Messages

1

[Max] General Discussion / Re: Combining Displacement maps

« on: 2019-03-07, 16:13:55 »

Thanks, but simply mixing 2 maps isn't the problem, it's normalising the 2 displacement maps(zeroing out the scalar of the microsurface)

Because they are both 32bit full float images you can't simply mix them together because the ranges are wildly different.

EDIT: just figured it out. Using a Corona Mix node you can simply lower the multiplier of the microsurface map right down to normalise the 2.

Cheers.

2

[Max] General Discussion / Combining Displacement maps

« on: 2019-03-07, 15:14:40 »

Is it possible to combine displacement maps? For example, a displacement map extracted from a Zbrush sculpt and a tiling microsurface map. Both maps are 32bit.EXRs.

In Arnold it can be done by normalising the range of the microsurface map to zero(to match the Zbrush map at zero) using a alRemapFloat node, and then layering the 2 maps with an alCombineFloat node set to Add.

3

[Max] General Discussion / Re: Displacement Vs Arnold

« on: 2019-02-18, 18:40:59 »

Nothing from me :) Testing is not my main focus, and this one I am not currently investigating.

No problem. Sounds fair. :)

4

[Max] General Discussion / Re: Displacement Vs Arnold

« on: 2019-02-18, 18:14:56 »

Thanks, but I don't see why I'd ever want to disable it. :)

Any thoughts on the results above as a Corona team member?

5

[Max] General Discussion / Re: Displacement Vs Arnold

« on: 2019-02-18, 17:55:28 »

Grey shader test shows it up even worse. I had to turn off the HDR and add a harsh direct light to Corona before the displacement would even show. Arnold by comparison shows great detail with the HDR. Also, the plane in Corona is tessellated 4X that of the Arnold plane.
Autobump is always on by default in Corona, as we've discussed above. You can't turn it off from the UI.

Corona HDR


Corona direct light


Arnold HDR

6

[Max] General Discussion / Re: Displacement Vs Arnold

« on: 2019-02-18, 17:25:11 »

If you really want to compare displacement, then you should render with grey material, preferably with same camera and lighting setup. From your examples it's hard to tell what's really going on, for me it seems that Corona uses softer image filtering by default. Also, image contrast hardly has anything to do with displacement. Render the same scene in Corona and Arnold, with autobump enabled and disabled in both renderers, so that images could be compared side by side.

Image contrast in the sense that the Arnold render has more tonal depth from whatever way the lighting affects the displacement. I'll do some grey shader tests.

7

[Max] General Discussion / Re: Displacement Vs Arnold

« on: 2019-02-18, 17:22:39 »

Glad it's not just me then. :) You know when you've been staring at the computer for way too long......

Makes sense with the Autobump always being on in the background. It's as I suspected. I just saw the other thread about displacement and it does seem that the devs are aware of the shortcomings.

I suppose I'm just on the cusp of deciding whether I want to completely switch over to Arnold when Max 2020 releases. It's one less subscription to pay every month, I suppose. Corona will be sorely missed if I jump ship, but Arnold for Max has really come along nicely(I'm on the Max beta) and it's FREE!! :)

8

[Max] General Discussion / Displacement Vs Arnold

« on: 2019-02-18, 16:16:51 »

I'm just running some tests between Corona and Arnold regarding displacement quality and I have to say that in this particular test Arnold results are far superior.

Scenes are identical. Tess plane/texture maps/lighting. The Arnold results look so much more realistic. Corona seems flat with little contrast or microdetails. It seems washed out and blurry. Arnold has nice tonal contrast and details are sharp.

I'm running Corona 3, but I'm not seeing the Autobump feature that should be present. Isn't it supposed to be in V3?(I'm guessing it's hidden because it should always be on) Arnold has Autobump enabled. Corona pix is set to 1. I also 2x the strength of the Corona normal map which I shouldn't have to. Am I missing something here? The only thing I thought could be the issue is the way Corona shader handles IOR related to glossiness/roughness. I'm not a big fan of inverted the roughness map. I wish Corona would move over to the metal/rough shading model that every other renderer is using now.

Arnold


Corona

9

[Max] Feature Requests / Bump Utility Combiner

« on: 2018-05-06, 07:24:49 »

I posted this a few years back on here and it got tagged as a duplicate and rolled into a request thread about a multi-layer shader. But, this is different. It could be an extra option in the multi-layer shader. This is from the old thread:

Hi, long-term Vray user who's been testing Corona for the last few days. Wow! It is fantastic and no doubt the future is bright.

I would like to see some kind of Utility material. MentalRay had one(before Adesk in it's wisdom decided to remove it for absolutely no reason)

Vray had the feature somewhat implemented recently with its VrayBumpMtl.

And there is also a Blur plugin material that I've been using. It's simply called Utility Material.
This blur plugin is the definitely the most feature packed of the three.

and this is an old image explaining what it does:

10

[Max] Resolved Feature Requests / Re: Navigation in Interactive VFB

« on: 2018-04-30, 13:09:24 »

Ok. Thanks. Great to know.

11

[Max] Resolved Feature Requests / Navigation in Interactive VFB

« on: 2018-04-30, 10:23:02 »

I haven't been on here in a long time so this has probably already been requested. Would be great to have the ability to navigate the interactive VFB in the very same manner as perspective view. Having to have a split screen viewport is a pain. Modo preview renderer is a great example of just being able to witch your viewport to GL mode and work navigate it just as you would normally.

12

[Max] Resolved Bugs / Re: CoronaRoundEdges not working properly (Corona 1.7 RC3)

« on: 2018-04-30, 10:18:23 »

Any word on this being fixed? Just installed 1.7 with latest hotfix and the shader is completely broken. Dark lines on edges plus vertex normal shading has harsh breaks as if separated by smoothing groups.

13

[Max] Resolved Feature Requests / Corona PBR Shader

« on: 2015-05-29, 19:38:43 »

It would be great if there was a way to integrate a PBR shader, or even an implementation into the standard CoronaMTL with a Metallic map slot and some way to convert the maps exported from a program like Substance Painter. There are workarounds to match the SP look with some shuffling around of different maps but it's a pain in the arse.

Because you can texture high-poly assets in SP by using AO and Curvature maps I think a PBR implementation would be great in Corona, and I'm sure it's only a matter of time before most renderers incorporate one. (I think MAYA 2016 added a native PBR shader)

And just to clarify: when I say PBR I mean a metallic/roughness Disney BDRF shader.

14

[Max] Resolved Feature Requests / Re: Utility Combiner Material

« on: 2015-05-27, 06:22:03 »

Yes, a blend mat is definitely a must. And this utility combiner map goes hand-in-hand with a blend mat. It would actually make a nice feature built into a bland mat.

15

[Max] Resolved Feature Requests / Re: Utility Combiner Material

« on: 2015-03-04, 13:36:03 »

It allows you to nest a shader/layered shader and gain an extra level of control over additional bump/displacement/etc maps independent of the maps within any of the shaders added to it.
It's really great for driving a bump with an identical mask map to give effects like chipped paint.

Here's an image I made a while back that might explain it a little better. This is using the free Blur Studios plugin 'Utility Material' (it's on the bottom left of the image)