[Tim Ellis]

Ok some more tests and clarification.

Test:-


Comparison:-


Conclusions:-

Using a camera 'window' with 'Hidden to GI' enabled, with strip all caustics from a scene.
Using a 50% Glass & AGS material, works fine for correct shadows and some refraction. (Check shadow lines running through glass and edge caustics, for refractiveness.)
Using a reduced reflective AGS & glass material, no reflective layer for AGS portion, works well but with no reflections.
More Glass % allows better refractions at the cost of incorrect shadows, in a Glass & AGS mixed mxm. Self shadows viewed through self are incorrect for increased glass %'s.

Tests runnning Glass mxm 'Hidden to GI' object, solves faster than AGS & Glass mix mxm, with 'Visible to GI' enabled.

I think user discretion and application, denotes method to be used, for optimum results.

If you want correct shadows, use 50% AGS & Glass mxm.
If you want correct sunlight, but no shadows added by the glass, use 'Hidden to GI' & Glass mxm.

I think the first image poses some real brain teasers. The areas where shadows are visible through each glass object, reveals some mad results.
4, 5 & 6 only working correctly with 1 & 2, for example.

Only thing left I think, is to show this in an actual scene representation. Will do asap.


50% Glass & AGS mxm:- http://mxmgallery.maxwellrender.com/sea ... arch=ellis

Tim.

[Tim Ellis]

Scene examples:-






Tim.

[glebe digital]

Thanks for the tests Tim. Are the scene examples all to the same SL?

[Tim Ellis]

Thanks for the tests Tim. Are the scene examples all to the same SL?

Yes , sorry all to sl8. Really quick renders just as I left the office last night. Each took about 1m50s on a dual dual 275 with 4GB.

Tim.

[Bubbaloo]

This is very important info. Thanks!

[def4d]

might we consider you're a genius man?

[giacob]

Tim your effort are wonderfull but frankly i cant see any decisive improvements from the example u posted .. this new glass IMO doesnt look better than AGS, estetically and IMO dont look so phisically correct...
but perhaps its just a question of using it in a more significant context and render

[sandykoufax]

You're genius!!

Thank you very much for the great tests and efforts, Tim.

[Tim Ellis]

Thankyou, but I'm not a genius.

giacob, I fully understand mate. I'm just trying to find the best solution to Maxwell's sulight through glass problem.

I think user discretion and application, denotes method to be used, for optimum results.'

AGS is great but what if you want caustics as well? Same with the hidden to GI method.

I appreciate this isn't the most physically correct mxm, but it's the best I can do with the current restrictions of Maxwell.



Material applied to a displaced plane, to show caustics and swimming pool application.

Please note, there are none of the usual Maxwell neccesary modeling tricks for water to work, the water plane is just smaller than the pool edge.

Tim.

[Tim Ellis]

Condensed all applicable and working data into the first post, on page one of this thread.

Tim.

[def4d]

really not a negative critic, but i don't see the shadows deformations inside the pool

[KurtS]

interesting tests and results!

[Tim Ellis]

really not a negative critic, but i don't see the shadows deformations inside the pool

True mate, there are some on the pool edge shadow above the 50%. Need to let one of these render longer, so the refraction is more noticable. The 50% mix of refractive and non, doesn't give the most accurate refractions.

Need to do a few more runs.

Cheers,


Tim.