modify the existing


2021-03-03, 03:43:56
Reply #119

JoeS

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 19
    • View Profile
    • Shade Digital
Any chance we will see some settings for an iridescent effect ?
« Last Edit: 2021-03-03, 08:17:33 by JoeS »