Maxwell Render | Official public forum

I have this strange problem since I installed V1 : when I use a material, either custom or from mat database, with a low roughness value, it renders as shiny black unless I push up iso or exposure to very high levels, where it renders correct (but then, everything else in the scene is overexposed) :

This is an exemple with the rendering challenge scene re-exported with new LW plugin, with basic gold and silver materials applied. Any material with low roughness appears as black even in material preview.
Here is the same scene with a 6 fstop overexposure :

Could anyone tell me what I'm doing wrong?
HD

Nd has to be 3 or greater.

_Mike

Ah, thanks, I forgot that part.
HD

mverta wrote:Nd has to be 3 or greater.

_Mike

Is that regarding all materials?

http://www.maxwellrender.com/forum/view ... hp?t=14378

I swear if you guys read a little you'd have less headaches

_Mike

mverta wrote:http://www.maxwellrender.com/forum/view ... hp?t=14378

I swear if you guys read a little you'd have less headaches

_Mike

Mike -

Could we get a bit of an explaination regarding this ND issue for solids? Is this a bug, and if so, will it be fixed? If this is a function of the new materials, and something we are going to be stuck with, an explaination as to WHY it must be this way would be really nice. It just seems to me to be really silly that we have to do this for all of our 'solid' materials. It's counterintuitive.

Thanks!

It's only counter-intuitive because you're not used to it. In about 2 days you forget about it. There are explanations elsewhere on this board about why it works this way, and apparently they make sense. Do a search and you'll probably find it.

Personally, I'm a bottom-line type of guy, and so if the geniuses tell me to set my Nd's between 3-20 for solids, I do. And since it works beautifully, I'm happy. It's just Maxwell voodoo. Mental ray has its voodoo, VRay has its voodoo.. they all got the voodoo, my brother.

_Mike

How about putting the explaination in your sticky - save everyone the need to hunt it down.

You mean right next to where I told people to set Nd 3 or greater for solids? Sure, I'll put it on the list.

_Mike

No, no. I've only found postings where people talk about the explaination. Not the explaination itself. I'm guessing from one post I saw from Tom that this is a bug that will eventually be fixed.

Never mind... I'm going back into exile again.

It's not a bug, no.

_Mike

tom wrote:

jdp wrote:some materials in the database are old, don't ask me why. make sure that for a solid material the attenuation distance is set to 3.0 - 20.

http://www.maxwellrender.com/forum/view ... highlight=

Not attenuation distance, it's Nd needs to be fixed. We will provide them fixed as soon as possible, meanwhile you can fix this by setting Nd=1 to Nd=20.

Then what is Tom saying here? When he says that 'we will provide them fixed as soon as possible,' is he using a different definition of 'fixed' that I'm unaware of? Or does he mean that the materials will have the Nd set to a higher level as it's default?

mverta wrote:You mean right next to where I told people to set Nd 3 or greater for solids? Sure, I'll put it on the list.

_Mike

I really don´t understand why most people don´t read those threads...
perhaps it´s due to the loads of threads these days.

but, as juan said in a wishlist thread, the ND settings from 3 to 20 have to be trial and error, do you have experience how the different ND´s affect the materials appearence ?

perhaps i´ll do a couple of test to investigate this...

michaelplogue wrote:Then what is Tom saying here? When he says that 'we will provide them fixed as soon as possible,' is he using a different definition of 'fixed' that I'm unaware of? Or does he mean that the materials will have the Nd set to a higher level as it's default?

Could it be due to I was talking about fixing Nd's of provided material presets instead of Nd core which has been perceived faulty and working precisely perfect? I think, yes I meant this.

arch4d wrote:

I really don´t understand why most people don´t read those threads...

FYI, I did read the thread before hand. Since it took forever to get the download, I had plenty of time. I'd just like a simple explaination as to why.

Is that too much to ask for?