Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
I can post example when I get time, but it's effectively a Cavity map, which is sort of detailed AO map that focuses on areas that wouldn't reflect because they're cavities :- ).Got it. Once again, thank you for the insight. Really enjoy reading about this kind of stuff : )
Because most surfaces have cavities that might be wider below than above, so they trap a lot of light, effectively cancelling any reflection (because the light will bounce inside).
But simply using bump/normal map doesn't produce such light-trapping information, and even displacement does not. It would have to be vector-displacement, and very granular.
To create life-like digital twin of some real-world surface, the material + geometry have to fully replicate the total complexity there is. But usually the geometry in 3D is simplified, it's never as super complex and detailed, so the material needs to add that information. But the only way a material can add that remaining information, is by trickery. Thus, 100perc. PBR material will look uncanny, always smoother than should be.
And then there are special cases, like Wood. Wood has multi-directional anisotropy/SSS effect along the grain pattern, something that generalized shader cannot recreate (only true BRDF scan like ChaosScans).
So by doing some reflection mapping, you can at least partly fake it, and make it look more real.
Most people doing scanning have already realized it, it's why when you look at latest Megascans, they bake-down some cavity into Albedo, they don't diffuse it totally.
The reason why Dubcat advocated for IOR mapping, which you can now super simply achieve just by using DisneySpecular slot :- ), is that CoronaPhysicalMaterial, though almost every generalized 3D shader, just by using either normal mapping or roughness, it doesn't modulate the specularity enough. At least when you compare to real-world sample of same material. Is the Shader wrong? I guess the Devs would say no, but we already went through how many shader models and they always had something wrong :- ). To me we're still long-way from something that behaves absolutely like real material and maybe that's not even possible with generalized shader. The metals are already there, the GGX with Tail can replicate any metal almost 99perc. But the non-metals, particularly materials that have deep micro-structure, like Fabrics and Wood, those still look wrong.
And what is "Sheen" after all :- ) ? Just nice to have non-PBR fake (not needed if you use super-detailed GeoPattern for every fabric, but that would be super impractical, so hence, fake solution to rescue).
Mapping reflection is still necessary even for PBR, 100perc. physical correct materials would require microscopic displacement so yup, use that slot.
Can feel the painIs there an update on this?
Here's a video showing the issue.
Attached a file with the scene.
3ds max 2023, Corona 9, Windows 11
Triplanar completely overrides UVW mapping. It's fully exclusive with use of Mapping Source.
The UVW controls of Triplanar are useless if I want to use mesh UVWs.
I am lost why this is lost in this thread :- ). I mean Vray already has it anyway, what would be issue for Corona devs to just take it? Every other renderer including Unreal is using it in same way. In fact, Mapping control being done inside BitmapNode is rather unique to Max and Cinema perhaps, since they didn't use nodal network from get go.
Mapping source is not alternative to any existing Corona node, Tom is wrong about this. It's replacement for Bitmap node controls. A vastly superior one.
Yes, it's needed. BUMP + 1
If you would like the latest technology in ATX 3.0 like EPS12V connectors, then Corsair RMe Series RM1000e made their A-Tier list and looks to be very affordable 150 Euro/USD.
Be sure that it is logged, and your votes can push it closer to better chances of actual implementation.
You can add/vote for it here: https://forum.corona-renderer.com/index.php?topic=96.0
I like new proxy lister, its snappy and fast but for managing huge amount of proxies, id love to see some features from 3rd party script (CoronaProxyLister) but not sure if its possible to implement them this way.
- manually selecting proxy file in the scene which is instanced and part of the "instance group" is not highlighted in new proxy lister. So basically selecting any proxy which is instanced = you cant find highlighted in proxy lister.
- would be possible to add toggle to disable grouping of instanced proxies ? I basically have no idea where to look for specific files becase all i see are just groups (filename visible but important is how is file named in the scene) > https://i.gyazo.com/2f4f6ab53a507845ea4ddd04fc008b64.png
- I would love to see ability to use shift and ctrl while making selection instead of clicking on "sel" button. Selecting 150 unique proxies which are randomly spread in the scene by clicking "sel" button is very time consuming. It would take 5s to just hold shift and select first and last > https://i.gyazo.com/be428b8fd09cc571ac70a74a74b1bdb8.mp4
- I also miss ability to change properties of group of proxies which are not instanced. For example, i have 200 unique proxy files in scene but i want to quickly select them, change previz type from wire box to point cloud. In CoronaProxyLister i can do it quickly by selecting said proxies in the scene and with click of one button change previz type for all of them > https://i.gyazo.com/64e202ea545d9b104e7ff1dbeb559c14.mp4
https://i.gyazo.com/be428b8fd09cc571ac70a74a74b1bdb8.mp4
That would be worst solution, because you would ALWAYS need to change two parameters instead of one, even if your texture is square. Essentially you are asking to add more mouse clicks to do the same job.I think you're right
