[michaelplogue]

I'm having a problem with the coffee table's mesh affecting the bump mapping (notice the swirl pattern - it should be more linear). The bump texture is rgb.

Hmm... What kind of UV mapping are you using - it looks like it might be using cyndrical or spherical coordinates?? (I get a very similar swirl look using spherical on a test object). Maybe if you give the top a separate MAP ID from the rest of the table......

[aitraaz]

hmmm....looks pretty nice though

[Frances]

Hi Michael,

I'm using box. That swirling effect is coming from the object's mesh.

[hdesbois]

That's strange. Did you try to set a test color map (such as checkerboard) to see if it looked ok in OGL or in render ? Or is this only affecting bump? Nice scene anyway.
HD

[michaelplogue]

Hi Michael,

I'm using box. That swirling effect is coming from the object's mesh.

Hmm... That is wierd. Are you using a chamfer cylinder for the object? How many cap segments is it set for? Maybe you could post a wireframe....

[Frances]

The textures display properly in the viewport. When I render the table as one piece, with Box UV mapping, there seems to be a conflict and the object appears Face mapped (the texture is mapped on each face of the mesh instead of the object as a whole).

When I detach the face, it appears to render properly. But isn't that dumb? The table is a revolved solid imported from Rhino and converted to a mesh. I don't get it. This is a PITA.

Here is the table with a simple pattern (rgb) box-mapped to it:

[andronikos916]

Frances - just one advice (in case you don't know it):

I know that sometomes using emitters is necessary but the fastest rendertimes are

1)Maxwell Physical Sky - NO Sun!

if you want shadows...

2) Maxwell Physical Sky + Sun

...emitters are the slowest to work with. I beleive that in your scene a option 1 will really help. I know that you want have direct shadows this way but trust me and do a test...I think it will look better

cy,
Andronikos

[Frances]

Frances - just one advice (in case you don't know it):

I know that sometomes using emitters is necessary but the fastest rendertimes are

1)Maxwell Physical Sky - NO Sun!

if you want shadows...

2) Maxwell Physical Sky + Sun

...emitters are the slowest to work with. I beleive that in your scene a option 1 will really help. I know that you want have direct shadows this way but trust me and do a test...I think it will look better

cy,
Andronikos

Yes, I'm aware of this trick. I have tried several lighting schemes for this scene and Physical Sky alone is definately not enough light. But Physical Sky + Sun also results in very low lighting levels in this scene and it was dark and very noisy. WTF are emitters for if we can't provide decent light without introducing noise?

[andronikos916]

I can understand you frustration but here is another tip for you:

Make a hole in the building on the other wall oposite from windows - where is not visible from camera...

A photographer will take a photo using reflective panes and all all sort of light sources in order to make the room/scene more pleasing.. Think like that...

My advise about the hole is because this way - no reflective or additonal emitters needed = less noise and brighter image!

...just try it!

cy,
Andronikos

[hdesbois]

I'm not sure this is related, because I use Lightwave only, but sometimes we get inconsistent results when we use cubic mapping (I do not know if it's same as Max's box). I thought it was a plugin issue, but maybe Maxwell do not handle properly this kind of projection.
HD

[aitraaz]

I'm sure this won't be useful but the I think the fill light is a good idea...for interiors using the 'flash' together with normal lighting really improves image quality....unfortunately it doesnt seem to help with speed or noise levels though (WTF?)...

[MarkM]

Vray is an excellent renderer. I've made over $50K with it over the last 12 months. That's working part time from my home.

Frances,
Just wondering since your working at home do you keep track of your hours you work? I know when I work at home I always find myself putting in a lot more hours then what I thought, although I cant say it’s a bad thing.

I remember a few years ago coming across your work on the rhino news group, I remember back then thinking how great your worked look and I still think that.

Regards,
Mark

[Frances]

I can understand you frustration but here is another tip for you:

Make a hole in the building on the other wall oposite from windows - where is not visible from camera...

A photographer will take a photo using reflective panes and all all sort of light sources in order to make the room/scene more pleasing.. Think like that...

My advise about the hole is because this way - no reflective or additonal emitters needed = less noise and brighter image!

...just try it!

cy,
Andronikos

Hi Andronikos,

Actually, this job provides a perfect opportunity to knock out a wall. The designer wants just one shot and it's a gigantic room. I'm knocking out walls!

Thanks Mark, I think at the most I spend 30 hours a week at this. Sometimes more, but it averages out. I will also sometimes go a couple of week and do no work at all.