Messages

31

[Max] Feature Requests / Re: when will new caustics solver be done?

« on: 2020-08-06, 21:37:36 »

Not reading comments from other users, ignoring basic questions, repeating the same chant over and over. Not sure we need more evidence of a troll among us.

32

[Max] Feature Requests / Re: when will new caustics solver be done?

« on: 2020-08-05, 17:11:01 »

Also, bringing dj_buckley in a little further :) - sorry! - you said if the goal is ultimate realism, questioning the utility of caustics is odd.

I agree.

But it is clear Ultimate realism is not the goal of Corona Render.

From the beginning, Corona characterized for choosing an interesting set of compromises that brought us Speed, Ease of use and "very reasonable realism"

In other words, Corona chose to tone down the realism just a little bit and just in the right way so the engine was very fast and very easy to use and configure.

Can you do more realism? sure. at the expense of time.

Can it be even easier to use and even faster? Yes! at the expense of realism.

Corona is not about ultimate realism. It's about equilibrium.

33

[Max] Feature Requests / Re: when will new caustics solver be done?

« on: 2020-08-05, 17:00:47 »

A new solver was never promised.

Caustics are notoriously hard, all render engines struggle with this problem in some form or another. Many don't have it implemented at all. Knowing the time and effort it would take to create a new solver, I think the majority of the community would prefer that time to be spent on other features.

I hear you, caustics on pools is pretty much the only commercial use case for caustics right now. But the thing is, that is pretty much the only time is really needed. Would caustics add a tiny amount of realism in some scenes? yes.

Look at this examples of architecture photography, can you find many -if any- examples of scenes that absolutely need caustics?  I couldn't find examples that even show clearly visible caustics.

In your study https://forum.corona-renderer.com/index.php?topic=30007.msg172830#msg172830 you showed a few examples on how caustics are visible in everyday life*

Except, in everyday life, no one is running around with a water bottle or hose spraying water all over the floor.

Of course you would get caustics in those scenarios... but unless you specialize in a very niche market of scenes-that-were-just-sprayed-with-water I don't see the current caustics solver holding anyone back.

34

Off-Topic / Re: Corona Virus Impact

« on: 2020-08-01, 00:18:18 »

Cool Thanks!

35

Off-Topic / Coronavirus Impact

« on: 2020-07-31, 17:51:42 »

I'm very curious about what effect - if any- did the CORONA named virus had on corona render sales/traffic/search term/support tickets etc?

Not talking about the economic ecosystem having an impact on sales, but if you saw a clear and interesting effect related to the shared name?

36

[Max] I need help! / Re: Square Artifacts

« on: 2020-07-27, 17:08:37 »

Hi Tom, yeah, sorry about the lack of info. I was so sure I saw a similar problem in the forum recently, that I thought someone might just recognize it.

Host software 3dsmax

Using the latest daily build.

It does not happen without caustics.

Motion blur is activated in geometry.

Some other interesting detail:  I rendered the same frame multiple times. Some squares stay the same, while others change slightly.

Actually, I managed to get rid of the squares by disabling caustics adaptivity.

I'm in the middle of an important job and can't really do a lot of testing, but I will come back to the scene and do some investigation once the job is over.

37

[Max] I need help! / Square Artifacts

« on: 2020-07-27, 00:00:36 »

I'm getting strange square artifacts in some images. (caustics enabled in render rollout and on every material) DOF enabled.



I suspected Nvidia denoising but it happens when it's on or off.

Probably unrelated but just in case it helps, the previews for Quixel Bridge starter looking like this a couple of days ago.




I remember seeing something similar in the forum, couldn't find it.

Thanks.

38

[Max] Daily Builds / Re: Corona Renderer 6 for 3ds Max - Daily Builds Discussion

« on: 2020-07-11, 17:32:59 »

I uninstalled using  "add or remove programs" but it didn't work. What is the correct way to completely uninstall corona ?

39

[Max] Daily Builds / Re: Corona Renderer 6 for 3ds Max - Daily Builds Discussion

« on: 2020-07-10, 21:33:24 »

Not sure which other software updated my OptiX, and you likely already know about it,  but the error message says I should report it so here we are :)

 

This wasn't fixed either in the latest daily. Just wanted to make sure you get this info.

Thanks

40

[Max] Daily Builds / Re: Corona Renderer 6 for 3ds Max - Daily Builds Discussion

« on: 2020-07-06, 22:40:28 »

Not sure which other software updated my OptiX, and you likely already know about it,  but the error message says I should report it so here we are :)

 

41

[Max] General Discussion / Re: Quixel bridge workflow for Corona

« on: 2020-07-04, 00:21:41 »

Bump 0 it's a bug around 3 month, they can't fix it.
We can fix this by changing file in notepad
MegaScan Lib\support\plugins\max\4.12\MSLiveLink\MS_Importer.py

mat.mapamountBump = 0

to

mat.mapamountBump = 1

Hmm, so they can't fix it, but it can be fixed by changing one digit in a single file?

Yes, but they fix it in last update 2020.3.1. I spammed on their forum =)

lolec On most of surfaces they indicate size of map in the name, but not on all

Yes, but since all maps are imported with the "tiling" option set to 1. I have to manually set it up for real-world size. If the map dimension is stated, great, but it is often not and I have to guess. Since I'm playing around with the importer anyway, I was trying to find a way to convert from Quixel dimensions to Corona real-world dimensions, because my understanding is that quixel DOES have the dimensions somewhere, as importing to Unreal works essentially as I would like it to work for corona.

@Juraj  The standards in CG are so bad that when a company does an even tiny better job at it, it automatically becomes accepted as the new standard, complicating this even further :)

42

[Max] Feature Requests / Re: CoronaSun Improvements.

« on: 2020-07-03, 20:32:15 »

Thanks for the clarification.

43

[Max] Feature Requests / CoronaSun Improvements.

« on: 2020-07-03, 19:53:15 »

Now that the CoronaSun and Bloom and glare where revamped, I find myself using them more and more. Here are a couple of things that I believe would be a good additions

1. A real position visualization in the viewport on where the sun will be at infinite distance.
The sun helper is nice and practical, but a helper in the viewport will make precise positioning even easier.
Something like this.


2. Real sun size (maybe this is the case already)

The current sun scale seems a little subjective (1, 2, 3...)  1 seems a little small compared to the real sun size in my opinion, but not sure if 1 corresponds to the real-world sun.  In case it doesn't a "real-world size" checkbox would be nice.

44

[Max] General Discussion / Re: Quixel bridge workflow for Corona

« on: 2020-07-03, 19:08:53 »

That is in fact a sad realization :(

Another one; the official stand regarding displacement is: Every render is different so we give users the "freedom" to tweak displacement manually to their subjective liking instead of taking the time to properly transform the settings.

I belive dubcat's method for correct displacement requires corona displacement mod, but I don't understand it well enough. So I modified that same file to add the displacement to the material instead of the modifier.

So far, modifying the script I fixed bump ( thanks sprayer ) and modified displacement to my liking, I still need to tweak displacement scale manually every time, working on understanding this further.

The one thing I haven't been able to fix or understand is how to handle mapping scale, as I'm not sure if all maps are the same size or how to get that information. e.g. Take maps that are 2x2 meters and set them to real world scale at 2m, but not sure if all maps are at world scale ow not :(

45

[Max] General Discussion / Quixel bridge workflow for Corona

« on: 2020-06-27, 19:58:29 »

Hello, I'm new to megascans - bridge and I'm struggling to define a correct workflow to export. Found this thread by Mr Dubcat https://forum.corona-renderer.com/index.php?topic=12945.0
But it seems to be obsolete now.

Specifically talking about surfaces (Although the same happens to objects and their materials) , when I export to max I get strange settings that don't make a lot of sense.

The setup I get is:

Corona displacement modifier applied to the object ( I would rather control the displacement in the material node and not the corona displacement mod, but while the settings in the modifier seem correct, the settings in the material are not the same)
Displacement usually too big ( my Max Unit setup is Meters and Unit is CM, not sure what is the best to ensure bridges sets it up properly)
Bump map at 0
Tiling mode instead of real world: It would be nice to bring textures in with "real wolrd" scale activated at the right size so I don't have to guess every time.

I'm also worried, based on dubcat's thread that some material properties are not being imported properly.

My questions:

1. What is the right setting to use in max regarding Units etc so Bridge works as seamless as possible?
2. Is there an optimized or tweaked version of the brdige exporter that works better?

Thanks