[brodie_geers]

Thanks everyone for the input. It's helped quite a bit. I'll try out the normal mapping and see if that does me any good. I have noticed that those seem to provide better results but never went through the effort of finding out how to make them. I'm going to start w/ the nvidia/photoshop plug-in and see how that works out.

Richard, interesting trial you did there. It's good to hear that I'm not as incompetant as I'd thought ("if I can't even get a bump map to work, maybe I should just get into basket weaving!"). So Skydome seems to provide the best bump mapping? That's unfortunate since it seems like the worst of the lighting solutions How would you recommend combining those in PS? Just plopping it on top and picking a blending mode & opacity to suit or would you do something else?

I appreciate the discussion between Richard and Stinkie here too, as it confirms some of my other thoughts. Between Google and Next Limit I'm starting to feel like one of those kids who's parents threw them in a closet and ignored them for years. I guess I just don't know what it's like to live outside the closet with 'parents' who actually interact with you and help you mature.

Has NL ever said anything about the bump issue? I'm surprised I haven't really seen it raised here before (or constantly) if it's truly such an issue. I went and took a look at the bump examples from the Maxwell image gallery. 3 fairly unimpressive images of roller blade wheels, but there does seem to be working bump going on there. From an older version or is it just the very small scale on which it works at all?

Thanks,

-Brodie

[Stinkie7000]

LOL

See what you've done, Richard? No-one's gonna take our complaints seriously now!

[Richard]

Hehee, it's Monday and you're drunk already Richard you're starting early.. it's not weekend yet.

Thats the problem with mates you haven't seen for a while dropping by for a drink after work and well before dinner!

[Richard]

Richard, interesting trial you did there. It's good to hear that I'm not as incompetant as I'd thought ("if I can't even get a bump map to work, maybe I should just get into basket weaving!"). So Skydome seems to provide the best bump mapping? That's unfortunate since it seems like the worst of the lighting solutions How would you recommend combining those in PS? Just plopping it on top and picking a blending mode & opacity to suit or would you do something else?

Yes mate skydome will give the best texture and bump response! And yes PS two layers blended.

I've done some renders where combining both gives the best effect as it tends to soften the hard shadows that result from physical sky!

I appreciate the discussion between Richard and Stinkie here too, as it confirms some of my other thoughts. Between Google and Next Limit I'm starting to feel like one of those kids who's parents threw them in a closet and ignored them for years. I guess I just don't know what it's like to live outside the closet with 'parents' who actually interact with you and help you mature.

Sounds like it is time to come out of the closet mate!

Has NL ever said anything about the bump issue? I'm surprised I haven't really seen it raised here before (or constantly) if it's truly such an issue. I went and took a look at the bump examples from the Maxwell image gallery. 3 fairly unimpressive images of roller blade wheels, but there does seem to be working bump going on there. From an older version or is it just the very small scale on which it works at all?

Mate under emitters in product type shots you will get the correct bump response, similarly an emitter cast accross a bumped wall even when using Physical sky will produce bump. It is just under normal physical sky conditions with no shadow that bump doesn't work.

This actually makes the standard material test scene included with MR to be unsuitable for testing bump as the scene doesn't rely on physical sky at all.

Here is a very quick test - not a great one but clearly shows the difference between bump in sun and shadow. The sun is almost directly above the wall. And trust that anything that looks like bump in the sun is that which has been edited into these later maps to give the look that at least some bump is going on!

[kami]

thanks for the test render! It really shows the problem ... I'd be interested in one version of the same scene with an emitter instead of the sun. Could you do that?

[Fernando Tella]

Try to blur the bump map. In 3dsmax it used to be the sharper and more contrasted the better for bump; in Maxwell it does not work the same way, you have to blur it.

[Richard]

Try to blur the bump map. In 3dsmax it used to be the sharper and more contrasted the better for bump; in Maxwell it does not work the same way, you have to blur it.

Mate the map is blurred and then converted to normal map!

Either way you can see that there is considerable difference between bump in shade and sun in the above simple test.

[Stinkie7000]

*passes Richard the paracetamol*

[JorisMX]

forget the paracetamol, have some ibuprofen

[brodie_geers]

Richard,

Thanks for running that test. That's pretty frustrating for us Arch-Viz folks. So is there no use for bump in an exterior shot then? I guess the question is, what do YOU do? Are you doing a lot of displacement? If so how have you found the best way to subdivide your surfaces?

What would you recommend for doing stucco? I guess I could do displacement but, for Pete's sake, that's frustrating to have to use displacement for STUCCO of all things!

Oh, and what's the bit about blurring the bump maps? Should I do that? How much?

Just had a thought, Richard, a better test might be to use just a flat color with a bump map on it. Maybe I'll do that.

-Brodie

[Bubbaloo]

I usually go no higher that 50 for bump and maximum 80 for normal maps. Tests have shown that setting the value too high can have weird results. For stone and sometimes brick, I try to use displcament. Real geometry is always better than shading effects in Maxwell. For stucco, a good roughness map and slight bump is all you should need.

[Richard]

Brodie

I don't really use much displacement at all, just to time expensive and the geometry problems if I have to make any future changes to the model.

Mate I'd be trying to find a map with some shadows already on the map - or make one in PS!

You can get some bump out of a normal map - try CrazyBump demo for best results and crank the hell out of the intensity!

Suddividing your surface in SU is a real hassle given you'll likely end up with extra stray faces.

[brodie_geers]

Here's a quicky I ran. The texture is simply the default maxwell material with Arroway's tile35 placed in the bump slot (nothing in Reflectance 0, Lambert material). Physical sky only, no emitters.



This seems to be working just fine. What's up with that?

-Brodie[/img]

[Richard]

Yeah thats darn good, hmmmm?

Maybe I need to go back and look at how I'm doing normal maps!

[brodie_geers]

Yeah, it seems like there must be something else going on. That was just a simple floor tile .png bump. I didn't blur it or normalize it or anything. In the off chance that in was a .png thing I made it into a .jpg and got the same results.

Perhaps it's the combo of a bump map and a Reflectance 0 map? More tests I guess...

I also got pretty predictable results by upping the bump. @ 30 it was more intense but looked a bit off and at 200 it was really intense and even showed some obvious divits in the middle of the tile. Tried Sky dome too. The coloring was different but it didn't seem to have any effect on the bump.

-Brodie