AccuRender nXt

advanced rendering for AutoCAD

Hi, Roy, I need your advice about the settings of the translucent plastic or glass, to reproduce the "Barrissol effect".

On the pictures, I show you the faces only tagged as area lights, 10 or 20 cm behind the faces tagged as thin plastic or glass objects. The light is given by LEDs, but is not uniform.

Thanks.

Views: 889

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

You'll need to try some things.  I would start by placing area lights behind the panels, and making the panels using glass with roughness.  This should work better than making the panels themselves the light sources-- this light would be uniform in this case.  Try to limit the number of light sources if possible (it may not be.)

Let me know what you get or if you want me to take a look at a model.

Thanks Roy, That's what I was trying, but I need to put some "glow" on the glass. I would like that the glass glowes, just with the area lights, but I am at the beginning of the experience. In case, I send you the dwg, if you have some time.

Attachments:

Thanks Mario, for your advices, I'll try all these way. I'll post the result.

Put 6 smaller light sources behind the screen.  Gave the screen some thickness for better refraction by copying and offseting the surface.  Changed the screen material a little-- IOR 1.6, Roughness 1.0, Transparency .85, -- no glow.  Until you're convinced that you can't adequately model this physically, avoid all tricks such as glow or those that Mario is suggesting.

e1, BTW.  This stuff isn't working well with e4-- I need to make some changes here.

roughness is set to maximum i see, is there a way to make the material more diffuse? Maybe changing the distance between light source and screen or is there no place left? Is there any change by tagging the lights as omnidirectional or diffuse?

Not really, no-- but you can change the shape and configuration of the light sources behind the screen.  I did these quickly for illustration only.  I also only let this run for a minute or so-- things should smooth out a bit after a while.

Thanks a lot Roy. When I offset the surface, is it to simulate a solid, so do I have to tag the both as "thin", or not? The effect that my customer is looking for, is the case of the bigs disks at the ceiling. Something like this picture, but with the better lighting effect that you obtain. 

No-- don't tag it as thin.  

I increased the distance between the sources and the screen for this one.  It also uses e4 plus a tiny bit of glow to simulate the sub-surface scattering of the material which we are not going to calculate (it would take forever).  You won't be able to use e4 for yours yet, I had to make some changes here since the glow isn't working.

Put the glow in a separate channel so you can easily adjust it.  Don't get carried away with it, it is "cheating".

Thanks Mario, the illumination looks very good. I'm going to take a look on your file. Thanks for the time you spend on it.

Thanks Mario. I see, with your help, that omni light are better for this case. And my question to Roy: Why? What is the difference in the functioning betwen area or diffuse, and omni? The "area" picture is not finalized, but its enough to see the difference...

The omni light distributes light equally in all directions.

The area light distributes light based on its direction vector (straight down by default-- but an editable setting).  The light is only distributed in one hemisphere and the intensity decreases at glancing angles using the cosine with respect to the direction vector.

Thanks a lot Roy. I understand, now, why the light is stronger in the space between two surfaces (close enough) tagged as omni, but not in the case of the area light.

RSS

Search

Translate

Latest Activity

Roy Hirshkowitz replied to Peter Milner's discussion Latest Render Farm update
"Just installed the thing on a Microsoft Surface Pro without much on it-- getting the same side x side error with the Farm Monitor so I probably don't need you to run depends on that one.  My farmer (nxtfarmer64.exe and nxt64.exe) does…"
Monday
Roy Hirshkowitz replied to Peter Milner's discussion Latest Render Farm update
"Thanks-- in the meantime I'm going to try installing the thing on a machine here-- then I'll have Scott at McNeel install onto a clean machine over there."
Monday
Peter Milner replied to Peter Milner's discussion Latest Render Farm update
"Not a problem.  I'll do it tomorrow as I have a stack of renderings running at the moment."
Monday
Roy Hirshkowitz replied to Peter Milner's discussion Latest Render Farm update
"If you get a chance-- but I'm 99% sure it will run on the main machine.   Something is missing from the installer that is present on your main machine.  The reason it's on the main machine is very likely due to other software…"
Monday
Peter Milner replied to Peter Milner's discussion Latest Render Farm update
"Spot on. The old and new farm monitors both work on my main machine. I'm not sure if the new farmer does though. If you like, I can test it. "
Monday
Roy Hirshkowitz replied to Peter Milner's discussion Latest Render Farm update
"That's wise-- so if I'm understanding things-- The Farm Monitor, whether old or new, does not run on the node you tried. The new Farmer does not run on node, the old one does. The old Farm Monitor runs on your main machine. Is this…"
Monday
Peter Milner replied to Peter Milner's discussion Latest Render Farm update
"I was going to, but when I found it didn't launch on the first one, I stopped there."
Monday
Roy Hirshkowitz replied to Peter Milner's discussion Latest Render Farm update
"I may need your help to debug this one-- a quick look at the installer doesn't show any problems.  I'll investigate a bit more this morning. You did actually run the installer on all of the machines, right?"
Monday

© 2014   Header image courtesy Peter Milner   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service