All posts related to V2
By feynman
#376074
Polyxo wrote:
eric nixon wrote:What's wrong here? - your settings/geometry problems, hence the noise, so why let it render? The noise is saying , hey theres something wrong.
If you create an SSS material, apply it to a cube and start rendering... does the material look clear right away on your
machine? Were you able to judge the look of a tiny surface structure? I can say that this isn't possible where I sit.

My point wasn't complaining - but I would agree with Martin that predictions on certain subtle material properties
are really hard to make currently. That is not to say that persons who do little else professionally than rendering might
be able do develop certain instincts but one certainly can not see what's wrong :).

The mesh in question btw is not greatly more complex than a cube, it's all quads and closed and nice, the sss material is
a basic preset one - the only thing I did that I added the nor_foam.jpg from the default material library at a
high tiling rate. Actually I still don't know what went wrong... here's a downsized version of the raw render and I swear
that there was no chance to see this triangulation artifact at Fire res/low sampling levels.
My personal guess is that MW treated that Normal map with the same criteria it uses on Bump maps where high intensity
multipliers lead to shading defects too - but this should actually not be the case with Normal maps: They have a baked in depth
and typically should be used at 100%. Or MW doesn't like the Normal map at such small tiles...
Whatever the cause is - I could see the defect far too late for my liking and Fire didn't help either.
First, I would say that for industrial design, I would use nothing else. The whole idea to work with a "real" camera and to use "real" (IES) lights as emitters is ever so easy to understand. But then, as you say, the problems start for the regular user who does not use MR daily. Where do these oddly shaded triangles come from, that look like yours http://bayimg.com/JAFofaaFm in a scene with 3 emitters and the default material? Where does the glare come from here http://bayimg.com/naFiCaafL although the single emitter in the scene is hidden from view? What is inducing all that noise after 3 hours with three nodes? As you point out, it is not always intuitive to know what to look for, even if one has the entire MR documentation and knowledgebase printed and reads it constantly. If some of that counterintuitivity could be reduced by way of better example, there would be no complaints : )
By feynman
#376077
Polyxo wrote:
seghier wrote:i can't see videos ; and i can't wait hours to see one page i need pbf and it very useful.
Offering online Help resources exclusively of course may have big advantages, for the user but even more so for Next Limit: Content can get updated
effortlessly, therefore I can well understand what Mihai says. But such offerings of course require speedy internet connections.
I find quite remarkable, that among the makers of web publishing tech (CMS's etc.) there seems no interest at all to support regions with shaky internet
or no connection at all. It should be absolutely doable to write all online content into just one offline browsable document, including all page layout features,
slideshows, embedded film clips etc. It even should be possible to link this document to the online version, to check for updated versions and to only replace
content which actually got changed.
The shared expectation of all these web-framework developers seems to be that all people are online at all time anyway and that everybody is perfectly
content with causing traffic for the same data over and over again.

@seghier, if your internet connection is so unrelable you might profit from using HTTrack or similar website copiers. If you run it overnight you
should be able to download all help files and things hopefully look similar to the website.
To be honest, I find the MR documentation and knowledgebase website rather good and well structured. The thing is, perhaps, that there is (inevitably) too much information. Often, as in education (my background), it is useful to provide examples in form of a string of rising complexities; for example, a classic industrial design scene explained from importing the OBJ until getting that translucent gel on the Philips shaver just that extra bit realistic. I, for one (and very many industrial designers I know), am quite happy to pay for a service; so if I'd have to purchase such a complete "walk-through of a project" for $100 - no problem. It would save so much hassle further down the road for those not "living in MR" 24/7 ; )
By Polyxo
#376094
feynman wrote: To be honest, I find the MR documentation and knowledgebase website rather good and well structured....
Hehe....not sure why you quoted me here - there's no word about quality or structure of Maxwell help in my post.
The post was about the problem of media intensive online help in areas with no reliable internet as in Seghiers country.
By Polyxo
#376095
feynman wrote:Where do these oddly shaded triangles come from, that look like yours http://bayimg.com/JAFofaaFm in a scene with 3 emitters and the default material?
Is there some micro-bump with high repetition in place? Mw has an allergy in this area but it should be improved in V3. The scene I posted renders fine with Mw3 - see also
a similar sample by tom in his behind the scenes thread
feynman wrote: Where does the glare come from here http://bayimg.com/naFiCaafL although the single emitter in the scene is hidden from view? What is inducing all that noise after 3 hours with three nodes? As you point out, it is not always intuitive to know what to look for, even if one has the entire MR documentation and knowledgebase printed and reads it constantly. If some of that counterintuitivity could be reduced by way of better example, there would be no complaints : )
Professional Visualizers who just want to create a beautiful image would include the Emitter in the Glass material and control its effect with multilight.
That way one gets an image which renders in acceptable time.
Your goal is different - the rendering is also there to give you informations about the own design , therefore you prefer the physically more correct approach.
Problem is: Correctness needs a lot of rendertime. :)
By feynman
#376096
No bump. MR default material. Unless there is an absolutistically ghostly BSDF with ghost bumps ; )

With emitter softboxes: triangle artifacts. With IBL: no artifacts. In the middle of a job, I won't upgrade to V3 just yet : )

But, well, with 5 nodes to waste... http://bayimg.com/EafhBaafO which is somewhat silly for something that simple.
Polyxo wrote:
feynman wrote:Where do these oddly shaded triangles come from, that look like yours http://bayimg.com/JAFofaaFm in a scene with 3 emitters and the default material?
Is there some micro-bump with high repetition in place? Mw has an allergy in this area but it should be improved in V3. The scene I posted renders fine with Mw3 - see also
a similar sample by tom in his behind the scenes thread
feynman wrote: Where does the glare come from here http://bayimg.com/naFiCaafL although the single emitter in the scene is hidden from view? What is inducing all that noise after 3 hours with three nodes? As you point out, it is not always intuitive to know what to look for, even if one has the entire MR documentation and knowledgebase printed and reads it constantly. If some of that counterintuitivity could be reduced by way of better example, there would be no complaints : )
Professional Visualizers who just want to create a beautiful image would include the Emitter in the Glass material and control its effect with multilight.
That way one gets an image which renders in acceptable time.
Your goal is different - the rendering is also there to give you informations about the own design , therefore you prefer the physically more correct approach.
Problem is: Correctness needs a lot of rendertime. :)
By Polyxo
#376097
feynman wrote: With emitter softboxes: triangle artifacts. With IBL: no artifacts. In the middle of a job, I won't upgrade to V3 just yet : )
That's clearly no solution for the problem but if delivery is really urgent one should be able to make these artifacts disappear without a trace in Photoshop.
By feynman
#376098
Polyxo wrote:
feynman wrote: With emitter softboxes: triangle artifacts. With IBL: no artifacts. In the middle of a job, I won't upgrade to V3 just yet : )
That's clearly no solution for the problem but if delivery is really urgent one should be able to make these artifacts disappear without a trace in Photoshop.
Sure. It's just... I'd like to know exactly what is the cause of an error. Software seems to behave rather analogue these days...
Rhinoceros 6 support

@greengreen , @greengreen , It happened to me […]

Long time not-anymore user here. Wasn't multiGPU […]

Good day! We have just released a new version of […]

Hi there, after a texture tag has been assigned to[…]