Messages

1

[Max] General Discussion / Re: Embrace GPU rendering

« on: 2025-01-14, 20:41:38 »

Hi Tom, thanks for your detailed response earlier—it made me think more about the technical challenges. As an architect and industrial designer, realism is my top priority, and I’ve now come to appreciate why CPU-based engines like Corona are unmatched in this regard. CPUs excel in handling the intricate calculations, recursion, and massive datasets required for photorealistic rendering without compromises. GPUs, while fast, often face limitations in memory and precision, which can impact the level of detail critical for achieving true realism. Your commitment to preserving Corona's quality over speed makes perfect sense to me now. 🤠

2

[Max] General Discussion / Embrace GPU rendering

« on: 2025-01-13, 22:56:05 »

Corona has long been a CPU powerhouse, but with the RTX 50 series cards becoming more affordable, it's time to consider hybrid GPU rendering. This shift would significantly speed up workflows while maintaining the simplicity and quality that Corona is known for. As the industry moves towards GPU-based rendering, embracing this change will ensure Corona remains competitive. Hope the developers change their minds this time and take this crucial step forward!

3

[Max] Resolved Feature Requests / Save Materials with Corona Proxy Files!

« on: 2024-12-23, 17:20:21 »

Dear Corona Team,

After multiple iterations of Corona Renderer (v12), Corona Proxies still do not save materials within the .cgeo file. This longstanding limitation forces users to manually save and reassign materials every time a proxy is reused in another scene, adding unnecessary complexity and frustration to the workflow.

Request:
Please introduce the functionality to embed materials directly into the .cgeo file during export. This improvement would greatly streamline workflows and finally resolve an issue that has persisted across numerous versions of Corona.

Looking forward to seeing this enhancement in future updates.

4

[Max] Feature Requests / Re: Impact of Mesh Topology on the Refraction Behavior of Glass (Curved Surfaces)

« on: 2024-06-01, 23:47:25 »

Corona Team,

Today, I decided to investigate further into the jagged refraction issue on glass renders. I applied the retopology modifier to the mesh to convert it into quads, hoping it would solve the problem. However, as you can see from the attached pictures, the issue has worsened.

As discussed previously, this mesh is a closed OBJ export from CAD-based software (Rhino7). It's a simple model without complexity, including its smoothing groups and normals. Despite testing various methods like weighted normals, the problem persists, indicating a rendering issue rather than a modeling one.

For 3D artists, importing/exporting between CAD and non-CAD software and adjusting topology (quad or non-quad) are standard practices. These modeling techniques should not negatively impact rendering.

Please provide an explanation and resolution for this bug in future updates, or if I am mistaken, help me resolve it, as this issue is quite frustrating.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

The OBJ mesh is attached for reference.

5

[Max] Feature Requests / Re: Impact of Mesh Topology on the Refraction Behavior of Glass (Curved Surfaces)

« on: 2024-05-31, 17:38:50 »

Yeah, the 4. Lens.jpg you uploaded shows the same refraction issue that I have. As you said, it seems it's time for Corona developers to tackle this refraction issue. I was hoping the new physical materials in Corona could handle it, but they can't. Considering the fact that a vast number of professional 3D artists sync their meshes between CAD-based 3D software like Rhino and 3ds Max, it could be a priority to resolve! 

Let's enhance rendering to be more realistic and seamless for everyone!🤠

6

[Max] Feature Requests / Re: Impact of Mesh Topology on the Refraction Behavior of Glass (Curved Surfaces)

« on: 2024-05-31, 16:21:27 »

Oh, James, could you provide more render shots by rotating the object in the viewport?

Thanks, Pokoy. but the convex shape is an accurate model. As you focus and zoom in to the boundaries of the topology, refraction issues start to appear where the quad meshes change into non-quads!

7

[Max] Feature Requests / Re: Impact of Mesh Topology on the Refraction Behavior of Glass (Curved Surfaces)

« on: 2024-05-31, 14:56:45 »

Hi James,

As you can see, the unusual shading issue on refractions is still present. Smoothing groups and normals are exported correctly, as these issues only occur with the refraction of glass; the reflections are accurate.

Hi Pokoy,

I am an experienced 3D modeler using Rhino (CAD-based software). The exported 3D meshes are simple curved surfaces with low complexity, yet the unusual render outputs from Corona suggest that the issue might be related to the light solver and rendering algorithms of engines like Corona. Consequently, I am posting these refraction render issues here in the hope of receiving assistance and potentially seeing improvements from the active developer teams.

Creating quad or non-quad meshes is a technique to achieve precise 3D models, not an end goal. CAD-based 3D software can generate highly accurate meshes that are 3D printable and more, without the need for time-consuming topology optimization. It would be highly beneficial if render engine solvers could separate realistic refraction behavior from topology, regardless of whether the mesh is quad-based or not.

For instance, 3ds Max added the Weighted Normal modifier due to the importance of bridging 3D software meshes together, but it cannot handle the refraction issue. I hope the Corona engine can address this specifically, as it is a rendering issue and not a modeling one.

As illustrated in the attached pic1, my normals are correctly exported as an OBJ file. I understand the importance of explicit normals, and for this case, I also tried exporting in FBX format, but the refraction issues persist.

I appreciate any insights or suggestions you might have to improve the realistic output and address the refraction issues. 🤠

8

[Max] Feature Requests / Re: Impact of Mesh Topology on the Refraction Behavior of Glass (Curved Surfaces)

« on: 2024-05-30, 22:36:13 »

Thanks, James. To ensure everything is the same in the rendered scene, it would be better to use the same HDRI, which is the 4K free one available from https://polyhaven.com/a/canary_wharf . The quad version is just a simple one for testing, which I modeled in 3ds Max. And yeah, I'm using the new Corona Physical material.

9

[Max] Feature Requests / Re: Impact of Mesh Topology on the Refraction Behavior of Glass (Curved Surfaces)

« on: 2024-05-30, 20:34:03 »

same refraction issue...

10

[Max] Feature Requests / Re: Impact of Mesh Topology on the Refraction Behavior of Glass (Curved Surfaces)

« on: 2024-05-30, 20:31:15 »

Yes sure, both of these meshes are closed and have their own specific smoothing groups. They are directly exported from Rhino, are precise for 3D printing, and have real-world scale.

11

[Max] Feature Requests / Re: Impact of Mesh Topology on the Refraction Behavior of Glass (Curved Surfaces)

« on: 2024-05-30, 19:59:02 »

Yes, exactly, Juraj! The weighted normal modifier not only behaves weirdly in refraction but also ruins reflections. So, I decided not to use it in Corona Render, even though it should be an improvement, but it isn't in fact!

12

[Max] Feature Requests / Re: Impact of Mesh Topology on the Refraction Behavior of Glass (Curved Surfaces)

« on: 2024-05-30, 19:49:40 »

Thanks, James. As you can see in my render, the reflections are accurate, but the shading issue is related to the refraction behavior. The file "2 mesh.jpeg" is an exported OBJ from Rhino.

13

[Max] Feature Requests / Impact of Mesh Topology on the Refraction Behavior of Glass (Curved Surfaces)

« on: 2024-05-30, 18:42:42 »

Impact of Mesh Topology on the Refraction Behavior of Glass (Especially Curved Surfaces)
Hello,

I have a question regarding the impact of mesh topology on achieving realistic refraction of glass in Corona. As a professional 3D modeler, I primarily use CAD-based software like Rhino, which doesn’t require extensive adjustments to topology and edge flow, unlike 3ds Max or Blender.

In offline render engines like Corona or V-Ray, achieving accurate light behavior and refraction in glass materials often necessitates using quad meshes, especially on curved surfaces. Adjusting weighted normals or smoothing groups often doesn’t resolve shading issues, leading to jagged and inaccurate refractions. (See attached images: Pic 1 with quad mesh, showing perfect refraction, vs. Pic 2 exported from Rhino without quads, showing jagged refraction.)

When exporting models from Rhino as meshes in FBX or OBJ formats, the resulting meshes are precise but not in quad form. This non-quad topology causes issues with physically accurate refraction in traditional render engines. These refraction shading issues are particularly noticeable on curved surfaces!

My question is: Will the Corona developers consider implementing changes to the light solvers or other algorithms so that accurate refraction of glass does not depend on quad mesh topology? As you can see from the attached images, thanks to the precision of CAD software like Rhino, we can achieve highly precise 3D models that are 3D printable or fabricable, regardless of whether they use quad or non-quad meshes.

It's crucial for render engines to tackle these refraction issues caused by mesh topology. Current solutions, such as the Weight Normal modifier in 3ds Max, are not satisfactory. If Corona can address these challenges, it would allow us to focus more on the quality of render outputs rather than being constrained by mesh topology and normals. CAD applications offer great precision, and it's time for render engines to align with these capabilities and resolve the issues related to quad topology and refraction.

looking forward to the feedback.

14

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

« on: 2021-02-21, 19:19:04 »

TNX TomG, i mean why should we have the new tab as PBR? instead of improving current situation (corona MTL parameters) because after a couple of years users are completely compatible with them (any way, I'm worried it is just like another complexity or NT 🤔)

15

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

« on: 2021-02-20, 13:08:22 »

HI CORONA guyz... as a corona user over 2 years, i couldn't find out why we should have Corona mtl and this one (PBR) simultaneously with same behavior!? 🤔 instead of parallel parts i supposed that we see some dramatic improvements in VFX, caustics and speed of rendering for animating ANY WAY... infinite loop⁉ after Chaos group😐 plz be U r self_ forward thinking nothing more!