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: 1153

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 Sun settings
"In this case, yes, it's subtle.  It's only readily apparent in the reflection of the window in the upper right quadrant of the sphere (as expected) where a small, bright, reflection of the solar disk can be seen.  I'm…"
Apr 27
Peter Milner replied to Peter Milner's discussion Sun settings
"Here is the same test with a glossy object. There is a very subtle difference in the reflection and the lighting. "
Apr 27
Rich Rosemann replied to Peter Milner's discussion Sun settings
"I'm very good at optical mis-conclusions. "
Apr 26
Roy Hirshkowitz replied to Peter Milner's discussion Sun settings
"Looks like there's some code to handle this in both the path tracer and hybrid engines.  A little unclear in the packet tracer."
Apr 26
Roy Hirshkowitz replied to Peter Milner's discussion Sun settings
"I'll have to look to see which engines respect that switch, I can't remember off-hand.  It controls whether glossy reflections get a contribution from the direct sun component.  The easiest way to see it would be to create a…"
Apr 26
Peter Milner replied to Peter Milner's discussion Sun settings
"If you flick between the two images full screen, there is actually no difference at all. Seeing one above the other makes them look slightly different, but it's just an optical illusion."
Apr 26
Rich Rosemann replied to Peter Milner's discussion Sun settings
"One image does seem to be a bit brighter.  Maybe it opens up the shadows a bit.  Or raises the ambient light. .....or something."
Apr 26
Peter Milner posted a discussion

Sun settings

Under the Sun settings, what does Sun Highlight do?I've tried it set to 0 and 1, but there doesn't seem to be any difference.See More
Apr 26

© 2016   Header image courtesy Peter Milner   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service