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 - matsu

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Agreed. It would help A LOT.

If this can be done fairly easily "by hand", surely Corona should be able to apply the same fix automatically "under the hood"?

I've tried with and without noise mod; with different textures; RWS and not - it persists. Even tried world size displacement.

But I think it's strange you get this obvious repeating/tiling pattern. With the old displacement you could just lower the quality - sure, you'd lose detail, but you wouldn't get artifacts like this. If you can reproduce it, I hope you can sort it out.

Hey Matsu, what is the topology of your plane? Is it equally subdivided, can you please provide a wireframe?

It's a plane primitive 3x3m, 30x30 division (+Noise modifier Scale=20 Strength Z=60mm) - so 100x100mm squares. Adding wireframe.

Quote from: romullus
You need to set lower screen size in 2.5D displacement, or higher in classic one, to get comparable results. If i'm not mistaken, the ratio is about 1:1,5 So 1px classic displacement, should have about the same quality as 0,67px 2.5D displacement.

Adding comparison on 0.5px. The artifact is still there, but not as pronounced.

I'm adding this to the thread, even though this isn't strictly about curves, but rather about the 2.5D displacement in general.

I just tried setting up a simple textured lawn thing, and noticed some strange artifacts. Tried to see where it was coming from, and I realised it was coming from the 2.5D displacement. Tried changing to 3D and it's a huge difference.
It's just a simple JPG file, loaded with CoronaBitmap at gamma 1.0 and the bitmap size is bigger than the sample plane, so no repetition there. Displacement is at 1px in both cases.


I think I will consider using 2.5D only in cases where memory is an issue, since the look is significantly worse. :(

we are working on a fix.

How is it going? ;)

I am right now designing a material, and was going to randomize displacement with "element" mode, but wasn't able to. Using "MaterialByElement" kind of works, but it then appears as if the Gamma Randomization has no effect. It would be absolutely great if this worked. Thanks.

a checkbox for rendertime only would be great, but instead of a global setting, it should be set per distance map.

Agreed! I don't really use distance map due to this reason.

I was really stoked when I read about the displacement improvements that came with the latest version. However, I've tried it out some now, and I'm actually bit disappointed.

I'm sure the latest fix has improved the look of irregular disp-maps, but the way I use it (in archviz) is to produce pronounced details on buildings, which are almost always sharp and regular.
In the image I use the same basic brick texture, but on some parts of the facade, the architect wants a striped pattern. Since the meshing of the displaced areas is triangulated and random, the edges get very jagged, and the shadows look... really bad.
This kind of thing worked a lot better with Vray's 2D displacement. (I don't have any experience from using Fstorm.)

In the image, the displacement is set to Screen 1.5px, but many times, the scenes are too large and too complex to use such a small value. (I'd love to be able to increase it per object, or even use Screen and World on different objects!)

A possible solution I could think of is that Corona considers the displacement map's contrast to decide where to add triangles. So, if there's a sharp contrast between the pixels in the map, Corona adds more triangles, and vice versa. Adaptive meshing based on dispmap contrast. Edit: Did a quick test, and noticed it already does this. Added another image where I used a checker map to displace a tessellated cube. It shows the problem, and how displacement tries to solve the issue. 1px displacement in this render, but artefacts remain no matter the setting.
One could also think that the meshing uses some kind of "loop detection" to follow the shapes of the dispmap.

Another thing I been thinking about is the option to use "displacement LOD" - an option to skip displacement if the the displaced geometry is too small (too far away). Right now, displacement can really destroy the look of displaced mesh that is too far away from the camera.
The only solution now is using different materials for different shots of your scene, but is just too cumbersome to be a practical solution, and using World scale just isn't an option due to memory use.

I really hope you keep working on this. For me, it's one of the areas where Corona is lacking compared to other renderers.

[Max] I need help! / Re: IOR for unfinished wood?
« on: 2018-08-17, 13:59:19 »
Make it really rough (like 0.25 or something) and add a bit of bumpmap. That usually works for me, anyway.

[Max] I need help! / Re: Massive 90k pixel rendering size
« on: 2018-08-17, 13:57:22 »
I've done 4x5m banners, and the client insisted on 150 dpi. Problem was they asked for this AFTER I had already made the images in normal print resolution (6x4k px) with hundreds of layers and stuff.
I scaled the images up in Photoshop, to the desired resolution. Client was happy that the file has "150dpi" when they look at it in PS, and the prints look great.

Haven't downloaded any of these (yet), but thanks for sharing!

[Max] Feature Requests / Re: Can I get a proxy preview?
« on: 2018-04-17, 11:29:13 »
I turn on "Show Full Mesh" when I need to see the proxy. Then turn it back to box or pcloud so as not to slow down the viewport too much.

The theoretical scenario where this would be preferred method is in my opinion outside of common usage.

Quoted for emphasis. In 99.999% of the cases, I want triplanar mapping to behave the way normal UVWmapping does.

Option (even though I'm genereally opposed to adding more and more buttons/checkboxes) would be to add a switch that lets you decide the mapping behaviour - if you want mapping applied before or after displacement.

I was setting up a brick material using triplanar mapping in the texture slots, and noticed something funny. (Not funny, really.)

Displacement is calculated first, then the other mapping is applied to the displaced geometry, resulting in mapping mismatch.

Attaching images. First with triplanar, and then without (using ordinary UVW mapping).

Well, if you keep the material name the same, it shouldn't be any problem.

Like, if I want to make a material called "Gravel" and I want it to be 200mm in proximity to a material called "Asphalt" then thouse names should carry over as long as the names stay the same.
I usually group my materials in Muliti/Subs, and if you link to materials within the same Multi/Sub the naming issue isn't any problem.

Another idea would be to set it to MatID or even ObjectID instead of specific objects.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4