Messages

1

[Max] I need help! / Re: G-Buffer channels to RPF or OpenEXR

« on: 2017-11-26, 09:49:45 »

Further to this, using "Render elements" and the "CMasking_ID", I can't see which suboption passes the G-Buffer "ObjectID". Is this the wrong render element? Am I interpreting it wrongly? the wiki at https://corona-renderer.com/wiki/render_elements only mentions two possible ID options (PrimitiveID and MaterialID), however there are four options and I'm not seeing that they relate to my object ID. if I have a bunch of objects with the same ObjectID they appear different "colours" in the preview of the CMasking_ID channel, regardless of which option I choose. Material ID does work as expected, but that's not the ID I want to use.

2

[Max] I need help! / Re: G-Buffer channels to RPF or OpenEXR

« on: 2017-11-25, 17:54:53 »

Hi. You really should render exr and use the render-elements. RPF/RLA is a dinosaur

I have started doing that, running some tests yesterday. The main reason to use RPF is compatibility with After Effects: doing effects in AE, the 3D channel effects (fog, DOF etc.) recognise the pre-defined G-Buffer channels, whereas OpenEXR has arbitrarily named channels which these effects were not built for. There are ways around this it seems but it is taking a lot of stuffing around. The other reason is file size - I'm trying to keep the frame sequences as light as possible, and for my application 8-bit-per-channel colour is enough. Apart from that, all of the output options let you select G-Buffer channels to include in the output files, so if Corona is not doing that it's negligent and effectively a "bug". The least that should be done is some warning message to say G-Buffer channels will be omitted, the next level would be modifying the file output dialogues to remove those options, the best method would be to support the capabilities of the file format. If Corona will render to RPF then it should support the RPF channels.

3

[Max] I need help! / G-Buffer channels to RPF or OpenEXR

« on: 2017-11-25, 06:19:20 »

Hi all. I'm trying to render an animation to a sequence of RPF (preferable) or OpenEXR frames, but I don't seem to be able to create G-Buffer channels (I'm wanting Z-depth, Object ID's, Coverage). I used to do this a lot with Mentalray, to RPF files, then process them in After Effects (e.g. object specific effects, depth-based effects like fogging or blurs). Does Corona correctly save the G-Buffer channels with RPF/RLA/OpenEXR files? Another problem I've got with the simple 3D logo scene I'm working on is that with RPF output I'm getting "black cracks" and artifacts around the geometry. This doesn't show up in the Corona preview or in output to other file formats (rendering to TGA or OpenEXR looks perfect in the RGBA channels).  Any ideas?

4

General CG Discussion / Re: 3dsmax 2018 the lamest one in years...

« on: 2017-09-06, 09:53:41 »

if this is the complete list of improvements, this is s**t, pay,pay,pay......
http://www.cgchannel.com/2017/04/autodesk-ships-3ds-max-2018/

It is lame, and they've been lame for the past decade or more as far as I'm concerned, but I will say that this 2018 version seems to perform better with Corona for me Maybe that's something to do with my specific system, I'm not talking render times but just using the UI; the time it takes to display the render setup dialog, the compact material editor, minor things like that. The amount of money they charge each year is ridiculous for the improvements they make - this really is nothing more than a rental, except unlike renting a house we can't decide to rent a better one next week without losing all our home-contents....

5

[Max] Resolved Bugs / Displacement in layered or blend material

« on: 2017-03-02, 22:01:25 »

If I have two materials, one with a displacement map, one without, and combine them using "CoronaLayerMtl" or MAX's "Blend" material, using a mask (bitmap or procedural) to combine the two, I find that the effect of the displacement applies to the whole surface, not just the area that the mask reveals. If the order of the materials is reversed then I get no displacement at all. If the materials each have different displacement maps then only one is used (e.g. the "base material" in CoronaLayerMtl). i.e. you can't MASK the effects of the displacement, even though all other aspects of the material are masked. Anyone else getting this or is there any way around it? - cheers'n'beers, Andy Q.

6

[Max] I need help! / Re: Slow material editor [Corona 1.4]

« on: 2016-06-13, 19:50:02 »

HELP!!!

is there any information on solving the issues with the terribly slow material editor in corona 1.4? 

Corona materials in the material editor were pretty slow in the previous version for me too so I've not noticed any difference. One thing I have noticed is that Corona is affected heavily by background file operations. If I'm running a backup to an external drive any Corona scenes bog down MAX in all aspects - refreshing windows, opening dialogues, just all general work. I don't have any significant slowdown from disk activity if I'm using MentalRay or scanline renderer on a similar complexity scene.

7

[Max] General Discussion / Re: Subscription Terms - bit disappointing

« on: 2016-02-23, 08:33:16 »

Me too ) and I'm too one of those "mentally alternative" Box+subscription users

Rental software simply does not benefit the consumer. Like sheep everyone has fallen for the lower initial payments and bullying of big vendors like Adobe and Autodesk. None of those companies are moving to rental systems for any reason other than to maxmise profits. The old perpetual licence/discounted upgrade model was the strongest system of consumer protection. If a company produced a lame upgrade then customers could simply ignore it. The impetus existed for software developers to keep improving, making groundbreaking changes for each edition to ensure the client base wanted to purchase upgrades, for bugs to get fixed, for customer requests to be listened to. The problem was that we moved from a world of the many competing graphics vendors of the 80's and 90's to a state where a couple of big companies have swallowed up all of the competition and are effectively monopolies. Those companies knew their strength as industry standards would enable them to dictate the terms, hence the rental model was born.  Adobe have tried to keep their customers sweet by being very active with new developments but when you're stuck on a rental system with no real competition how long is that going to last? My guess would be only as long as they need to firmly entrench themselves and their system, there's no real pressure on them to keep innovating or even fix outstanding bugs and performance issues. It's another loss of freedom and consumer protection, but these changes are made slowly and comfortably so the dumb consumer just sits there and takes it, like the proverbial boiled frog. If it wasn't for the box licence option I wouldn't have even considered Corona, and I'm hoping to move away from 3DS MAX at some stage because of this very issue.

8

[Max] General Discussion / Re: Subscription Terms - bit disappointing

« on: 2016-02-14, 21:02:51 »

A slight diversion here - based on the comments that box licences are "dead" and are a tiny percentage of licence sales. The IMPORTANT thing about retaining box licences as an option, as opposed to the approach made by companies like Adobe or Autodesk, is that you can be on FairSAAS but if you ever decide to stop subscribing you can always obtain a perpetual licence so you're able to work with your old files/scenes. Let's say the nature of your business changes or you fall on hard times - you're not left with work files that are no longer usable. You might find in future that Corona development stalls or you want to switch primarily to another renderer  - you can do this whilst keeping a full licence to use your old files. This is a CRITICAL difference because it gives the user/consumer some power to keep the vendor honest. This option was vital in making me decide to buy Corona. It made me feel like I could trust the company because I knew if things didn't work out I wouldn't be left high and dry. I'm happy to keep renewing my subscription in the knowledge that I'm retaining a bit of free-choice and will not be left without the ability to use my files. Think of it as a safety net - maybe most people are happier on a rental model, but it's always there if you need it. I would sincerely hope that the "box licence" remains an available option in perpetuity; for me it's an essential option to keep me a happy customer.

9

[Max] I need help! / Re: matte/shadow/shadowcatcher confusion

« on: 2016-02-02, 09:00:19 »

......and change your direct visibility override to pure black.

Hi - Where do I find this "Direct Visibility Override"? could it be called something else?  - cheers, AQ

10

[Max] I need help! / Re: matte/shadow/shadowcatcher confusion

« on: 2016-02-02, 08:53:21 »

Let's put it this way: Say I have an object that is the floor in my scene, this has a material with a colour, shininess etc. There are objects on this floor casting shadows on to it. What I'm after is some way to get a channel to mask out the floor except for the areas that have shadows and reflections - i.e. I'm after some transparent shadows. This is for use in making transparent PNG's for a website - I want the floor to affect the scene lighting but then remove it entirely and just keep the shadows (without the scene illumination changing). Hard to explain!

11

[Max] I need help! / Re: matte/shadow/shadowcatcher confusion

« on: 2016-02-02, 08:24:01 »

I'm using Corona 1.3 for MAX, commercial version. I'm basically after a material that works the same as the Mentalray Matte/Shadow/Reflection material. I'll try playing with the Rayswitcher/ShadowCatcher combo although I 'm not sure I can fathom what it's all meant to do...

12

[Max] Resolved Bugs / Re: can't view bitmap alpha channel with "view image" in corona bitmap

« on: 2016-02-02, 08:12:21 »

I just tested in the same scene using the same 32-bit TGA texture map, with Corona set as the production renderer and using a CoronaMtl material. If I use a 3DS MAX "bitmap" (map) as a mask in a 3DS MAX Blend material it's fine - the alpha channel displays when I "view bitmap". If I use a CoronaBitmap instead the alpha channel won't display (just a full-size white rectangle), although it performs it's function as a mask without any problems.

The same thing happens if the CoronaBitmap is used to load a 32bit TGA in the diffuse slot of a CoronaMtl.

13

[Max] Resolved Bugs / can't view bitmap alpha channel with "view image" in corona bitmap

« on: 2016-01-28, 09:22:10 »

Not a big thing but I want to check if this is a reproducible bug. In Corona Bitmap I have a 32-bit TGA loaded with alpha channel. If I click the "view Image" button (in the Crop/Place group) I get a popup window showing the image. If I then click the "display alpha channel" button the result is pure white. I know the bitmap has an alpha channel with masking areas in it - I can view it in Photoshop and Corona renders the image using the alpha channel correctly (it's a decal on a package, masked by the alpha channel with an irregular edge). So - the alpha channel is definitely there, it works fine in the Corona preview and final renders, it's just not viewable in the image viewer.

14

[Max] I need help! / matte/shadow/shadowcatcher confusion

« on: 2016-01-19, 11:28:26 »

I'm a bit confused about how the shadowCatcher material is supposed to work or even if it is intended to perform the task I have in mind. In MentalRay I use the Matte/Shadow material to catch shadows from objects sitting on a floor so I have a render of the objects with their shadows and the rest of the floor is transparent in the alpha (completely transparent). Underneath the "matte" floor I've got a different, textured floor which interacts with the lighting of the scene, but the matte object doesn't. I guess my question is this - can I use the shadow catcher in some way in which it doesn't influence the lighting of the scene at all - in my tests thus far it always seems to have some contribution. It also seems never to get completely transparent. I'm not sure I'm explaining this well, but basically I just want to get the shadows on a floor sent off to a separate render for compositing. Ideally I'd like reflections too for some other tasks. Am I going about this completely the wrong way? I'm fairly ignorant about this kind of stuff...