AccuRender nXt

advanced rendering for AutoCAD

One more thread, Roy, to talk about a strange behavior in e4, with the joint bump in the settings of the procedural tile material. Here is the illustration and the dwg

Views: 813

Attachments:

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Marc, what exactly is the problem here? E4 solution looks better than E1 I think.

Hi George, look at that. Don't you see that something looks inverted in the bump of the E4? Or do I have to stop my little beer of the evening? Or rush to the medecin... ;))

I posted this same observation in the Build 315 thread. The bump mapping is opposite for the Hybrid (E4) engine.

Oops:D Never stop any beer you have started to drink Marc and of course do not visit the oculist, you do not need it :D

I should better put on my glasses next time :D

But I think there is a problem with the E1 result. The third joint width looks twice as wide than the others. But it can be cause of bitmap you've used. So maybe it has nothing to do with the bumping issue you and Garret mentioned.

It's true that with the E1, the third joint is exactly the same as the others. They are procedural joint of the nXt Tile Material Editor. So it's strange... I give the dwg with materials, above, so you can examin it.

And with the E4, its seems that the joint appear in + or in - depending on the angle of vision. On the left they are good, but on the right, at the point where you don't have to see anymore the shadow in the joint, nXt produce a shadow... And so the joint looks as if it was inverted.

With an higher resolution, we can see strange crossing of the lines. Perhaps my bump is too strong...

I think the joints look funny because of the extremely wide camera lense angle. The joints that appear darker are normal to the lense while the others quickly reach a sharp angle to the lense.

The image here is using 35mm lense while Mark's original is using a 12.8mm lense.

Garret, would you pull out your car of my pool, plz!!! ;o)))

The crossing lines look strange, I have to try some experimentation but no time today...

I wouldn't waste too much time on this Marc-- the bump mapping on procedural materials is not very robust-- no more than adequate.  Use a bitmap if you want something better.

I understand, Roy.

It was practical to match the bump with the joint in the tile material. And so, to obtain no repetitive tile material, without enormous tile bitmaps. Perhaps, I have to find the way to match a bump bitmap with a procedural material (???) or accept this little problem... Or use tile material without bump... It's true that the problem appear only when your point of view is very close.

You can easily create a tile bumpmap in Photoshop or eq.  You only need a single tile.  I would work in gray scale, starting with black for the joint and white for the tile.  Careful blurring of the joint should do it.

If you're not very close to the tile, the procedural system you're using will work just fine.  Lower values for the bump will also help.

Thanks Roy. But I can't obtain that the joint of my bump map is synchronous, with the joint of the procedural material. And same problem for the width of these joints... And do I put the bump map to the "tile" settings (I use 2 procedurals in the fractal option) ? Or use it in the "joint"settings. I find it too difficult...

So forget it.

I have to accept never put my camera too close to the tiles... With procedural tiles

RSS

Search

Translate

Latest Activity

George Ioannidis commented on Peter Milner's photo
Thumbnail

screend brochure 2019 05

"Those are all exceptional work, Peter! Congratulations!On this one only: bricks look big to me, but maybe I am wrong. Also some areas in shadow look still a bit noisy."
yesterday
Peter Milner posted photos
Tuesday
Roy Hirshkowitz replied to Roy Hirshkowitz's discussion AccuRender Studio for AutoCAD
"1-  On the Rendering Tab there is a popdown called Destination.  The option is called something like "Local Out of Process".  2-  No, installation will require admin access."
Oct 5
Mark Brinkman replied to Roy Hirshkowitz's discussion AccuRender Studio for AutoCAD
"I am an old Accurender user. I now need to try and re-create some old images from old models. (about 20 years old) I have now downloaded Accurender Studio, and now work with AutoCAD 2016 and 2017 I have 2 questions related to Accurender Studio: 1)…"
Oct 4
Roy Hirshkowitz replied to Peter Milner's discussion AR Studio ground plane
"Yep-- the groundplane in ArStudio should be turned on in that case-- but you will get a rectangle which may need to be sized.  If it's not turning on, that's probably a bug."
Sep 26
Peter Milner replied to Peter Milner's discussion AR Studio ground plane
"Not to worry. I've just seen that ArStudio has its own version of a ground plane. It just doesn't translate the old nXt one."
Sep 26
Roy Hirshkowitz replied to Peter Milner's discussion AR Studio ground plane
"Sorry-- just got back into town last night.  Infinite objects aren't supported in ArStudio-- so yes-- the ground plane has to be represented by a finite object, in this case a rectangle.  You don't have to use mine, you can use…"
Sep 25
mike makki commented on Tibor K. Karsai's photo
Thumbnail

WestlakeV - Copy

"good image and nice montage... the only thing is that the sky is too blue ... a light colour and would make it perfect"
Sep 21

© 2019   Header image courtesy Peter Milner   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service