[soarchitect]

To get a better understanding of how to use the material editor, I studied Arroway materials created
by other maxwell users (Jason Maranto) and those created by Next Limit. Since they both used the same
diffuse, specular, and bump maps as supplied by Arroway, I thought a comparison would be fairly straight
forward.

As I compared a few materials, it became clear that both methods deviate from each other. for example:

1) NL never adds anything to the ref 0 & 90 channels, while JM adds a specular map to each.
2) NL sets the roughness in the specular channel to 50, JM to 100.
3) NL uses the same diffuse map for ref 0 & 90, JM sets the diffuse map for ref 90 at +15%

There are other differences, but these seem to be the major ones.

Questions:
1) what is the relationship between the roughness channel (with inverted spec map) and the material?
2) what is the benefit of adding a specular map at ref 0 & 90 vs the layer level (opacity/mask)?
3) will one method use less system resources than the other?

any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

[mgroeteke]

the best resource to really understand the maxwell material system is to watch the tutorials here:

http://think.maxwellrender.com/first10s ... tegoryFS=3

especially mike verta's 'materials and stacked layer system'...

cheers

markus

[Kyle]

I believe that the picture comparisons say it all really... theres more than one way to ge the same result. There are some slight differences such as the 97 and 95 roughness but this just comes down to personal preferences. Another example of this would be that some people will go as high as 242 for reflectance 0 colour whereas others will only go as high as 230.
Some people may only go as high as 90 with roughness as well.

Basically, I believe it is finding whatever is most easiest for you to understand and what you are most comfortable doing. If you do it a different way to everyone else and the results look the same then great!

[Half Life]

To get a better understanding of how to use the material editor, I studied Arroway materials created
by other maxwell users (Jason Maranto) and those created by Next Limit. Since they both used the same
diffuse, specular, and bump maps as supplied by Arroway, I thought a comparison would be fairly straight
forward.

Actually the maps are not the same at all -- if you open the maps in Photoshop you will see that the maps are modified for the Next Limit version of the Arroway samples... the real Arroway maps (which is what my material are meant to use) are often larger, in png (instead of jpg), and more subtle.

Obviously because the maps are different it is possible to have different settings with similar results.

As I compared a few materials, it became clear that both methods deviate from each other. for example:

1) NL never adds anything to the ref 0 & 90 channels, while JM adds a specular map to each.
2) NL sets the roughness in the specular channel to 50, JM to 100.
3) NL uses the same diffuse map for ref 0 & 90, JM sets the diffuse map for ref 90 at +15%

There are other differences, but these seem to be the major ones.

Questions:
1) what is the relationship between the roughness channel (with inverted spec map) and the material?
2) what is the benefit of adding a specular map at ref 0 & 90 vs the layer level (opacity/mask)?
3) will one method use less system resources than the other?

any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Here are some answers:
1) the surface is unevenly rough (or smooth depending upon your perspective)... this adds a slight (but visible) amount of variation.
2) see answer 1 -- my goal here was to create as much detail and variation in the "specular" layer as possible.
3) I'm not sure -- although I suspect any difference would be negligible... but this is easy to test.

There are certainly many ways to skin a cat in Maxwell, my goal was to get the highest amount of detail and variation from the maps and to get as close to Arroways samples as I could.

Best,
Jason.

[soarchitect]

Thanks everyone for the feedback, it is very appreciated.

Jason, I understand what your intent is, but to clarify:

1) In general, does it make sense to add a specular map to both the 'folder level' and the ref 0 & 90 on the same layer? In additive mode,
wont the specular map be added to the ref o & 90 channels on the layers below if the respective colors in the layer
above are set to black?

why does it create more variation in the specular if you put the specular map in the ref 0 & 90 each channel?

2) Arroway refers to an inverted specular map as a gloss map, which defines the sharpness/blurriness characteristics of
the surface. If you adjust the roughness to 100, wont that eliminate any glossy quality?

Best,
Sean

[tom]

1) In general, does it make sense to add a specular map to both the 'folder level' and the ref 0 & 90 on the same layer? In additive mode,
wont the specular map be added to the ref o & 90 channels on the layers below if the respective colors in the layer
above are set to black?
why does it create more variation in the specular if you put the specular map in the ref 0 & 90 each channel?

Right. This is why we suggested using it as an opacity map for the additive specular layer.

2) Arroway refers to an inverted specular map as a gloss map, which defines the sharpness/blurriness characteristics of
the surface. If you adjust the roughness to 100, wont that eliminate any glossy quality?

No, it doesn't eliminate it. The given value means the maximum roughness that will be used for the texture white. It's all about your pleasure.

[Half Life]

Thanks everyone for the feedback, it is very appreciated.

Jason, I understand what your intent is, but to clarify:

1) In general, does it make sense to add a specular map to both the 'folder level' and the ref 0 & 90 on the same layer? In additive mode,
wont the specular map be added to the ref o & 90 channels on the layers below if the respective colors in the layer
above are set to black?

why does it create more variation in the specular if you put the specular map in the ref 0 & 90 each channel?

Luminosity has an effect on the relative "specularity" -- brighter areas will be more "shiny", darker areas less so... also it is much better with the roughness map to have the reflectance maps than a flat color (grey, black, or white).

The folder level opacity map approach is a very on/off type of proposition, there's really only the various shades of grey to reveal (or hide) the totally flat "specular" look... whereas the method I use will allow for more variation because of the interplay between the settings.

But test these options for yourself and see if you find it worthwhile... that's the best way to decide.

Best,
Jason.

[soarchitect]

Jason/Tom, thanks again for clarifying the logic behind your methodologies. The last thing I want to
do is indiscriminately tweak toggles all day/night, this has given me a better understanding.

Best,
Sean