Alfredo Tapia Posted March 11, 2003 Share Posted March 11, 2003 Guys, I am doing some tests attempting to use the VIZ-LS-VIZ workflow since I need to use some heavy bumped materials within an interior scene. I am trying to reproduce with this test the same conditions I will have with the real model. It is an average LS interior model with walls and ceilings with no thickness, sunlight through openings, etc, etc. The problem is I am getting these sun-licks through edges and vertices when render the solution file in Viz. What light settings should I correct to avoid this? Any clue? Thanks in advance. Regards PS, I am not sure where should I post this thread…. LS’s forum, Viz’s forum, Licks’s forum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted March 11, 2003 Share Posted March 11, 2003 What else needs to use a bump map besides the stone wall in your example? I ask because it struck me that you COULD achieve aprox. the same look in Lightscape by layering two or three flat mapped polys with a small seperation between them. The outer one would have an alpha mask for the areas of mortar around the stones, and the back one just the texture. There could be an intermediate one with anothe alpha mask, but that is probably overkill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dollus Posted March 11, 2003 Share Posted March 11, 2003 Remember that Viz ignores backfaces when calculating lights so you need a dummy object on the outside of your model if you have any lights outside of your model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reitveld Posted March 11, 2003 Share Posted March 11, 2003 I've had the same problem. I still have it from time to time when doing interior renderings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigcahunak Posted March 11, 2003 Share Posted March 11, 2003 Originally posted by Ernest Burden: What else needs to use a bump map besides the stone wall in your example? I ask because it struck me that you COULD achieve aprox. the same look in Lightscape by layering two or three flat mapped polys with a small seperation between them. The outer one would have an alpha mask for the areas of mortar around the stones, and the back one just the texture. There could be an intermediate one with anothe alpha mask, but that is probably overkill. this time you really did it Enest. Can you explain about this method a little more? Whats a "small separation" between them means? By alpha map, you mean a tga file done in PS from the same texture? Have you tried that method in the past in LS? RGDS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 Yes, I have used this method. A recent example was to use a doubled polygon to make an exterior wall. They had a six inch seperation. The polygon on the outside was mapped with the clients ACAD elevations with an alpha mask knocking out the windows. The back poly had the same map with the alpha turned off (LS only has to load the texture once) so the mullions were visible, and set back six inches. It works well. You dont have the little return surfaces since the windows are not modelled, but the savings in time is tremendous. The 'hole' will cast shadows and behave like a punched window. Of course, this is better done with a bump or better still with a displacement map--but I am just trying to get Lightscape to do what I want. VIZ can do the bump, but the original message was about having difficulty with a VIZ>LS>VIIZ workflow. This is just an idea for keeping it in LS. Can you explain about this method a little more? Whats a "small separation" between them means? By alpha map, you mean a tga file done in PS from the same texture? Have you tried that method in the past in LS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alfredo Tapia Posted March 12, 2003 Author Share Posted March 12, 2003 Well, Ernest, that’s certainly an original idea. It never occurred to me. I guess it could be very useful yet not in this case. The final goal is to get an animation. This is the reason of getting back to Viz. I guess I could import an animation path into LS, but anyway…. I guess that being an interior model, I will get close and no frontal views of the bumped material and this method should not work properly with that condition. Think so? Perhaps an example might help me/us to better understand the potential of this method. Remember that Viz ignores backfaces when calculating lights so you need a dummy object Well, I wouldn’t say so. If this is true…. Why I am getting almost the proper shadow of the back wall and the entire model? I agree with the idea of using a dummy object, though in this particular case, as it is a pretty tall model with a narrow proportion in plan, I like the idea of using the backface culling feature. Is this the dummy object the only solution? Thanks for the feedback. Regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 There is no reason to exclude the method I suggested just because you plan to do animation. I am not trying to force you to use Lightscape vs. VIZ, just telling you HOW to, if that would make your project easier. You could create the animation path in LS. it could be very useful yet not in this case. The final goal is to get an animation. This is the reason of getting back to Viz. I guess I could import an animation path into LS, but anyway…. I guess that being an interior model, I will get close and no frontal views of the bumped material and this method should not work properly with that condition. Think so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alfredo Tapia Posted March 12, 2003 Author Share Posted March 12, 2003 Yes, Ernest, I understand. My main concert is how this material will look from a close view. I will have to try it. Thanks. As I mentioned before, it seems a really helpful method. Regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alfredo Tapia Posted March 12, 2003 Author Share Posted March 12, 2003 concert = concern Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DelfoZ Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 Hi alfredo. Did u check ur RAY BIAS = 0 ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alfredo Tapia Posted March 12, 2003 Author Share Posted March 12, 2003 Hey Carlos, Now you say it, I’ve posted an over exaggerated version of the problem with a ray bias=0.2. Actually this is the real effect of the problem with the ray bias=0. and as you can see, the problem is still there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abicalho Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 Alfredo, You need to model the outside wall. In your current model, there's just the inside face of the wall, and the light will then leak through its corners. MAX and VIZ cannot have a Bias = 0, the bias needs to be a positive number > 0. Alexander Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alfredo Tapia Posted March 13, 2003 Author Share Posted March 13, 2003 I see. It seems to be the only solution. I will model de exterior surfaces of the walls as a dummy object, and this should allow me to keep the backface culling feature. It should work. Thanks to all of you guys for your ideas. Alfredo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alfredo Tapia Posted March 13, 2003 Author Share Posted March 13, 2003 I hadn’t realized my lick↔leak mistake until now. Some day my English is going to cause me serious problems. :ngelaugh: 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