Author Topic: New Energy conservation mode  (Read 50150 times)

2014-07-10, 20:59:25

Ondra

  • Administrator
  • Active Users
  • *****
  • Posts: 9048
  • Turning coffee to features since 2009
    • View Profile
As a first step towards more physically plausible materials, I've added new energy conservation mode that automatically dims diffuse color as reflection is increased. It should be faster, simpler, more realistic, and is consistent with what mental ray and vray does.

Because it changes the way materials render, it is disabled by default so existing scenes do not break. Any newly created materials have this mode however enabled. It is a simple checkbox in advanced material tab, so you can switch it any time.
Rendering is magic.How to get minidumps for crashed/frozen 3ds Max | Sorry for short replies, brief responses = more time to develop Corona ;)

2014-07-10, 22:47:52
Reply #1

ecximer

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 286
  • Scriptobot
    • View Profile
Great idea. Thank you.
sorry for my english

2014-07-10, 23:28:48
Reply #2

racoonart

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 1446
    • View Profile
    • racoon-artworks
added buttons to the Material Converter to switch all old materials to the new mode (or vice versa)
Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable from a feature.

2014-07-11, 00:04:25
Reply #3

Ludvik Koutny

  • VIP
  • Active Users
  • ***
  • Posts: 2557
  • Just another user
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
And as a little bonus, with addition of this new energy conservation mode, translucency fraction is now mappable! :)

2014-07-11, 00:29:23
Reply #4

Juraj

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 4743
    • View Profile
    • studio website
Nice. Looking forward to test how it compares with and without.
Please follow my new Instagram for latest projects, tips&tricks, short video tutorials and free models
Behance  Probably best updated portfolio of my work
lysfaere.com Please check the new stuff!

2014-07-11, 00:31:19
Reply #5

Chakib

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 787
  • Corona Omnomnomer !
    • View Profile
+1 i would love to see the comparison too

2014-07-11, 01:23:45
Reply #6

arqrenderz

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 990
  • https://www.behance.net/Arqrenderz1
    • View Profile
    • arqrenderz
Comparisons!! +1
and a little more explanation about the subject wont hurt ;)

2014-07-11, 02:13:53
Reply #7

antanas

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 269
  • Hmm ...
    • View Profile
Why? Why do you always add such wonderful features when the ends of my deadlines are drawing nigh - how will I be able to resist the temptation to test now ??? Jokes aside - sounds like both of those are some really useful features, so I probably won't resist the temptation any longer - to hell with deadlines :)

2014-07-11, 08:01:07
Reply #8

Polymax

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 830
  • CG Generalist
    • View Profile
    • maxkagirov.com
Really good idea! Than you!
Corona - the best rendering solution!

2014-07-11, 08:41:06
Reply #9

BlessOd

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 23
    • View Profile
It wonderful. Thank you.
xeon X5650@4.5GHz, 16Gb, EVGA GTX780

2014-07-11, 09:42:11
Reply #10

Ludvik Koutny

  • VIP
  • Active Users
  • ***
  • Posts: 2557
  • Just another user
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
I think you all overestimate it a bit. It's not a new killer feature. It will just make materials slightly more accurate, and it will make you naturally create materials with slightly lower average albedo. But it will not make your images instantly more realistic. It's more like when Corona switched from XYZ to WideRGB colorspace. It made some difference, but no one was suddenly producing better renders.

On the other hand, it could noticeably improve performance in scenes with large amount of bright reflective surfaces.

2014-07-11, 11:12:32
Reply #11

maru

  • Corona Team
  • Active Users
  • ****
  • Posts: 12711
  • Marcin
    • View Profile
Here is a quick ugly comparison. Not a "real life example" but I just wanted to see the difference.
Marcin Miodek | chaos-corona.com
3D Support Team Lead - Corona | contact us

2014-07-11, 11:27:25
Reply #12

Ondra

  • Administrator
  • Active Users
  • *****
  • Posts: 9048
  • Turning coffee to features since 2009
    • View Profile
Here is a quick ugly comparison. Not a "real life example" but I just wanted to see the difference.
Nice example, is it PT+PT or HD?
Rendering is magic.How to get minidumps for crashed/frozen 3ds Max | Sorry for short replies, brief responses = more time to develop Corona ;)

2014-07-11, 11:51:16
Reply #13

vicnaum

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 69
    • View Profile
Niiiiicccceee!


Slowly moving towards PBR. Great.

2014-07-11, 12:14:15
Reply #14

pokoy

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 1850
    • View Profile
That would explain why some of my tests looked as if there's too much direct light contribution in some cases - thanks for 'fixing' this ;)

2014-07-11, 13:02:39
Reply #15

maru

  • Corona Team
  • Active Users
  • ****
  • Posts: 12711
  • Marcin
    • View Profile
Here is a quick ugly comparison. Not a "real life example" but I just wanted to see the difference.
Nice example, is it PT+PT or HD?
PT+PT but there is no room modelled, just black void and 2 rectangle lights.
Marcin Miodek | chaos-corona.com
3D Support Team Lead - Corona | contact us

2014-07-11, 13:37:24
Reply #16

Ondra

  • Administrator
  • Active Users
  • *****
  • Posts: 9048
  • Turning coffee to features since 2009
    • View Profile
Cool, I was just making sure - you can get random variations with PT+HD that could be confused for the energy conservation change
Rendering is magic.How to get minidumps for crashed/frozen 3ds Max | Sorry for short replies, brief responses = more time to develop Corona ;)

2014-07-11, 14:23:47
Reply #17

arqrenderz

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 990
  • https://www.behance.net/Arqrenderz1
    • View Profile
    • arqrenderz
Wich one is on ? i guess the "en2.jpg" ?? its also faster?????

2014-07-11, 14:29:27
Reply #18

maru

  • Corona Team
  • Active Users
  • ****
  • Posts: 12711
  • Marcin
    • View Profile
Yes, en2 is using the new mode. It may be slightly faster because some objects become a little darker but the difference may be also because I was rendering in the background and doing other stuff.
Marcin Miodek | chaos-corona.com
3D Support Team Lead - Corona | contact us

2014-07-11, 14:51:43
Reply #19

Ondra

  • Administrator
  • Active Users
  • *****
  • Posts: 9048
  • Turning coffee to features since 2009
    • View Profile
Your speed improvement is probably due to random effects. I measured 1-4% improvement in my more complex scenes.
Rendering is magic.How to get minidumps for crashed/frozen 3ds Max | Sorry for short replies, brief responses = more time to develop Corona ;)

2014-07-11, 16:53:02
Reply #20

rampally

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 208
    • View Profile
THIS GREAT new feature ......
AND IS THIS GOING TO BE INCLUDED WITH A 7.1????
« Last Edit: 2014-07-11, 17:19:27 by rampally »

2014-07-11, 19:54:10
Reply #21

Stan_But

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 526
    • View Profile
    • https://www.behance.net/archdizs
Very interesting, fellows!
PBR - is a very good direction!

My test
1. with En.Saving OFF
2. with En.Saving ON


2014-07-28, 04:25:17
Reply #22

Utroll

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 164
    • View Profile
And as a little bonus, with addition of this new energy conservation mode, translucency fraction is now mappable! :)

How hidden is THAT !
Super !!!

2014-08-19, 11:55:35
Reply #23

rockin

  • Users
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Greatly appreciated!

2014-08-30, 10:46:30
Reply #24

pBarrelas

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 82
    • View Profile
Very interesting, fellows!
PBR - is a very good direction!

My test
1. with En.Saving OFF
2. with En.Saving ON
Thanks for the comparison test. The difference is more apparent on this one and, yes, it looks more realistic. Nice addition!

2014-11-17, 16:30:13
Reply #25

daveyt

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Is this also included in the standalone version?


2014-11-17, 16:47:48
Reply #26

Ondra

  • Administrator
  • Active Users
  • *****
  • Posts: 9048
  • Turning coffee to features since 2009
    • View Profile
yes
Rendering is magic.How to get minidumps for crashed/frozen 3ds Max | Sorry for short replies, brief responses = more time to develop Corona ;)

2014-11-17, 18:19:06
Reply #27

duke

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
Where is the checkbox? I can't see it in the "Advanced options" tab of the materials. I'm using Corona Alpha 7.1.

2014-11-17, 19:11:35
Reply #28

Ondra

  • Administrator
  • Active Users
  • *****
  • Posts: 9048
  • Turning coffee to features since 2009
    • View Profile
standalone: on by default in new builds, cannot be turned off
A7.1: does not have this feature. wait for the 1.0
Rendering is magic.How to get minidumps for crashed/frozen 3ds Max | Sorry for short replies, brief responses = more time to develop Corona ;)

2014-11-17, 19:43:45
Reply #29

duke

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
Oh, ok. Thanks for making it clear! :)

2015-02-26, 16:28:27
Reply #30

fabioazevedo

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 28
    • View Profile
Hey guys

Could anyone please elaborate a bit on the physical and technical reasoning behind the energy conservation feature?

It was most curious to try this out on the new Corona 1.0, but I only expected a slight darkening on reflections (as seen on this thread), and I'm actually getting quite drastic differences when I turn on/off the legacy mode, which I'm not totally convinced to be correct. Of course I could be wrong, but that's what my eyes are telling me at least.

I did a few tests to try to understand the issue better, and also to see if ggx had anything to do with it.

- Created a simple scene with a ground plane and a couple boxes lighted by corona sun
- Applied a white material (180RGB) to all objects and positioned the camera at an angle to increase reflections perception
- Reflection 1, IOR 1.52, Glossiness 1 (slight difference between legacy on and off as initially expected)
- Reflection 1, IOR 1.52, Glossiness 0,1 (huge difference between modes, with reflective faces much darker than expected)
- Reflection 0 (to compare to those same faces, and reflection is effectively darkening a lot when glossiness is very low)
- also tried a fallof map to control reflection instead of IOR, but i looks pretty much like legacy mode (without ggx), so I figured energy conservation isn't working with that.

So is it normal/correct that a low glossiness reflection is so much darker than a high glossiness one? or could this be some kind of bug?
even without.

2015-02-26, 16:43:01
Reply #31

Ludvik Koutny

  • VIP
  • Active Users
  • ***
  • Posts: 2557
  • Just another user
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
This is unrelated to new energy conservation mode. It's a "feature" of GGX BRDF, which is according to Ondra unfixable (although other renderers have it fixed). It produces these very ugly darkening artifacts around grazing angles when you have very low material glossiness.

I still think it's a bug though... and a pretty severe one.

2015-02-26, 17:00:32
Reply #32

fabioazevedo

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 28
    • View Profile
Oh, I see... Thanks for clarifying that.
I pretty much makes the new BRDF unusable in most scenarios then :/
I hope a solution can be found for it.

What about the falloff map thing? results are much better using it, and still different from legacy mode.

2015-02-26, 17:07:07
Reply #33

Ludvik Koutny

  • VIP
  • Active Users
  • ***
  • Posts: 2557
  • Just another user
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
That's unrelated to new energy conservation as well. New energy conservation weights material elements by scaling them, not summing up and then clampling, so overall albedo is lower, and things look more correct. So for example reflection now correctly subtracts energy from diffuse. Previously, it would only start subtracting when sum of diffuse and reflection exceeded 1. Now it subtracts diffuse as soon as reflection starts to occur.

As for then falloff map, falloff map set to fresnel does not work correctly with GGX, and according to Ondra it's also impossible fix. Don't really know what to add. Falloff map is not a dealbreaker for me, since IOR can simply be mapped by mapping fresnel IOR slot. But darkening of edges is really dealbreaker in some scenes, where it really matters. I wasn't able to render white christmas bulbs because of that :(

2015-02-26, 17:37:34
Reply #34

fabioazevedo

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 28
    • View Profile
 Your explanation for the energy conservation was exactly how I thought it worked, and the reason why I associated the dark grazing angles with it. I looked like it is subtracting to much energy from diffuse and thus leaving the color of reflection only.

But now that i think of it, that behavior does make sense as it is... and if the issue is not related to the energy conservation feature, could it be that lowering glossiness is also lowering reflection intensity, making it redundant with EC? In the passes, it does look weaker, not only spread wider.

The falloff map issue, well, not ideal but it's not the end of the world either. Maybe some chart matching IOR values with 0° angle reflection values could help.

I'm still confident Ondra will find solutions.

2015-02-26, 17:41:47
Reply #35

Ludvik Koutny

  • VIP
  • Active Users
  • ***
  • Posts: 2557
  • Just another user
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
The problem with darkening corners is that when glossiness is very low, the angle at which rays spread are pretty big, and at the grazing angles, some of the rays actually reflect at such angle they accidentally end up flying inside of the object. And since it's dark inside of that mesh, the rays receive black color. Other renderers solve that by simply flipping the ray back out.

2015-02-26, 18:24:42
Reply #36

fabioazevedo

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 28
    • View Profile
We're going offtopic here, but why didn't it happen with previous model?

2015-02-26, 18:36:06
Reply #37

Ondra

  • Administrator
  • Active Users
  • *****
  • Posts: 9048
  • Turning coffee to features since 2009
    • View Profile
independently of switching BRDF models, we have decided to also disable these ray-flipping fakes because they were causing so much trouble they were not worth it. It is impossible to do them correctly, since they are by their nature not correct.
Rendering is magic.How to get minidumps for crashed/frozen 3ds Max | Sorry for short replies, brief responses = more time to develop Corona ;)

2015-02-26, 19:24:06
Reply #38

Ludvik Koutny

  • VIP
  • Active Users
  • ***
  • Posts: 2557
  • Just another user
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Correct or not, it does less damage than black outlines. You can't just tell client "Sorry, our renderer can't render that bulb without those ugly black edges". Hopefully others will help me convince you it simply can't stay this way, if Corona's ever supposed to be production renderer.
« Last Edit: 2015-02-26, 19:38:59 by Rawalanche »

2015-02-26, 22:47:02
Reply #39

fabioazevedo

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 28
    • View Profile
While I do appreciate and totally support the will to maintain physically correct reflections, that's also the reason why Rawalanche is right to stress the need for some kind of solution. As it is, the new BRDF simply doesn't look correct and for me at least is unusable.
I would even suggest going back to the old model as default and make ggx an experimental one untill it's fully sorted out.
How wasn't this a bigger issue for everyone during daily builds testing?

2015-02-26, 22:50:31
Reply #40

Ludvik Koutny

  • VIP
  • Active Users
  • ***
  • Posts: 2557
  • Just another user
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
I actually reported it two times, but it got always closed without solution.

2015-02-27, 00:41:06
Reply #41

cecofuli

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 1577
    • View Profile
    • www.francescolegrenzi.com
I agree with both. I don' t like too much the "black edge" around glossy objects.

2015-02-27, 01:20:00
Reply #42

Juraj

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 4743
    • View Profile
    • studio website
Is this somehow related to geometry the material is used on ? Because I see the darkening in material editor, but not in my scenes when applied.

For me (as user of dailies), GGX proved very good. It lacks the flexibility I have with GTR(GGX) in Vray when I need larger spread (which samples pretty bad in Vray...I guess it gets complex..), but looks better and behaves better.
Please follow my new Instagram for latest projects, tips&tricks, short video tutorials and free models
Behance  Probably best updated portfolio of my work
lysfaere.com Please check the new stuff!

2015-02-27, 07:48:59
Reply #43

Ludvik Koutny

  • VIP
  • Active Users
  • ***
  • Posts: 2557
  • Just another user
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Create a bright reflective material with low glossiness (like 0.2) and put it on a sphere or teapot.

2015-02-27, 09:05:23
Reply #44

fabioazevedo

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 28
    • View Profile
Well, I've tried different types of geometry and always get the same problem, but I do find strange that it wasn't a big problem for everyone.
Could this be related to Max version?

I'll attach what I'm looking at...
Only change was legacy mode.


2015-02-27, 09:53:00
Reply #45

Ludvik Koutny

  • VIP
  • Active Users
  • ***
  • Posts: 2557
  • Just another user
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
As i said. It was noted but ended up ignored.

It's actually a bit worse in some cases. Imagine regular archviz scene where client wants walls to be painted with rough shiny paint. Actually, most of the wall paints are quite reflective, just very rough.

It ends up looking like this, where wall, captured from flat angle, turns out looking as if it's diffuse component was painted almost completely black...


Or imagine client wants bright rough concrete floor. If you capture it from regular angle it looks good.


But then you do a low shot, and it turns from bright gray to dark gray.
« Last Edit: 2015-02-27, 13:52:14 by Rawalanche »

2015-02-27, 10:15:04
Reply #46

twoheads

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 261
    • View Profile
I think it's quite common.......then you hear complaints from client "why this concrete floor looks so dark?"

Best solution is to avoid worm's eye view or as you said low angles in general shots.

2015-02-27, 10:17:58
Reply #47

fabioazevedo

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 28
    • View Profile
Yes, totally right Rawalanche.
That's also how I found out to begin with... doing the usual matte light grey override material to check lighting.

Should we start a new thread specific for this?
Ondra what can we do to convince you to find a solution? and how can we help?

2015-02-27, 10:19:18
Reply #48

Ludvik Koutny

  • VIP
  • Active Users
  • ***
  • Posts: 2557
  • Just another user
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
I think it's quite common.......then you hear complaints from client "why this concrete floor looks so dark?"

Best solution is to avoid worm's eye view or as you said low angles in general shots.

I don't know of any other renderer that hasn't it fixed yet.

2015-02-27, 10:20:16
Reply #49

twoheads

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 261
    • View Profile
Just for clarification, It's not about avoiding low angles at all :)

2015-02-27, 10:21:07
Reply #50

twoheads

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 261
    • View Profile
I think it's quite common.......then you hear complaints from client "why this concrete floor looks so dark?"

Best solution is to avoid worm's eye view or as you said low angles in general shots.

I don't know of any other renderer that hasn't it fixed yet.

totally agree :)

2015-02-27, 12:28:06
Reply #51

lacilaci

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 749
    • View Profile
Well, in case of wallpaint the black wall looks really bad.. But it can be avoided using very high IOR and low reflectivity..

Now I know this isn't how you would like to go about materials, using some weird values, but in that scenario it is avoidable problem.

2015-02-27, 12:40:03
Reply #52

Ricky Johnson

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 108
    • View Profile
As it stands in version 1.0 is the 'Legacy' checkbox controlling both BRDF and the Energy Conservation Mode?

i.e. Is it possible to revert to the older BRDF in situations where this GGX error is problematic without losing the Energy Conservation Mode or was this never implemented to work with the older BRDF?

2015-02-27, 12:42:26
Reply #53

agentdark45

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 579
    • View Profile
Well, in case of wallpaint the black wall looks really bad.. But it can be avoided using very high IOR and low reflectivity..

Now I know this isn't how you would like to go about materials, using some weird values, but in that scenario it is avoidable problem.

That example highlights this issue pretty well. I hope this gets fixed promptly.
Vray who?

2015-02-27, 12:49:55
Reply #54

Ludvik Koutny

  • VIP
  • Active Users
  • ***
  • Posts: 2557
  • Just another user
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Well, in case of wallpaint the black wall looks really bad.. But it can be avoided using very high IOR and low reflectivity..

Now I know this isn't how you would like to go about materials, using some weird values, but in that scenario it is avoidable problem.

Nope, that's not a solution. You will completely change characteristics of that material. IOR 100 will mean there will be almost no difference between facing and parallel angle reflectivity. It will look like very dull aluminium, not wall paint.

It's like saying you can workaround refraction bug by using opacity instead of refraction.

2015-02-27, 14:37:42
Reply #55

arqrenderz

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 990
  • https://www.behance.net/Arqrenderz1
    • View Profile
    • arqrenderz
Hi Juraj Talcik, are you using very low glossines values on your materials? Becouse you said that you are not getting bad results like rawalanche said and show.
Im afraid to go on 1.0 at the office now and it starts to back fire on me :(

2015-02-27, 16:04:52
Reply #56

Ondra

  • Administrator
  • Active Users
  • *****
  • Posts: 9048
  • Turning coffee to features since 2009
    • View Profile
I just had a discussion with Jaroslav on this topic. Going to the previous "ray flipping" hack is out of question - it just breaks the renderer too much. There are however different possible solutions we will investigate. But they involve some original research, so it will probably take some time to try and implement if we succeed.
Rendering is magic.How to get minidumps for crashed/frozen 3ds Max | Sorry for short replies, brief responses = more time to develop Corona ;)

2015-02-28, 02:55:40
Reply #57

Stan_But

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 526
    • View Profile
    • https://www.behance.net/archdizs
Hi all!
I have missed the thread about the problem. Good that searching of solution in process

2015-02-28, 10:11:26
Reply #58

3dgraphics

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 150
    • View Profile
oh, i did some renders with 7.2 and 1.0 to see the difference by this values 0.2 glossiness in a white material!
The new shader in 1.0 looks really bad in comparision with 7.2!
I dont know wich one is phisically more accurate but by 7.2 looks definitly really much better!

I really hope this will be solved soon!

2015-02-28, 10:21:28
Reply #59

3dgraphics

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 150
    • View Profile
btw, importing one material made with version 7.2 in the one 1.0, this material will continue behaving like
in old model of corona 7.2!! At least by me is so!
So for those kinds of material with less glossiness values u can merge the old one!

2015-03-05, 13:15:23
Reply #60

romullus

  • Global Moderator
  • Active Users
  • ****
  • Posts: 8779
  • Let's move this topic, shall we?
    • View Profile
    • My Models
Tried to create snow material today and found that legacy mode gives much superior results in that case. What a shame, i really like GGX BRDF and wouldn't want to revert even for single material :] Looking forward to what solution dev team will offer.
I'm not Corona Team member. Everything i say, is my personal opinion only.
My Models | My Videos | My Pictures

2015-03-05, 13:28:25
Reply #61

Ludvik Koutny

  • VIP
  • Active Users
  • ***
  • Posts: 2557
  • Just another user
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Yep, snow is extreme case of this problem. It's very rough, yet highly reflective, also refractive, has SSS and is white. So as long as the problem is present, it's not possible to make good looking snow with GGX.

2015-03-05, 13:42:21
Reply #62

Juraj

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 4743
    • View Profile
    • studio website
Just found this error in my scenes too. I guess I was oblivious to it as most rough materials were dark and I didn't notice it so straight up. I still use white wall to be mostly diffuse since the roughness is so high.

Well, touche :/
Please follow my new Instagram for latest projects, tips&tricks, short video tutorials and free models
Behance  Probably best updated portfolio of my work
lysfaere.com Please check the new stuff!

2015-03-05, 15:01:59
Reply #63

daniel.reutersward

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 310
    • View Profile
This problems explains a lot of why I had problems with some materials...

A little off topic, but a little bit on the subject: How come Corona GGX don´t have any more advanced controls for tail fall off etc? Just curious :)

2015-03-05, 15:56:15
Reply #64

Juraj

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 4743
    • View Profile
    • studio website
Because the GGX by default doesn't seem to have it. The one that has the control, is for example the version Vray incorporated (GTR/GGX).
Please follow my new Instagram for latest projects, tips&tricks, short video tutorials and free models
Behance  Probably best updated portfolio of my work
lysfaere.com Please check the new stuff!

2015-03-05, 16:22:40
Reply #65

daniel.reutersward

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 310
    • View Profile

2015-03-05, 16:29:50
Reply #66

Juraj

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 4743
    • View Profile
    • studio website
The Disney paper describes few models: https://disney-animation.s3.amazonaws.com/library/s2012_pbs_disney_brdf_notes_v2.pdf

Walter - No Tail parameter
Low; Bagher - Tail parameter
Trowbridge & Reitz - GTR; [Gamma=2]  = GGX ; The one in Vray

No idea which we got in Corona, perhaps the parameter simply isn't exposed.
« Last Edit: 2015-03-05, 16:33:56 by Juraj_Talcik »
Please follow my new Instagram for latest projects, tips&tricks, short video tutorials and free models
Behance  Probably best updated portfolio of my work
lysfaere.com Please check the new stuff!

2015-03-05, 16:31:40
Reply #67

daniel.reutersward

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 310
    • View Profile

2015-03-06, 15:28:57
Reply #68

vkiuru

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 320
    • View Profile
Oh, so this is what was happening with some of my materials. Spent some time tweaking them and wondering what I'm doing wrong, kinda happy to see it wasn't me.. hoping for a fix, though - other than switching to legacy.

2015-03-12, 02:17:34
Reply #69

snakebox

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 493
    • View Profile
    • Snakebox Media
Correct or not, it does less damage than black outlines. You can't just tell client "Sorry, our renderer can't render that bulb without those ugly black edges". Hopefully others will help me convince you it simply can't stay this way, if Corona's ever supposed to be production renderer.

This! sometimes the option to break reality HAS to be there, production doesn't follow realistic time frames always so people need an option to achieve unrealistic results.

2015-03-12, 09:38:18
Reply #70

Ludvik Koutny

  • VIP
  • Active Users
  • ***
  • Posts: 2557
  • Just another user
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Correct or not, it does less damage than black outlines. You can't just tell client "Sorry, our renderer can't render that bulb without those ugly black edges". Hopefully others will help me convince you it simply can't stay this way, if Corona's ever supposed to be production renderer.

This! sometimes the option to break reality HAS to be there, production doesn't follow realistic time frames always so people need an option to achieve unrealistic results.

Nope, this is not anyhow related to speed or realism. It's simply broken shading model. Meaning that if you took a photograph of white rough reflective Christmas bulb, on the real photo, you will not see black outlines. So it's both unpleasant to the eye as well as unrealistic.

This is not about breaking reality or doing some hacks to meet deadlines. Actually, from my experience, less hacks and tricks, the easier it is to meet the deadline.

2015-03-25, 11:25:30
Reply #71

lextorlex

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
Well, in case of wallpaint the black wall looks really bad.. But it can be avoided using very high IOR and low reflectivity..

Now I know this isn't how you would like to go about materials, using some weird values, but in that scenario it is avoidable problem.

Nope, that's not a solution. You will completely change characteristics of that material. IOR 100 will mean there will be almost no difference between facing and parallel angle reflectivity. It will look like very dull aluminium, not wall paint.

It's like saying you can workaround refraction bug by using opacity instead of refraction.

lacilaci method with high IOR level can be emproved to avoid absense of difference between facing and parallel angle reflectivity. You just need to add a falloff map to glossiness slot using perpendicular/parallel and draw a user curve there, where at facing angles glossines will be close to almost zero and raised up to a specisied glossiness value (0.2 in the shown examples). It works just fine and doesn't not feel like very dull aluminium or smth.

2015-06-02, 15:49:18
Reply #72

maru

  • Corona Team
  • Active Users
  • ****
  • Posts: 12711
  • Marcin
    • View Profile
"Glossy reflections no longer darken material on edges"

confirmed ;)

But why is the scene so much darker?
Marcin Miodek | chaos-corona.com
3D Support Team Lead - Corona | contact us

2015-06-02, 16:09:25
Reply #73

pokoy

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 1850
    • View Profile
So rerendering an older scene will not match? That would be quite bad to be honest...

2015-06-02, 16:22:36
Reply #74

maru

  • Corona Team
  • Active Users
  • ****
  • Posts: 12711
  • Marcin
    • View Profile
So rerendering an older scene will not match? That would be quite bad to be honest...
Nope. You need to create a new material to make it behave differently.
Marcin Miodek | chaos-corona.com
3D Support Team Lead - Corona | contact us

2015-06-02, 16:33:22
Reply #75

racoonart

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 1446
    • View Profile
    • racoon-artworks
Using the "legacy mode" tool in the converter doesn't work?
Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable from a feature.

2015-06-02, 16:35:06
Reply #76

Ondra

  • Administrator
  • Active Users
  • *****
  • Posts: 9048
  • Turning coffee to features since 2009
    • View Profile
or load old material and uncheck "legacy".

The difference looks like user error. If you reproduce it with the same scene, please report it as bug
Rendering is magic.How to get minidumps for crashed/frozen 3ds Max | Sorry for short replies, brief responses = more time to develop Corona ;)

2015-06-02, 17:36:33
Reply #77

maru

  • Corona Team
  • Active Users
  • ****
  • Posts: 12711
  • Marcin
    • View Profile
[submitted to mantis]
Marcin Miodek | chaos-corona.com
3D Support Team Lead - Corona | contact us

2015-06-02, 19:44:57
Reply #78

romullus

  • Global Moderator
  • Active Users
  • ****
  • Posts: 8779
  • Let's move this topic, shall we?
    • View Profile
    • My Models
I'd like to ask what is the reason for making legacy checkbox inactive in new material. I find new GGX not very suitable in some situations. It works better with bright materials, but is much worse with dark materials. Now mats are too shiny.

In attached example materials are: IOR - 1.52, refl - 1, gloss - 0
I'm not Corona Team member. Everything i say, is my personal opinion only.
My Models | My Videos | My Pictures

2015-06-02, 20:20:17
Reply #79

maru

  • Corona Team
  • Active Users
  • ****
  • Posts: 12711
  • Marcin
    • View Profile
It looks like it could be used to simulate nice velvet things. Not sure if it looks correct though. :)
Marcin Miodek | chaos-corona.com
3D Support Team Lead - Corona | contact us

2015-06-02, 20:26:39
Reply #80

romullus

  • Global Moderator
  • Active Users
  • ****
  • Posts: 8779
  • Let's move this topic, shall we?
    • View Profile
    • My Models
I'm pretty sure it isn't correct, because now it's impossible to create very diffuse materials, unless one is willing to forsake specular reflection.
I'm not Corona Team member. Everything i say, is my personal opinion only.
My Models | My Videos | My Pictures

2015-06-02, 20:29:24
Reply #81

Ondra

  • Administrator
  • Active Users
  • *****
  • Posts: 9048
  • Turning coffee to features since 2009
    • View Profile
I'd like to ask what is the reason for making legacy checkbox inactive in new material. I find new GGX not very suitable in some situations. It works better with bright materials, but is much worse with dark materials. Now mats are too shiny.

In attached example materials are: IOR - 1.52, refl - 1, gloss - 0
Can you make a bug report thread/mantis for that?
Rendering is magic.How to get minidumps for crashed/frozen 3ds Max | Sorry for short replies, brief responses = more time to develop Corona ;)

2015-06-02, 20:34:27
Reply #82

romullus

  • Global Moderator
  • Active Users
  • ****
  • Posts: 8779
  • Let's move this topic, shall we?
    • View Profile
    • My Models
Will do.
I'm not Corona Team member. Everything i say, is my personal opinion only.
My Models | My Videos | My Pictures

2015-06-02, 20:36:35
Reply #83

pokoy

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 1850
    • View Profile
I'd like to ask what is the reason for making legacy checkbox inactive in new material. I find new GGX not very suitable in some situations. It works better with bright materials, but is much worse with dark materials. Now mats are too shiny.

In attached example materials are: IOR - 1.52, refl - 1, gloss - 0

That looks awful.

I also vote for having both modes, actually I think we should have both options displayed equally, not hidden behind a 'legacy' switch.
What's the exact reason to remove the old model anyways? Does it break physics or slow down the rendering? Or is it simpler to manage code that way?

2015-06-02, 20:58:11
Reply #84

Ludvik Koutny

  • VIP
  • Active Users
  • ***
  • Posts: 2557
  • Just another user
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
I'd like to ask what is the reason for making legacy checkbox inactive in new material. I find new GGX not very suitable in some situations. It works better with bright materials, but is much worse with dark materials. Now mats are too shiny.

In attached example materials are: IOR - 1.52, refl - 1, gloss - 0

That looks awful.

I also vote for having both modes, actually I think we should have both options displayed equally, not hidden behind a 'legacy' switch.
What's the exact reason to remove the old model anyways? Does it break physics or slow down the rendering? Or is it simpler to manage code that way?

The reason to remove old model is because new one is simply better. What you are seeing here aren't properties of GGX, but simply bugs. Bug-free GGX is just more realistic and better BRDF, and since Corona is about simplicity, having switcher between better and worse feature doesn't make sense. You should always use the better one.