Maxwell Render | Official public forum

Well, enough theory, lets make some pics

Tested four possible solutions, turns out only one seems correct. If it's correct both visually and physically (in this sense meaning: if it would look the same in reality), I don't know

Glass IOR:default
Water, ok wine: 1.33







This looks correct, but since one side of the bottom of the glass is missing, perhaps bottom reflections and caustics are incorrect? There's a pretty strong light from above, so caustics look the correct brightness to me.

I'll make another one with the bottom of the water gone and the bottom of the glass present to see how it looks.

Do you have the actual glass (with wine) next you when doing this tests ? or are you going by memory ?

-

Thanks for the sequence of tests, but it is very difficult to make any kind of comments or recommendations when we do not know your setup settings, scene scale, object scale and size, bounces, multiplier, scene setup, etc.

Include the maxwell render log as well, the maxwell bench number is good sometimes as well.

well, the last simming pool looks terrific... dunno why you said it's not.... please share your settings..

Hervé wrote:well, the last simming pool looks terrific... dunno why you said it's not.... please share your settings..

i think it's not maxwell

and btw/ if i send here some renderings i'm planning to make, this thread would be tens of pages again

aaah...uhmm the 3rd one from the top does not deserve correct tag mihai

oops are U sure...? Hummm now that I look closer.. well too bad...

do You plan more stuff on Water Tom.,?

I think the 4th wine glass looks the closest from reality... no?

DELETED

Mihai Iliuta wrote:Well, enough theory, lets make some pics

Hey! My PC was working hard on the same pictures this night, now, I can cancel the last 2 test. ^_^

Why is the last one bad? If the fluid intersects the glass, imo the image is somehow convincing, you cant really tell, if its no3 or no4 is more realistic. Of course, you can tell, which one you like better, but reality is not the most visually appealing in some cases.

We would need the perfect recreation of a real world scene, to experiment wth this. Also, I suggest a strong light from the side, not from above, to have some pronounced caustics patterns. Maybe caustics can give some hint, which one is the correct approach.

Btw, has NL commented this discussion about correct setup for situation like this? For example, the VRay team declared it clearly, that the correct solution under their rendering engine is to have the volumes intersecting each other.

A.

oh god... noone believes me about this.... hope what you see is real guys.
but it ain't my real anyway and i'm happy with my glasses
let me tell you once again: 3rd one is a wrong result.

IOR Madness!

I really think this need a comment from the devel team.
Anyway, imo its always the viewer, who tells, what looks real, and if he thinks its real, than its real, no matter how accurate the solution is.
You only have to convince yourself,... its all just self deception.

A.

...and a precise hint to precise people here :
do you know jelatin? a jelly sweet which we make into glass cups...
now when you part it slightly from the glass (like we make w/ inset),
you won't have any visible relfections penetrating between,
so these precise conditions may be omitable...

c'mon adam i told this on thousand posts

No Adam, I don't want you to read all those posts
I'm just bored to tell this, understand me...
Both are modeled, yes!

tonfarben, if I understood you correctly, is this what you ment:



I wonder if that would be correct though, because a ray thinks it first entered a glass object, then it hits the other wall and thinks it entered another glass object which is inside the first object, then it travels further until it reaches the far end of the water........and.....well I don't know what will happen

tom, can you please say exactly how the water and glass are modeled?

1. Is the glass cut away where it meets water?
2. Is the bottom of the water cut away and there is glass there instead?
3. Is the IOR of the water the same for it's sides as for it's top?

tonfarben, I think you are right that there needs to be another IOR for the sides of the water than for it's top. The top can be 1.33 but the sides need to be glass IOR/waterIOR like you said. Question then about the bottom....