CML

[Juraj]

I will alwas be for simple models like Bertrand's, it's imho vast superior to the random mess of shapes that the rest comply of. I can't even read textures on the others.

[CML]

I will alwas be for simple models like Bertrand's, it's imho vast superior to the random mess of shapes that the rest comply of. I can't even read textures on the others.

Thanks for replying
I just got confirmation from Bertrand's to change his model and use it as a sample scene.
I will post a render of the modified model and hope to see what you all think...

[Tanakov]

thanks for the comment,

This is just wrong. :O

can you please be more specific?

Its about the yellow shape, it looks like a Vagina.

I "Vote" For Vorden

[maru]

Its about the yellow shape, it looks like a Vagina.

Actually, I thought it looks like a dick. Freud would say something...

[Juraj]

Funky how that differs, I guess everyone sees what they want :- ).

Regarding the Volden's preview ball, I absolutely don't understand how in seven hells is it practical ? You need to see 30+ highlights on one preview to gauge reflective and refractive properties ?
Or you just like it because over-complicating stuff is the right way to go as opposed to simple ball ? 90perc. of time materials are applied to some forms of primitives anyway so something like that is not only overkill, it's useless for any textured material because you can't see how the surface properties are affected by mapping, which is much more important than being able to gauge color driven parameters. And that doesn't even take into account you can't see those textures at all because such shape can't even be UV-mapped correctly.
Such funky nerdy thing is really only good to evaluate simple metals/plastics/glasses/liquids. The moment you introduce UV-mapped texture...it's useless eye gimmick.

I really want to read some logical argument in favour of it, because I am persuaded it's "cool factor" that draws people for such mess.

The Jeff Patton's MentalRay object was way more reasonable and could really satisfy pretty much anyone.

[Ondra]

Actually, I thought it looks like a dick. Freud would say something...

I did a poll, best answer I got was "powerball" :D

[Utroll]

Its about the yellow shape, it looks like a Vagina.

Actually, I thought it looks like a dick. Freud would say something...

He would say thanks that was 200$ at the end anyway.

I don't get why you're stuck on a preview shape while you choose a few in my opinion :)
Nobody wants to choose a curtain material while it makes a ball. Same for terrain material etc... you probably could set a studio with grid giving scale but then please stick to few different forms according to the use of the material.

- I like the maxwell preview (in soft) rationnalism (floor, translucence, clothing, emission...)
- In vrayMat I remind people had to post pictures to illustrate what the standard shape could not display.

Happy to see it will be open in 5 days, exactly for the A6 release !!  [/HOAX]

[Ludvik Koutny]

I was drinking some water while reading recent posts of this thread and it successfully made it's way out through my nostrils. :D :D :D

[fellazb]

I personally like the idea of having multiple preview shapes for different materials being represented at it's best way. For example curtains, flooring, curved car materials or terrains etc. with a limit of 5 or 6 shapes.

[Volden]

Hi all. Tomer asked me to post renders of my test model.
Thanks for your kind comments about it.

[CML]

hello,
your latest comments  made me think about creating  a very simple scene which will present the material in the best way..
the concept here is "The Big Red Button " Made by Daniel Soltis.
what do you guys think about the idea?
is it worth some more details??

[rafpug]

Hello CML

This solution is a middle road of this thread

much more simple and linear "my opinion"

Regard and good work
Raf

[Ondra]

What I like is to have some reference gray material intertwined with the sample material, so that
a) emission shows correctly
b) it shows how the main material looks when partially in shade

[Utroll]

What I like is to have some reference gray material intertwined with the sample material, so that
a) emission shows correctly
b) it shows how the main material looks when partially in shade

why not the cutout logo part on top of the sphere ?

Another question which is may be interesting, may be irrelevant : could it be a ray/seconds limitator to make all people rendering a material sample having a fake same minimal 'hardware' configuration ? I'm not sure I'm clear but if everybody could render the material sample with 500.000 r/s and stopping at pass 20th with same (default?) settings, would it give a international material cpu consumption for a given material ? Like a mark from 1 (grey diffuse no refl, nothing) to ... well...  100 open scale.

I'm trying to figure if corona could allow to set up a reference system, hardware independant, to evaluate a material 'cost'. That would be better than trying to figure from stamp if a xeon blabla with this motherboard and xxGo ram rendering in 8 sec is a 'good' or not performance. May be you could use that factor for dev./optimization comparison purpose, people doing material would at least. And it's always helpfull in a production context to know. Specially if that mark could be metatagged within material for futur library uses (in two years you would be happy to have Corona for sketchup and a matlib with 'performance' sorting ability while client on your neck).

If a international cpu cost unit is doable I have no doubt you could implement in a breath.

[Ludvik Koutny]

I think the one from Volden looks great and does the job :)