All posts related to V2
By hatts
#365660
How do you expect a material to "un-stiffen" the look? It's probably the geometry that isn't believable. Maxwell is more than capable of "soft" materials, which is proven by some of the things in the material library or gallery.

Look at this render from the site gallery:
Image

The render isn't perfect but the sofa+fabric is pretty close to flawless (besides some UV issues...)

Compare with this image:
Image

It's clear that the first image had better modeling, not just a magic "perfect cloth" material.
User avatar
By choo-chee
#365663
I use good model. However as I cannot render stuff at REBUS etc. since costs are too high for us here, I must get good materials without SL 10e10 .....
User avatar
By Bubbaloo
#365668
choo-chee wrote:how can I mimic real life without having enough knowledge...?
that's why we need perfect stuff in the default library !
Acquire more knowledge. What you are asking for is for others to do your work for you. Do it yourself. It will be much more rewarding.
By dmeyer
#365678
I can see where he's coming from though. I admire Maxwell for its strict adherence to physical accuracy...you must recreate everything for it to be 'correct.'

However this can be exasperating at times, especially when other packages will give more flexibility. Choose the right tool for the job I guess.

I just hope that some day when volumetrics are in Maxwell we will not be required to model each component of air and have to ensure our ratio of argon to nitrogen to oxygen is correct.
User avatar
By Half Life
#365684
dmeyer wrote:I just hope that some day when volumetrics are in Maxwell we will not be required to model each component of air and have to ensure our ratio of argon to nitrogen to oxygen is correct.
To offer a contrary POV, as long as some common types are in there as presets, I see no problem with Maxwell offering that level of specificity (for those who will make use of it).

Of course that assumes a homogeneous volume -- which would be primitive (compared to reality), but this is all we have with SSS now, so I imagine early implementations would be limited to homogeneous volumetrics.

Best,
Jason.
Last edited by Half Life on Tue Mar 12, 2013 6:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
By dmeyer
#365685
Half Life wrote:
dmeyer wrote:I just hope that some day when volumetrics are in Maxwell we will not be required to model each component of air and have to ensure our ratio of argon to nitrogen to oxygen is correct.
To offer a contrary POV, as long as some common types are in there as presets, I see no problem with Maxwell offering that level of specificity (for those who will make use of it).

Of course that assumes a homogeneous volume -- which would be primitive (compared to reality), but this is all we have with SSS now so I imagine early implementations would be limited to homogeneous volumetrics.

Best,
Jason.
I can't imagine a use case where one would need to model atoms.
User avatar
By Half Life
#365687
I'm not sure what you are getting at there... this is not really any different than trying to create a "alloy" MXM using several pure metals (which isn't going to be 100% correct, but good enough).

If you want to simulate different atmospheres then something like this would be useful... I can think of some cases where users may want to do something like this.

If you are talking about non-homogeneous volumes, a simple example would be oil and water... there should be no need for a user to "model" something like this when simple mapping and/or usage of XYZ spacial placement (example: +2 cm on Y) could delineate where a transition like this should occur in a volume. This isn't really that big of a deal from where we are now with Dielectrics/SSS -- Maxwell is already aware of the real world size (and placement) of the geometry and this information is already directly controlled for the MXM (by the user) via the attenuation setting... all that would be needed is some refinement of the same concept.

This (using Attenuation-type distance as a type of layer thickness control) could be very useful for things that have Dielectric/SSS "coatings" around either "Solid" or Dielectric /SSS cores ... etc... etc.

Best,
Jason.
User avatar
By choo-chee
#365701
guys, guys ....
I still need good fabric ;)
I don't care if I have to learn how-to by myself but the excellent material tutorial by mike verta still doesn't cover all material attributes thus living non scientist me in the fog ...
I have good models, good textures, lots of maxwell experience, yet I feel some points where left aside by NL team.
By bograt
#365702
Definitely better to map the texture... If using r2 materials like satin/velvet etc. you have to be careful to which layers to apply the bump to, otherwise you can screw up the falloff effect.
By bograt
#365703
choo-chee wrote:guys, guys ....
I still need good fabric ;)
I don't care if I have to learn how-to by myself but the excellent material tutorial by mike verta still doesn't cover all material attributes thus living non scientist me in the fog ...
I have good models, good textures, lots of maxwell experience, yet I feel some points where left aside by NL team.
It is really up to the 3d artist to make the materials, not the software developer...
Every material is completely different so there is no simple formula to create 'good fabric'... I would recommend uploading a reference of the material you are trying to achieve and I can make suggestions.
Or just study the interactions of light on real life materials... as well as the Maxwell users manual
By bograt
#365705
By the way, IMO creating a realistic fabric object requires the model, lighting and all of the materials properties to be conveyed realistically, so you should expect to use texture map in most of the texture slots.
It would be naive to think the problem was purely down to a single feature such as the model
User avatar
By choo-chee
#365706
bograt wrote:
choo-chee wrote:guys, guys ....
I still need good fabric ;)
I don't care if I have to learn how-to by myself but the excellent material tutorial by mike verta still doesn't cover all material attributes thus living non scientist me in the fog ...
I have good models, good textures, lots of maxwell experience, yet I feel some points where left aside by NL team.
It is really up to the 3d artist to make the materials, not the software developer...
Every material is completely different so there is no simple formula to create 'good fabric'... I would recommend uploading a reference of the material you are trying to achieve and I can make suggestions.
Or just study the interactions of light on real life materials... as well as the Maxwell users manual
I disagree.
Today, software is measured not only by essence but also by libraries (like lumion), ease of use (like artlantis) etc. etc. etc.
In the same manner you could tell me to go back to university and study a few courses of physics so I'll be able to calculate the correct time of day needed for each image
(hint: I just use "track object" to place the sun. I don't have the smallest clue about how atmospheres behave, but a good eye for renders)...

btw, still the same request over and over but, rou[…]

So far my only option was to ungroup (my group wa[…]

Thanks Miguel I know 5.2+ is a big development hi[…]

SketchUp 2021 Update

Hi Alberto, Many thanks for taking the time to ma[…]