Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - apjasko

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6
1
[Max] I need help! / Lights Showing Up On 'Unassigned'
« on: 2020-08-13, 14:33:44 »
I'm having a problem with lights appearing on multiple LightSelect elements. The problem is pretty straight forward. I assign a set of lights to one LightSelect element, but they also appear on my Unassigned LightSelect element. Is there a simple solution to fix this?

I'm experiencing the exact issue as discussed here: https://forum.corona-renderer.com/index.php?topic=15487.0



Edit: I figured out if I uncheck "Occlude other lights" under Visibility it fixes this behavior.

2
[Max] Daily Builds / Re: New bloom and glare playground!
« on: 2020-06-05, 16:18:18 »
I guess I do something wrong but the checkbox is out of order

What do you mean "out of order"? You are not able to check the "Custom aperture" checkbox?

Sorry for the confusion.
And yes, I'm not able to check this checkbox.

There's a checkbox inside the camera rollout of render settings. If you opened a scene created prior to this daily build, you will need to uncheck this box in order to use the new effects.

3
Thanks maru!

4
Sorry I wasn't clear with why the legacy medium resolving is a time saver.

I was having issues with refractive materials. Any glass panels with flipped normals were rendering incorrectly. Flipped normals are extremely popular issues with SKP models and I suspect always will be. By checking the legacy button, all issues disappeared.

5
My request is simple - don't eliminate option to run legacy medium resolving.

This didn't alarm me when I initially saw it. Recently I received a large, elaborate SketchUp model and was forced to use legacy medium resolving in order to save time. It would be a huge inconvenience to not have this option available when encountering such models.



6
Gallery / A Couple of My Latest
« on: 2018-10-03, 23:58:37 »
I haven't posted any of my work on the forum, so I thought I'd start with a couple of my most recent personal images. I think getting some feedback from the community here would be helpful. Let me know what you think.

7
Learner’s Corner / Re: Living room
« on: 2018-07-18, 16:42:17 »
Hmm, probably not. But it doesn't seem helpful to say the design isn't your taste and that's why it isn't a successful image. I'm personally not a fan of it either, but improving composition, lighting, and quality of materials can at least make it a nice and convincing visualization of space.

8
Learner’s Corner / Re: Living room
« on: 2018-07-18, 15:26:11 »
besides the points maru statet already....for me the proportions of the scene dont seem to be correct.
it has a bit of diorama look.

U should check the size and scaling of yout objects and textures u have used.

greetz

Lucutus

Agreed. I think the issue is the camera used. It looks very high off the floor, like a photo taken from standing on a chair. Also the lens length may be too long for this sort of shot. Something in the 24mm-28mm range and at eye level should help a lot in removing this "diorama" feel.

9
[Max] I need help! / Ram Upgrade Affecting Performance
« on: 2018-07-16, 20:44:30 »
I'm not sure if anyone else is experiencing this issue, specifically. I have seen a recent post claiming low rays per second on new Xeons, which is exactly the issue I'm suffering from now but with old xeons.

I have two older Xeon machines which had 32gb's of RAM. In this configuration, they render at full speed without issue. I swapped in new sticks for the upgrade, and now the machines produce around 1/8th the amount of rays rendering the machines useless.

The topic on the helpdesk website doesn't offer much help here. Has anyone experienced issues like this using 2620's or 2670's? If so, how do I fix this?


10
Would placing the scatter planes on a layer, and making the layer non-renderable be a solution for this? I've done this before using ForestPack and it works to scatter objects on an invisible surface.

11
Learner’s Corner / Re: Uncanny Valley Mark V
« on: 2018-06-22, 20:54:39 »
The uncanny valley is a theory where once something becomes so lifelike/realistic, it starts to produce adverse effects, ie. discomfort or revulsion. Anyway, this image (and those you previously posted on this series) aren't realistic at all. They're distinctly 3d rendered. I'm not sure what your goal is, but if minimalistic is what you're going for, and these are meant to have a realistic feel to provoke the theory of the uncanny valley, then you need to do a lot of work on shaders, lighting, and composition.

What is the goal of this series of images?

Check out this work by Marius Becker. https://www.artstation.com/artwork/Y6A1b It's a "boring place in urban area" but if you study his images you can immediately tell there's loads of work in all the areas listed above.

12
Gallery / Re: Lake house
« on: 2018-06-01, 21:59:50 »
The house looks way out of scale with the context created. Depth is lacking quite a lot and the reflection of the house in the water doesn't make much sense as you have it now.

13
Gallery / Re: Villetta 4
« on: 2018-05-07, 16:04:35 »
Use reference photos when creating scenes. If realism is what you're after, study how the light interacts with objects and materials. Then replicate it.

Also work on composition. In my opinion, the composition itself has a very "3d feel" to it.

14
I noticed the very faint bump on my side as well. I had to adjust the soften parameter to get a more pronounced bump. Also cranking the bump amount helped without causing any unusual artifacts as shown in my earlier post.

15
I think I figured out my issue - changing the map channel from default 1 to 2, bercontile bump no longer works. This applies to both my original scene and the teapot scene I made.

Leaving the mapping for bercontiles alone allows it to work as expected. So the issue was how I was making my material. 

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6