[David Solito]

Thanks for your video.
I lost all the CD I bought from arro.
I asked the have new download links, I hope they will be ok with that.

I prefer also this solution between gloss layer vs coat layer for these materials.

[Hervé]

using Coating for the floor is a bad idea... bad bad.. heheh

[zdeno]

using Coating for the floor is a bad idea... bad bad.. heheh

Yep, using coating for something else than soapbubbles looks like shot in own knee, but it was in old days ... now mayby it is more usefull ? anyone have good examples where using coatings is better than BSDF ?

[Half Life]

In its current implementation (2.6.10) I think its utility is severely limited -- however with some modifications (to parameters available to end-users) I think coatings have great potential to be a highly useful tool for many materials in Maxwell (but I've been beating that drum for a while now).

Contrary to how it may seem, I am not really a big fan of Additive blending (it is simply the best tool available for the task) -- and BSDF blending has many limitations as well. So for alot of these types of materials making problems I think coatings offer the best model for mimicking how things work in the real world... however for that to become a reality there would need to be a big shift in the way coatings are implemented.

Best,
Jason.

[Hervé]

.......for the floor........

[Mihai]

Oh and by the way, reducing the Nd of your coatings is a bullshit solution and you know it... in the real-world a metal nail has an Nd, the wood has an Nd and any type of coating has an Nd... these are real things and as you deviate away from those real world values you become less and less realistic.

Your examples are much more misleading than anything I could say.

First of all, take it easy when you receive some criticism... I don't agree with some of your conclusions, or this system, or any system in creating materials. Nothing personal with you ok?

1. You say for "future proofing" your material, in that case I have to say that you can't lower the roughness of that diffuse layer anyway or you'll start getting metallic floors. So yes, it is completely not necessary to put it there, and you should realize when you make these public videos that people will think this is some sort of rule they have to follow (and a very precise one at that..."raise by 12, this is what I have found out"). So you do have some responsibility on how you present your knowledge. I had to comment on that, I don't get why you have to be a jerk about it.

2. About the nails, ofcourse I would have created a new layer for that, where is the "bullshit" in me presenting an alternative way? YOUR system is more bullshit because your spec would be for the nails alone with your silly ND 3 and it wouldn't even be a proper metal I'm taking my toys and leaving....

3. If you say coatings are useless, again I react. People search for your comments and opinions because you've made plenty of video tutorials. So if you say coatings are useless = coatings ARE useless to a lot of people. It's only after I commented, that you elaborated. Otherwise it would have stayed at useless.

You should know the material system well enough by now to realize that if you want the best results you have to adapt your settings for each material and each texture - I don't know what that Arroway PDF has to do with anything honestly. What renderer their suggestions/rules/whatever are based on and if it wouldn't also be necessary to alter their textures on a case by case basis. I still have eyes and I prefer using them instead of their PDF. That's it in a nutshell. If you want to create a system, that will cover most of their texture collection in order to speed up your work - go ahead and do it, but in my opinion you loose quality and that's after all the purpose, to me.

[Half Life]

That all sounds reasonable unless you actually look at the samples you posted, in which absolutely none of the coatings have a realistic Nd for any part of the material (wood, nail, or otherwise).

I think as an employee of Next limit you have a much bigger responsibility to the users than I ever would.

I've got to do 12 versions of each texture in the whole Arroway line -- not counting an additional 6 SketchUp versions of each... I don't see anybody else lining up to do this and since VRay already has a set for Arroway it is in Maxwells best interest to have a ready made set as well.

As I said before, if you have a better system that can be automated to any degree then I'm all ears... until then I'll continue with my best judgement.

Also if you care to see, I can list several threads where I've publicly expounded on the potential virtues of coatings -- with this being the first time you've ever responded... as I've said before you are taking this thread entirely out of context, and making assumptions about my thoughts or methods that are not based on any facts.

Also for your information I often drop the roughness of the base layer as far as 80% if the situation calls for it -- 95% is simply a starting point... but again there you are with assumptions.

[Mihai]

I didn't present any assumptions or rules, or post a video about them. What does an ND of 3 and controlling the reflectance with a layer weight in an imaginary additive layer blending mode have to do with right or wrong anyway???? It's just a different approach, and again I responded to your coatings are useless comment. I didn't get personal or insult you.

I've got to do 12 versions of each texture in the whole Arroway line -- not counting an additional 6 SketchUp versions of each...

Then maybe if I am allowed to dare criticize your approach on this - perhaps you should rethink making fewer of them but ones that have enough justifiable difference and created them with quality in mind, not speed. I'd rather have 3 very good ones, lets say shiny, dull, in between, than 12 ones created based on a system which honestly I find too many variations. Instead I *suggest* writing a simple file telling people what parameters would need changing for a different look. Which in the additive approach shouldn't be too hard. It's at most three paragraphs of text.

[Half Life]

No, you don't understand what I mean (yet again) -- I have to do 2 versions for the full-rez textures (1 x 1 relative and RealScale tiling) and then another double set of the same for the half-rez textures, and then another double set of the same for the free sample-rez textures.

Then I have to make a copy of each of those for the Mac users since I get reports of the Mac versions I've already put out not finding the textures correctly... and then I have to do the same for the SketchUp plugin.

There will be no variation of the MXM settings themselves (beyond the base settings in the PDFs) -- this will be a largely automated process with the MXM settings representing a "baseline" starting point which users can modify at their option.

You've said alot about what you don't like with my settings but you haven't actually presented a better system to replace it... so I'm not inclined to give what you say on the topic too much credibility.

And honestly I don't have the time or energy to keep this pointless conversation up with you -- I have many other things that need my attention... and honestly there are many other things wrong with Maxwell that you should be worried about.

[Mihai]

No, you don't understand what I mean (yet again) -- I have to do 2 versions for the full-rez textures (1 x 1 relative and RealScale tiling) and then another double set of the same for the half-rez textures, and then another double set of the same for the free sample-rez textures.

Then I have to make a copy of each of those for the Mac users since I get reports of the Mac versions I've already put out not finding the textures correctly... and then I have to do the same for the SketchUp plugin.

There will be no variation of the MXM settings themselves (beyond the base settings in the PDFs) -- this will be a largely automated process with the MXM settings representing a "baseline" starting point which users can modify at their option.

You've said alot about what you don't like with my settings but you haven't actually presented a better system to replace it... so I'm not inclined to give what you say on the topic too much credibility.

And honestly I don't have the time or energy to keep this pointless conversation up with you -- I have many other things that need my attention... and honestly there are many other things wrong with Maxwell that you should be worried about.

You're right....I have no clue what you mean. All along I thought this system was for making different variations of the same material. Right now you are in the position of creating 18 versions of exactly the same material

Based on what you said above, I think this is a bit silly and masochistic. Why not just simply tell people, hey, if you want to turn this into a real scale material - these are the tiling settings to change. It's not exactly complex. Same with the fact that they don't own the collection of textures these materials are ment to be created for. It's exactly the same texture....load the half size ones instead, or the sample, if that's all you have.

About reports on Mac users not finding the textures - this should work exactly the same on Win/Max/Linux. Just put the textures in a "textures" subfolder of the MXM. I honestly don't think there is a bug here and it's not your problem if there is. What's this about special setup for Sketchup? I'm just curious because again this is a conclusion you present to Sketchup users which perhaps isn't necessary.

[Half Life]

This was part of the deal for Arroway -- after the project is finished they will distribute the MXM's with the texture sets as users purchase them (the same thing they do for the V-Ray for 3DS Max versions).

The concept is this is to allow beginners to get up and running with both Maxwell and the Arroway textures with minimal knowledge... it's a service to/for/by the community.

For the SketchUp plugin the best way of handling the MXM is through linking of the MXM to a native SketchUp material that has the tiling information set (for SketchUp)... those native SketchUp materials will need to be created at the same 3 resolutions (since each will be linked to a different MXM).

Logistically this is a huge undertaking and I am optimizing/automating everything I can... the Mac thing again is something that should not happen, but I am attempting to make all the paths absolutely right on each system to minimize any potential user error.

The point about educating the users is certainly perfectly valid -- however it is not so easy to reach all the users and even then there can be communication barriers so this solution eliminates those variable from the equation.

[Mihai]

This was part of the deal for Arroway

Fine, I can't really influence their way of looking at this - even though I find it will be pretty confusing for a Sketchup user to recieve about 16 versions of the same material. The Sketchup thing could have easily been solved by just telling them what the tiling settings should be for the native material, and then link the MXM (either the full rez or half rez one, although I find this silly as well having two versions here).

But more importantly, and why I feel.....concerned, is you also mentioned in the video you spent a lot of time mimicking the settings from that Arroway PDF to get the same result in Maxwell. Why? My interest is getting the best most believable materials in Maxwell. So I totally disagree with you with that PDF as not only a starting point but mimicking it. I understand now this is a semi-automatic conversion of Vray materials into Maxwell ones....but they will be presented as more or less "official" ones on the Arroway website, my second concern. But you have a deal with them and I'm not trying to steal your business....it just would have been better for this to be a collaborative community project.

1. They arrived at these spec/gloss settings based on their tests for EACH texture.

2. It's not clear what they mean with Spec, vs "Gloss" and how that would relate to setting up the texture brightness, and layer weights. If anything, I would think the gloss setting is more related to the roughness than a Layer weight. And it's the specular percentage from that PDF that would control the layer weight. But it's a moot point for me because you can't compare how these parameters work in Vray, and mimicking them in Maxwell.

For the bricks, again, first there will be practically no change setting the additive layer to only 1% in Maxwell. Or the bricks 13 material - it doesn't look that good to me. The render of it in the Arroway PDF looks totally wrong. Those bricks shouldn't have a plastic specular like that.

So I'm sorry you spent weeks banging your head trying to find a semi-automated system converting Vray materials into Maxwell ones, and that these will be presented as Maxwell materials created from the Arroway textures. I strongly disagree with this approach.......an overall ND of 3 for everything, no matter how the material is supposed to reflect, not only how much....and several other details. You know very well these materials aren't ment for users to see as a starting point, if they are not even ment to know how to load another texture in the material and Arroway thinks (or you told them) Maxwell needs 18 versions of each texture. People will use them as is...

[Half Life]

Well here are a few thoughts on your points -- and first let me say I am not being paid here, I do however get a full set of Arroway textures for my effort.

Firstly, when somebody buys an Arroway texture, in their mind they are purchasing what they see in the sample renders -- that is all they know, and they will expect similar results from any ready-made materials in any given render engine.

Secondly, the most commonly asked question in regards to Arroway textures is: "how do I convert the Arroway settings?" and the answer of "do whatever is right for the texture" is not an answer that is really helpful for beginners.

Thirdly, this is something the Maxwell staff could have done in-house if they really wanted control over the "official" MXMs, and I would be happy to step back and allow you to do so (if there is interest) -- however I have already spoken to others within the company, who are helping me on this project in other capacities, and they seem perfectly happy with my judgement on the matter.

Best,
Jason.

[Mihai]

Secondly, the most commonly asked question in regards to Arroway textures is: "how do I convert the Arroway settings?"

This is the key point. What "Arroway settings"? What are they based on? You said yourself in your video they are based on a biased engine. I disagree with your interpretation of those settings, on top of disagreeing with trying to mimick them. I really suggest to open a new thread and we can be more people to help and create the most suited version for each of the textures. Or post some test renders of the ones you have and others can comment. Just like those Arroway settings were decided. You will still be the one presenting the collection to Arroway - I'm only interested in getting the most out of Maxwell when using them. Can you ask them for the preview scenes they used in those renders? If we can use them to create a Maxwell material library for their textures?

[Half Life]

You do realize that you are talking about going through 423 individual materials here?

Besides which I don't see anybody complaining but you -- if somebody disagrees with my materials construction there is nothing stopping them from creating their own... and honestly most who will have already done so.

I'm going to be blunt here and hopefully you can get it -- the maps were designed for specific results, they have a process that gives them what they deem the best results for what they were after when they created the textures. This is not some fly-by-night company that just throw together textures sets and hopes for the best.

The other part of this is you have not really said anything positive here -- you've been negative in everything you've done to this point... the question is what will you personally commit to do to see this completed if this is the new working process?

I mean I'm not opening it up to committee if I still end up doing all the work and nobody contributes anything... that's the surest way of making sure absolutely nothing gets done -- which I am starting to believe is your goal (if you can't control it, it should not exist).

Right now I'm doing the work, and while I try to be accommodating, I have to believe in what I'm doing -- or I simply won't do it.