buffos Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 why not tyrone? I dont think the material wll be bad. Not at all. But for example i think it wont be suitable for glass brick walls Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus3D Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 That's just the thing, at the moment you know just as little as the rest of us know. But in about one week we will all know more, including you buffos. Now one weeks patience should even you have.. right ? / Max Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leoA4D Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 Buffos, please do not make assumptions about how this material performs until the final version is released. Chill, folks. Make no positive or negative comments about something that only exists in text. You just do not have anything to judge or base your comments. Wait until you have tested it. Is that not reasonable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffos Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 as i said dear maximus, some things are easy to predict. VERY EASY. As i said in the features thread, one of the main drawbacks of such a solution is that using a dielectic you could actually see how light distrubutes in a room including intencities... Do you will have correct light distributions but not correct light intencities. You dont need to see it to know it.. its obvious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamT Posted April 20, 2006 Author Share Posted April 20, 2006 Yes, it looks like the new Architectural Solution Glass (ASG) would do the job. I agree with Fran, architectural glass does not have to be physical correct in most of the cases. AGS is indeed a very welcome option. Here is the direct link to the "teaser" movie by Next Limit. http://www.maxwellrender.com/files/ags+ml.mov I agree too. I think I suggested something like this a year or so ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devin Johnston Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 It's too early to guess how this ASG is going to function, and I don't think it's worth fighting over an unknown. I know it's easy to question everything NL does but there will be plenty of time to analyze and critique this shader once we have it in our hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 I agree too. I think I suggested something like this a year or so ago. I think there's a recent remark from Darth Mod about 'the one thing they will NEVER do is compromise on physical correctness'. Again--I don't actually care one little bit so long as it works and looks as good as Lightscape glass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adehus Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 I think there's a recent remark from Darth Mod about 'the one thing they will NEVER do is compromise on physical correctness'. Again--I don't actually care one little bit so long as it works and looks as good as Lightscape glass. That's the funny part of it all- their pride in the physically correct aspect of things. Beyond that, I don't care how it works as long as it works well. We shall see... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamT Posted April 20, 2006 Author Share Posted April 20, 2006 I think there's a recent remark from Darth Mod about 'the one thing they will NEVER do is compromise on physical correctness'. Again--I don't actually care one little bit so long as it works and looks as good as Lightscape glass. True, and it's not just this. A lot of the new "features" are in fact just departures from physical correctness, e.g., hiding emitters, excluding emitters from reflections, single-sided materials, etc. Personally I'm glad they're doing it. If you want maximum correctness you can always disregard these hacks. If you need the hacks it's nice that they're there. I suspect there would be a lot more of these toys if NL had gotten off its high, physically correct horse sooner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leoA4D Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 What does this do to the biased/unbiased rendering schtick? I wonder if this is the permanent solution. NL will never tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 What does this do to the biased/unbiased rendering schtick? I wonder if this is the permanent solution. NL will never tell. Unbiased. Except when it is. I have never, for one second, cared about 'unbiased' (except for that Tom), it's not my mantra, it's Victor's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devin Johnston Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 Was lightscape and unbiased engine, I don't think it was and people still used it to do lighting analysis. I don't think even a biased Maxwell would be that far away from what they consider unbiased. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leoA4D Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 Unbiased. Except when it is. I have never, for one second, cared about 'unbiased' (except for that Tom), it's not my mantra, it's Victor's. I was just poking. Ah, mantra. That's the right word. It seems the multi/flexi lighting (MXI/HDR ENVIRONMENT SYSTEM?) is the new mantra. Q. In a closeup of say, shoes set in a storefront with the glass in the fore or background and the glass is a 1" insulating glass (two panes separated by an airspace), do you think the glass thickness and (dreaded) reflections in both panes will be discernible with ASG? It is not clear (ha-ha) from the video if there is thickness to the glass ("thin pane window applications"). Edit: IMHO, ASG looks promising for many applications but in many, where glass depth should be evident, it looks questionable from the posted images. Glass has color in its thickness. The balcony with colored panels look quite good because the panel edges are visible. Otherwise, ASG does look like a coating because there is no perceived depth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJLynn Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 I gather that would be a yes. They didn't do an example for every scenario you could think of, but why shouldn't it work? You can see reflections of reflections of reflections in this: http://www.maxwellrender.com/files/ags.htm I for one am pretty impressed with the new stuff. I'm still aggravated by the process and the BS from various people, but I'm starting to get some of that old Maxwell excitement back, starting to think about the possibilities. I'll be giving the technology the benefit of the doubt for a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 I for one am pretty impressed with the new stuff. That does look good. I have a test scene for glass that I made when I was transitioning from Lightscape to C4D and was frustrated by the ... glass. There was a thread about it. When this MWR release is out (and I have a spare moment) I will dust it off and test it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamT Posted April 20, 2006 Author Share Posted April 20, 2006 The whole biased/unbiased thing is a crock as far as I'm concerned. No render engine can simulate reality 100%. It makes sense to give the user control over how much he or she is willing to sacrifice in order to achieve the highest degree of realism the engine is capable of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leoA4D Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 The name, The Light Simulator, says it best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamT Posted April 20, 2006 Author Share Posted April 20, 2006 Someone asked a very good question over there: "So if I understand this correctly, I can now add a bump map to the AGS to simulate the "wavy" effect we see with larger spans of window glazing?" Mihai answered a few questions, but skipped over that one, which isn't too promising. If bump won't work that could be the achilles heel of AGS. Hopefully someone over there will answer the question, or ask it again if it's ignored. Thread here: http://www.maxwellrender.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14104&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=75 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamT Posted April 20, 2006 Author Share Posted April 20, 2006 Someone asked a very good question over there: "So if I understand this correctly, I can now add a bump map to the AGS to simulate the "wavy" effect we see with larger spans of window glazing?" Mihai answered a few questions, but skipped over that one, which isn't too promising. If bump won't work that could be the achilles heel of AGS. Hopefully someone over there will answer the question, or ask it again if it's ignored. Thread here: http://www.maxwellrender.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14104&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=75 Maybe some of you folks who haven't been banned can post over there and see if we can get an answer to this question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devin Johnston Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 Ok I asked the question, well see if they answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJLynn Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 If bump won't work that could be the achilles heel of AGS. Hopefully someone over there will answer the question, or ask it again if it's ignored. I think there's already enough info to answer the question. The bump wouldn't work entirely because there is no refraction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devin Johnston Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 This is what the answer was: "Yes, the second layer accept bump maps, clipmap, roughness maps, anisotropy, reflectance 0º and 90º maps, etc. So you can render a translucent concrete wall casting shadows through it" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamT Posted April 20, 2006 Author Share Posted April 20, 2006 This is what the answer was: "Yes, the second layer accept bump maps, clipmap, roughness maps, anisotropy, reflectance 0º and 90º maps, etc. So you can render a translucent concrete wall casting shadows through it" Thanks Maxer, but I'm not sure if that answers the critical question, i.e., will the bump cause the reflection to distort properly. Maybe NL has made me paranoid, but it seems they may be dancing around this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devin Johnston Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 Not sure I understand your hesitation, what would be the point of being able to add these maps to the AGS unless they worked properley? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamT Posted April 20, 2006 Author Share Posted April 20, 2006 Yeah, I'm sure you're right. Paranoid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now