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: 911

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

Rich Rosemann replied to mike makki's discussion villa animation
"New version 5, Mike?  Swimmers, who'd of thought. The shadows in your animations seem to have dark (darker) shadows. Is this a result of the software or your choice higher contrast? "
56 minutes ago
Roy Hirshkowitz replied to Peter Milner's discussion More Renderfarm glitches
"Yes-- 318 does not handle transparent or reflective decals correctly.  Remember, a problem was discovered in the writing of the farm data from the main product to the farm.  Later builds (345?) corrected this problem."
3 hours ago
Peter Milner replied to Peter Milner's discussion More Renderfarm glitches
"The renderfarm is going to be busy all weekend now. I'll do a re-test on this one once it is free. Does it make a difference that I'm using build 318 on my local machine and 347 on the Renderfarm? Maybe something is getting lost in…"
3 hours ago
Roy Hirshkowitz replied to Peter Milner's discussion More Renderfarm glitches
"Appears to work well in the hybrid engine as well-- although that will require 348 due to the bug we discovered yesterday."
3 hours ago
Roy Hirshkowitz replied to Peter Milner's discussion More Renderfarm glitches
"This is what I'm getting-- path tracer on the farm: Values are consistent with the interactive version on my main box.  If you're getting something different let me know-- we may need to make sure all of your software is up to date.…"
3 hours ago
mike makki posted a discussion
4 hours ago
Roy Hirshkowitz replied to Peter Milner's discussion More Renderfarm glitches
"I'll check the suspend feature-- I haven't really changed anything here.  If you want to get back to baseline you can stop all of the farms using task manager.  Delete the files which reside in the root farm folder (not the…"
4 hours ago
Peter Milner replied to Peter Milner's discussion More Renderfarm glitches
"Here it is."
4 hours ago

© 2014   Header image courtesy Peter Milner   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service