Messages

46

[Max] Tutorials & Guides / Re: Batch Editing Images with Corona Image Editor

« on: 2018-09-12, 12:53:43 »

Not sure if this has been asked before, apologies if it has but can I tell the batch script what format to output, and/or which elements I would like to be saved with the beauty pass?

Thanks

47

[Max] Bug Reporting / Re: 3ds max saves before render

« on: 2018-04-07, 01:09:03 »

Any updates on this issue? Some of my scenes take upwards of 10 minutes to save and I lose hours every day waiting for pre-render saves which just aren't necessary

48

[Max] Daily Builds / Re: Daily builds version 2

« on: 2018-03-12, 14:59:23 »

Hi,
I see some negative reaction to us adding vray compatibility, so I will try to address some of the issues raised:

First, this is not us changing plans or secretly sneaking in "evil" features - we were very upfront about this right from the beginning, as it is very logical thing to do: https://corona-renderer.com/blog/new-horizons-plans-for-2017-and-beyond/.

As for advantages this has over the convertor: while we like the convertor and it works well, there are few limitations we aim to overcome:

• We managed to get the support working (without some very specific features like object include/exclude) even without vray installed
• Speed of work, UI improvements - no need to run the script every time new asset is imported, no more "unsupported material" warning. Ideally, we would like that assets that are "vray compatible" be automatically also "corona compatible", to make shopping/browsing assets easier.
• While the support is not perfect and never can be (the rendered images can differ if some features unsupported in one renderer are used), it is non-destructive - meaning the assets are preserved as they were, unsupported features are not rendered, but also not destroyed - so the assets can be still used in vray, or can render better once the feature support is addded. There is no need to store 2 versions of well-made assets.

We intend to preserve the convertor to support other render engines, and to offer permanent conversion of vray->corona assets.


I understand that this feature is not useful for all, but please, put way the tinfoil hats. Volumetrics, skin, hair, ... are features also not used by all, yet people do not complain when we spend (way more) time on them.

I totally get your point here Ondra. Different people = different needs etc etc... As far as I'm concerned, I was not especially negative, just a bit disappointed.. Some long terms bugs/feature, that I consider crucial are still in the pipe, version after version and that's kinda frustrating. That's all. Most of us do not intend to be agressive/offending, we're just trying to push for these features/fix to be addressed and don't fall in the abyss. That said, Corona is getting better and better and even if I don't consider that feature a must have compared to some others, that's still a great step forward and it will for sure be beneficial to my workflow. So keep up the good work :)

I'm definitely with Fluss on this one. Our negativity (if you wish to call it that) is not with vray compatibility as such, it's because all of the other requests/features/fixes etc. will be placed on the backburner whilst this happens. The ability for me to render a Vray plane light is certainly not going to improve my work or my life - however, a working Lightlister (remember that?) would be of huge benefit. I love Corona and I have not once thought of Vray since switching so I will reserve a slight annoyance that it continues to slow me down even when I don't use it.

49

[Max] Daily Builds / Re: Daily builds version 2

« on: 2018-03-08, 22:17:24 »

Hi,

Apologize in advance for my stupid question: since we have, thanks to DeadClown's efforts, a great converter, what's the point of getting Corona to render VRay stuff ?

The same question comes to my mind. I'd have preferred to see some long-term bug fix (environment overrides, masks visible in reflect/refract etc..) rather than Vray compatibility for now.

Same here

50

[Max] General Discussion / Re: IR used to be interactive

« on: 2018-01-30, 00:21:26 »

*Bump*

Is IR still broken or buggy for everyone else?

Still feels terrible for me, would be a shame to think this is how it will continue to perform moving forward

51

Gallery / Re: Animation: How an AK-47 Works

« on: 2017-11-17, 14:12:12 »

This is excellent!

52

[Max] General Discussion / Re: IR used to be interactive

« on: 2017-11-11, 01:16:22 »

Thanks for adding your own personal experiences everyone, it’s much better for the devs to know that these issues are not isolated cases and that IR is becoming less useable with each release.

Bormax - I completely agree with your remarks about cameras slowing IR right down, perspective navigation feels way more like IR used to a few versions ago.

I will do some testing when I can in the hope of getting enough info to file a bug report on mantis.

LUKEC3D - if you click system settings inside the Corona render settings you should see a checkbox called ‘enable dev tools’ or something along them lines. Checking this will add a new section to your performance tab and in there will be an area for IR subsampling. (Not currently at my PC but I think that’s right)

Bluebox - I am with you on that one, a fluid and responsive IR is the single most important thing in my workflow and any bugs which slow it down should be investigated with the highest priority. I imagine for many it was the main feature which first made them consider switching from Vray - it was the catalyst for me too.

53

[Max] General Discussion / Re: IR used to be interactive

« on: 2017-11-08, 00:05:33 »

this doesn't explain why IR needs to completely restart when a light intensity or material colour is changed slightly.

Huh? So you want that IR would hapilly render without even noticing that user changed material's colour from red to green? It needs to restart to reflect changes made in the scene. Of course it would be great if IR wouldn't restart just from navigating in material editor or selecting objects or anything that does not change output appearence, but i believe that in 9 cases out of 10, it's more 3ds max's fault rarther than Corona's.

I get that it would need to restart to some extent, but is it not caching or storing some data in order to speed things up, thus making it interactive? There is nothing interactive about changing a wall colour from mid to light blue and then waiting 60 seconds to see the effect.

My main concern is that it used to be much quicker to get feedback from Corona IR, I have no idea what has changed, all I know is that it isn't what it used to be.

3dBoomerang - You've hit the nail on the head, 'always reloading' even when it has no reason to

For me, on larger more complex scenes, it's almost quicker to just hit render look at the first few passes rather than deal with the freezing/lockups that IR gives me

I agree completely Dave, that's what I used to have to do in Vray, feels like a huge backwards step doesn't it?

54

[Max] General Discussion / Re: IR used to be interactive

« on: 2017-11-06, 15:05:29 »

this doesn't explain why IR needs to completely restart when a light intensity or material colour is changed slightly.

Huh? So you want that IR would hapilly render without even noticing that user changed material's colour from red to green? It needs to restart to reflect changes made in the scene. Of course it would be great if IR wouldn't restart just from navigating in material editor or selecting objects or anything that does not change output appearence, but i believe that in 9 cases out of 10, it's more 3ds max's fault rarther than Corona's.

I get that it would need to restart to some extent, but is it not caching or storing some data in order to speed things up, thus making it interactive? There is nothing interactive about changing a wall colour from mid to light blue and then waiting 60 seconds to see the effect.

My main concern is that it used to be much quicker to get feedback from Corona IR, I have no idea what has changed, all I know is that it isn't what it used to be.

3dBoomerang - You've hit the nail on the head, 'always reloading' even when it has no reason to

55

[Max] General Discussion / Re: IR used to be interactive

« on: 2017-11-06, 13:54:16 »

Subsampling only takes place once IR is up and running, this doesn't explain why IR needs to completely restart when a light intensity or material colour is changed slightly.

It's not so much that IR rendering/cleanup is slower (this would be where subsampling comes into the discussion) - the real issue is the sluggishness of updates/feedback in general.

Recently I have found that rendering a draft image is quicker than waiting for feedback using IR, this is a huge backward step and is something I used to have to do in Vray as VrayRT just wasn't fit for purpose.

56

[Max] General Discussion / Re: corona 1.6.3 with DR and Backburner..

« on: 2017-11-05, 22:06:14 »

Hi Yanosh, I use backburner a lot - it works fine with Corona

57

[Max] General Discussion / Re: IR used to be interactive

« on: 2017-11-05, 00:47:47 »

Kind of glad to know I’m not the only one experiencing these issues as it means we have more chance of getting the developers to look into possible causes.

58

[Max] General Discussion / Re: IR used to be interactive

« on: 2017-11-04, 00:33:47 »

Thanks Bormax, having read your own thread in the link it seems we work in a similar way. Animating the sun position or some other object/light/material etc. I don’t use proxies much so I don’t think they are to blame but IR is clearly affected by key frames being present.

I have been reading through some of the other IR related posts and I am convinced that something was broken in an earlier version of Corona which has gone under the radar, getting progressively worse as the software evolves and new versions are released. As Rawalanche suggested with the compounded regressions.

59

[Max] General Discussion / Re: IR used to be interactive

« on: 2017-11-03, 01:05:09 »

Hi Bormax, sometimes I will keyframe scene changes but not always. Have you found this to be a cause of IR sluggishness?

Rawalanche - Regressions definitely sounds like an adequate description. It actually reminds me of VrayRT, I never really know what it’s doing anymore or why it needs to completely restart if I change a light’s intensity or tweak a colour in the mat editor.

I tend to use the zoom functionality quite heavily, both max’s 2D pan/zoom and frame buffer zooming to focus sampling on a specific area. This often messes up my IR sessions once I’m back at 1:1 (zoomed out). This isn’t the only cause but it’s one I encounter everyday.

60

[Max] General Discussion / Re: IR used to be interactive

« on: 2017-11-02, 14:09:13 »

Maru - I thought exactly the same, I have more RAM than ever, better hardware all round in fact. Add to that all of the optimisation that you guys have carried out and it should mean that interactive rendering is quicker or at least more responsive than older versions.

giona4 - I've also tried the force Path Tracing option but as you say this isn't very good for cleaning up interiors.

I will capture an interactive session as soon as I can and post the link here.