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: 1021

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

George Ioannidis commented on Peter Milner's photo
Thumbnail

ambus streamline reception 01

"Those are absolutely fantastic Peter!"
20 hours ago
Peter Milner posted photos
23 hours ago
Rich Hart replied to Albert D Hart's discussion New nXtRender 0343-NI04
"Here is an explanation of the version numbers we are using now. The are now two components to the version number. For example: for 0337-NI15:   0337 refers to the number of the AccuRender toolkit used.   NI15 refers to the date that…"
Monday
Stuart Nathan replied to Albert D Hart's discussion New nXtRender 0343-NI04
"why?"
Monday
Rich Hart replied to Albert D Hart's discussion New nXtRender 0343-NI04
"That page for the latest releases seems to have been deleted. We'll fix that and/or created a new page."
Sunday
Rich Hart replied to Albert D Hart's discussion New nXtRender 0343-NI04
"The latest version of nXtRender posted is version 354_OE08. It included a fix for RPC planar objects in AutoCAD 2016."
Aug 30
Zdravko Todorovic replied to Albert D Hart's discussion New nXtRender 0343-NI04
"nXt Render est mort"
Aug 30
ebenezer attah koomson commented on ebenezer attah koomson's photo
Thumbnail

C_001

"thanks Georgre"
Aug 29

© 2015   Header image courtesy Peter Milner   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service