Messages

166

[Max] Daily Builds / Re: New Corona Physical Material (PBR) playground!

« on: 2021-03-23, 22:21:48 »

After some more digging, I noticed this - if I checked the "Add gamma to input" in the Corona Normal for the Clearcoat Bump, the Base Bump no longer showed through (changing it in the Base layer Corona Normal did not make a difference). So looks like if the normals are wrong in the Clearcoat bump, it will let the Base bump have an effect.

This would explain why it happens sometimes but not other times, as it would depend on whether the Clearcoat bump has wrong normals (I did get the Corona warning about a Normal map being potentially incorrect).

Can you check and see if this is the same for you please? May also want to check the same for your Base layer, as it might depend on which Normal map is incorrect. Thanks!

I think i got it, it is not a gamma related issue, i usually load my maps with override 1.0 gamma using DropToSlate plug-in, what I discovered right now is that when i use low intense, low "contrast" normal maps - then it gives incorrect results, transfering the bump details to the coat layer, you can check this in the video i've attached
in other words, some normal maps give incorrect results because their intensity is too low
PS I put video to .rar because it is too big for attachment

167

[Max] Daily Builds / Re: New Corona Physical Material (PBR) playground!

« on: 2021-03-23, 17:41:33 »

Not happening for me here - Corona Bitmap to Corona Normal to Base Bump, the Clear Coat is unaffected (unlike with the daily build before this one, be sure to be using the one from yesterday). Can you share images, grabs of the material set up, etc. ?

EDIT - or do you mean if you add a second normal, to the Clear Coat bump, only then does the Base Bump show through?

EDIT 2 - I tested the second case and I see what you mean, if there is a normal map in both Base and Clear Coat, the Base normal still affects the Clear Coat. It's not what I'd have expected so I will ask :)

ok, I recorded small video) but i cant totally understand what is going on. With some maps, for example default procedural noise connected through CoronaBumpConverter all work as expected, with some normal bump maps don't

168

[Max] Daily Builds / Re: New Corona Physical Material (PBR) playground!

« on: 2021-03-23, 16:34:08 »

Hi, as of the latest daily build of Corona 7 2021-03-22, If clearcoat bump map is not supplied, clearcoat does not use any bump-mapping (previously it used bump map from base layer). Further detailed info can be found here: [Behind the scenes: The Physical Material]

You can find the latest DB here: [Link]

I observe strange behavior of the material if I add a normal bump map to the clearcoat bump slot, and vice versa, if I use a normal map in the base bump slot, then the clearcoat layer looks like inheriting the bumps of the base layer, is it expected?

169

[Max] Daily Builds / Re: Corona Renderer 7 for 3ds Max - Daily Builds Discussion

« on: 2021-03-23, 08:16:34 »

DB 22-03-2021 - updated PhysicalMaterial is great! Clear coat now works exactly as I want it to work - thank you guys!

Could you, please, give some information about Edge color - does it just tint reflection on the surface  at a glancing angles of viewing or it does something more?
Also would like to know, is it enough simply invert glossiness map to get roughness map with the same visual representation of material, or some other adjustments have to be done in order to convert glossiness map to roughness map properly?

Cheers Bormax, I was planning to post a notification today about it here. Regarding edge colour I am going to quote some answers:

"In normal use, the Physical material works like the real world, where reflections are always white, with very slight color variation at the grazing angles. To maintain this, there is no longer any “Reflection Color” slot in the material, unlike in the Legacy Material, and the Physical material correctly calculates color curves for metals based on the Edge color."

I would suggest everyone to take a look here: [Behind the scenes: The Physical Material]

we are just interested in the question of how we should define this edge color for physically correct materials? should we select it according to the reference image or are there any rules for this?

170

[Max] Daily Builds / Re: New Corona Physical Material (PBR) playground!

« on: 2021-02-26, 14:43:35 »

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

171

[Max] Bug Reporting / Re: Reflected caustics dont produce volumetric lighting

« on: 2021-02-24, 17:26:46 »

Ah i misunderstood what the sentence was saying. I thought it meant all caustics that originate from inside a volume, not just caustics that affect the volume internally.
Thanks anyway :)

It was the very first thing i've checked almost 2 years ago after caustics release :D https://forum.corona-renderer.com/index.php?topic=24520.msg147937#msg147937

it's a pity that this has not been resolved so far, because Vray has such a possibility

172

[Max] I need help! / Re: 3DS Max or SketchUp : Best for Archviz

« on: 2021-02-21, 19:06:52 »

n fact, any modern tool will be as good as you know how to use it. Everything else is a matter of details and nuances. 3dsmax is a great and very flexible package due to the large number of plugins and add-ons, in the future I think it will be a better choice over Sketchup

173

[Max] Daily Builds / Re: New Corona Physical Material (PBR) playground!

« on: 2021-02-14, 06:14:24 »

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

174

[Max] Daily Builds / Re: New Corona Physical Material (PBR) playground!

« on: 2021-02-10, 02:45:45 »

Some differences in roughness are to be expected, the underlying models in Physical material are different than in the legacy material. Diffuse reflection is different based on base glossiness/roughness, reflection is normalized (scaled in order to not lose energy) differently to be more physically plausible.

Comparison 1, HDRI lighting: https://corona-renderer.com/comparer/NugVgk
Comparison 2, two light sources: https://corona-renderer.com/comparer/Uw9dpN

In my opinion, I find the physical model to be more accurate, but I can see how this might need some effort into being get used to, as always if a lot of voices raise concern we will forward your criticism to the devs for further consideration.

(Report ID=CRMAX-71)

with regard to the results, how were they achieved in this case? which parameter was mapped? clearcoat amount or clearcoat roughness?


And in addition, I may be wrong, but it seems to me that the format of the normal map has changed for the new material, is it so?

175

Gallery / Re: Kōdō

« on: 2021-02-02, 17:38:49 »

Nicely done, how is the new material?

big thanks) Quite convenient, apart from a couple of moments, the main thing is that now it is easier and faster to texture and export from a substance painter and other third-party sources, sheen is very usefull, clearcoat not so much :D

So, how did you like the new physical material? :)

I describe in detail everything I can in the relevant topic) please fix the bump from clearcoat :D :D
https://forum.corona-renderer.com/index.php?topic=31802.0
PS
in general, thanks to corona dev team for a wonderful and convenient tool for creativity, I wish you to develop further and listen to the community as always)

176

Gallery / Kōdō

« on: 2021-02-01, 20:30:28 »

Kōdō artwork

https://www.instagram.com/marchik3d/

Small non-commercial project done in spare time :D  by the way, using new Corona physical shader,
smoke simulated in phoenixfd.

Hope you like it!

177

[Max] Daily Builds / Re: New Corona Physical Material (PBR) playground!

« on: 2021-01-23, 13:34:34 »

Some differences in roughness are to be expected, the underlying models in Physical material are different than in the legacy material. Diffuse reflection is different based on base glossiness/roughness, reflection is normalized (scaled in order to not lose energy) differently to be more physically plausible.

Comparison 1, HDRI lighting: https://corona-renderer.com/comparer/NugVgk
Comparison 2, two light sources: https://corona-renderer.com/comparer/Uw9dpN

In my opinion, I find the physical model to be more accurate, but I can see how this might need some effort into being get used to, as always if a lot of voices raise concern we will forward your criticism to the devs for further consideration.

(Report ID=CRMAX-71)

Thank you very much, this is more likely not a criticism, I just try to use a new shader in my daily work and check as many controversial points and difficulties in use as possible, and accordingly I am writing about the results here.

I would also like to know the opinion of the dev team about the implementation of bump "replacement" in the clearcoat  layer as we mentioned before)
the item about the implementation of the new shader in the roadmap was fully checked yesterday and it makes me worried: D

178

[Max] Daily Builds / Re: New Corona Physical Material (PBR) playground!

« on: 2021-01-23, 10:30:50 »

PS and finally, if this is a "physically correct" shader, why should I add a layer of transparent glossy varnish to the glass if it is not there?

Technically fingerprint marks are not the part of the glass, it's a layer of grease and dirt on top of the glass. Maybe using clearcoat is not the best solution, but physically it's more correct than making fingerprints as a property of the glass.

Absolutely, but i'm talking about using clearcoat roughness parameter instead of clearcoat amount

I think the map should go into clearcoat roughness (inverted), not clearcoat amount. Clearcoat amount needs to be >0 then, of course.

in this case it is absolutely obvious that the glass surface without fingerprints is not covered with any clearcoat at all

179

[Max] Daily Builds / Re: New Corona Physical Material (PBR) playground!

« on: 2021-01-22, 19:43:01 »

I think the map should go into clearcoat roughness (inverted), not clearcoat amount. Clearcoat amount needs to be >0 then, of course.

Nope) you can try it yourself) as I said, a workaround can of course be found, but I cannot understand the ultimate purpose of this simplification if it only complicates the task.
PS and finally, if this is a "physically correct" shader, why should I add a layer of transparent glossy varnish to the glass if it is not there?

180

[Max] Daily Builds / Re: New Corona Physical Material (PBR) playground!

« on: 2021-01-21, 20:24:33 »

Working with the coat layer for the fingerprints wouldn't work for your case?

logically, this approach should work, but I still cannot get it to produce a similar result. It would be logical to set the required roughness value for the coat layer and apply it using a contrast mask, but as a result, the picture is more noisy and the pattern of smudges does not turn out to be as clear, of course you can always tweak  this to death, but it seems to me that this should not work like that.