CML

[Ludvik Koutny]

I do not think we need to rape his Volden's model ;) It is his intellectual property after all :)

[romullus]

Can't you make your own model? Afterall it's just few primitives thrown together - few minutes worth job.
As for Volden's model, i cannot imagine how i could evaluate a bit more complex material on such a bad uvmapped model like this.

[gracelorn]

I like the idea of combining the two models. Now it has larger smooth surfaces and still looks good and unique. I would also flatten the sloped base and maybe fix the UVW mapping. But Rawalanche is right, we need to get Volden's permission to do that.

[CML]

I like the idea of combining the two models. Now it has larger smooth surfaces and still looks good and unique. I would also flatten the sloped base and maybe fix the UVW mapping. But Rawalanche is right, we need to get Volden's permission to do that.

Can't you make your own model? Afterall it's just few primitives thrown together - few minutes worth job.
As for Volden's model, i cannot imagine how i could evaluate a bit more complex material on such a bad uvmapped model like this.

I do not think we need to rape his Volden's model ;) It is his intellectual property after all :)

hi guys, thanks for comment
I would not dare to change volden model without his permission.
it was his idea to upload it to the forum as sketch to read your comments about it.
romullus, i think your right about the uvw map, it is a big problem. for tiles textures.
so, i came up with the idea for the new model. great look of volden and Practical surface from me.

[Volden]

Hi guys. About UV mapping.
I was inspired by Jeff Patton`s shader test model, and I made the same UV mapping (on sphere) as he has (simple plane projection perpendicular to the camera). And that`s enough to understand how will look final material.
There`s 3 softboxes, and I could add an environment there (f.e. walls and ceiling with grey pattern). And maybe I could remove one of the softboxes to shade one side of the model.

If you will decide that Tomer`s idea is acceptable and prefferable as main material preview model, I`ll chane the geometry.

Sorry for my English.

[Paul Jones]

I'm liking the girl and two walls, for arch viz it's great to have the walls.

[steyin]

In my personal library, I use this scene ;-)
It isn't very PRO, but I have everything I need:

(*) Flat area with real reference (girls)
(*) Good flat and smooth reflection
(*) Good refraction and absorption

Myabe you can have some idea for your setup.
I added material.de model, because I'm used to see the shader with VRay )))

Love this set up, wish I had it. Is it a basic studio lighting set up?

[agentdark45]

I'm liking the girl and two walls, for arch viz it's great to have the walls.

I agree, that scene seems to cover all the bases for properly evaluating a material.

[cecofuli]

Yes, it's very simple setup. Here the screenshot.

[Volden]

Here`s the new one.
What do you think about it?

[romullus]

Should you get rid of these extrudes, model would be nearly perfect, imho.

[Volden]

No, I`ve changed my mind. Last one sucks. Original model is much better. I will not change anything, sorry guys. I made it for my own purposes, and I like it. That`s all.

[gracelorn]

I would get rid of the lower extruded bits, but keep the upper ones. I think they are what makes this model so unique and recognizable. Also they may be helpful in evaluating refractions.