Scene: Sunny room with radiosity and oh so pretty tables

[Zytrex]

Wow, no crits. So, it's perfect then? :surprised

[heipei]

I think there were no replies because most people dont know what to write. They are accomodated to see some ass-kicking work and just post "wow, this rocks! keep it going" or something like that (now, _that_ statement should really get you some more posts ;)

Anyway, about your image:
First, what program did u use? I always hate it when people dont tell. It makes me think "well, of couse i cant do _this_ because hes using some other program.
Second, not bad for the first scene. The lighting, which was your main concern, is good. But as you said, the scene would look much nicer if there were some more objects in it. Maybe some chairs around the table, a lamp, things pinned to the wall, you know what i mean.

So "wow, this rocks! keep it going!" ;)

greets, heipei

[Zytrex]

I had typed "Max 5.1," but then I started restructuring some sentences and I guess it never maid it back to the screen.

I have been modeling chairs and other details. I have not yet added them to the scene because it takes so long to render and I'd rather get the base scene working properly before I add stuff and drag out the rendering process even more.

The lighting is pretty good, but I'm not overly impressed with Max 5 radiosity. It has a HUGE problem with...something. I'm not sure how to describe it. How to fix it, I can describe. I rendered this scene with the regathering filter set to 10, but in the corner, all up and down it, and in the corners of other perpendicular faces, these really ugly jagged dark areas appear. The faces to go through each other enough, so I know it isn't some kind of leakage problem, unless that IS Max 5's radiosity problem, that it leaks for no reason. It takes about six to eight hours to render all three frames with the filter at 10. The only way to make the marks go away is to set the filter to 30. Obviously that would take forever to render, so I have to render just the messed up sections and then composite in Photoshop. Sure, it works, but it's a pain in the ass and obviously destroys any chance for adding animation.

Take a look at this and you will see the problems Max 5 radiosity has with perpendicular faces. You might also notice some of the strange highlights on some of the paneling.
http://www.zytrex.com/ftp/roomgi-20021209_0000.jpg

[TimWoods]

a few simple rules with max radiosity.

1. everything has to be built to scale
2. everything has to be perfectly alligned, fow this i make sure everything structural is in the same mesh and welded correctly.
3. add a light guard or second skin around the model with holes cut for the windows. this makes sure there is no light leakage.

4. initial settings i keep mesh size at 200mm and filtering at 3 and iterations on all objects at around 5-10, then any smaller objects i increase there mesh and iterations in the object properties.

the problems you are seeing are not symptimatic of max radiosity, they are problems with modeling and set up.

Where max5 falls down is image quality, time it takes and the weird flat looking result.
hope this helps
:beer:

[pencil-head]

hey Zytrex

another thing to try is get the HDRI plugin from here (http://www.splutterfish.com/sf/downloads/max/hdri/HDRI_v1.0.1.zip) and use "light tracer" with "skylight".

[4 low]

Yeah I second the light tracer.

And about the tables, you might want to turn them slightly. I stress slightly, because I mean just subtly. Having them exactly parallel with the walls kinda takes away from the realism. Objects are never perfectly parallel with anything.

[Zytrex]

Tim, you are suggesting that I make the walls, windows, and panels all part of the same mesh and properly welded and the problems will go away? That would be nice if it works, but I still think that is a problem with Max 5 radiosity. It is standard practice to have many different objects very close or touching each other in the same scene. To have to weld them all, and then go through a lot of trouble if you want to substantially change something, is an unimpressive prerequisite for using Max 5 radiosity.

[Zytrex]

Uh...Tim? lol

Oh, and to pencil_head and 4 low, I have been meaning to start using HDRI instead. In the several tests I have done with HDRI, it usually impresses me more.

Hey, did anyone notice that while you can upload your own avatar after 20 posts, you cannot choose one off the site until like 32,000 posts or something? I don't get that. Many of those pics are from other places and therefore CG Talk has know ownership rights to them and cannot say we can't use them. So, a person could just download the image from the display page and then upload it as their own avatar. So again, I don't get that. What's the point?

[Zytrex]

Update, sorta:
The renders I have uploaded here were done in December of 2002. Until now, I had been taking a break from this project because the problems with Max 5 radiosity had been driving me crazy. I have since upgraded to Max 5.1 and yesterday I started playing with the scene again. One major difference I have discovered in the new version is that the main problem with radiosity which had been driving me crazy, that is, the ugly, dark, wavy areas at the seems of perpendicular faces, can now be removed without a disgustingly high regathering filter setting. Before, I would have to render those specific areas with a filter of setting of 30, but now they are barely noticeable at 5 and gone at 10. A setting of 10 is how I would normally render the scene anyway, and the three frames would take about 7 or 8 hours plus the additional time to render the troubled areas at 30 and composite them in. Now, rendering at 10 is about all I need to do AND it only takes about 5 hours. I'm so happy! I will, therefore, commence the following activities:
:applause: :beer: :xtreme:

[Beholder]

Originally posted by Zytrex
Wow, no crits. So, it's perfect then? :surprised

[Zytrex]

LOL! Come on now. Nothing is perfect. I know this aint perfect. Look! I just said "aint" which is improper and therefore not perfect! SEE!

[Zytrex]

I'm quite happy with Max 5.1 as I said before. I'm adding dust particles to the air and a little volume light action. Updates soon. :)

[jampoz]

The only suggestion i can give you is about the floor texture, which is real nice, but as you can see each tile perfectly matches with the following tile and you can see it's a single picture.

On my WIP (like on my signature) i used the checker procedural, and used the normal textures instead of white tiles and FLIPPED the same texture for the black tiles, it looks perfect and you can see it's the same texture, but it's harder, and it's not that much time consuming
I know how long it takes for those in-door scenes, damn 'em...

See you, and keep the good work goin' on :o)

[Zytrex]

Actually, the image for the floor texture contains 16 tiles (4x4). So, although it does repeat, none of the shots have the complete image more than once. The shots pretty much have just one full image, and then parts of it around the sides. Yes, the tiles do all look similar, but they are not all identical.

[thOrNes]

I think you should try to learn the basic lighting tools before checking out the skylights - it is no real light. Then there's a major scale problem (windows) - try to part from a sketch or use another scaling system, just to get the proportions right. A real light intention would be nice (real shadowy corners, real highlighted floor).

don't give up :scream:

[jampoz]

Yeah :hmm: , but using the above technique you could fix details like those i'm pointing out below
And i only outlighted some :rolleyes:
I could at least do a test render if i were you, just to try how it turns out :thumbsup:

Edit: I'm not talking about tiles being all identical... I'm talking about being able to see a whole picture behind the tiles, each tile must be different as you're saying but each corner must NOT coincide with the next tile's corner.

http://www.melomaniac.it/Gmannucci/roomgi-20021209_0000.jpg

[teewsandy]

If properly used radiosity will make your lighting look very nice. Your tiles don't bother me and the lighting is nice along with the reflections.


It is standard practice to have many different objects very close or touching each other in the same scene. To have to weld them all, and then go through a lot of trouble if you want to substantially change something, is an unimpressive prerequisite for using Max 5 radiosity.

You have to remember Max 5.* is or has incorporated the lightscape radiosity enine into its renderer. With the lightscape engine, the way you build your geometry is extremely picky. You "cannot" have any intersecting surfaces. Eyeing it or almost there is out of the question. It has to be exact. If at all the mesh should all just be one mesh to properly work. So keeping that in mind yes its probably a pain but it also makes for some great modeling practices. Sometimes you might get away with it but if Discreet brought the whole package of lightscape into Max then you'll have to be careful. Go to autodesk's website or go here:

http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/index?siteID=123112&id=775075

Click on product support and then knowledgebase. There will find a section about modeling.

~Andy~

[Zytrex]

th0rNes: Actually, I had been using Max for over a year before I used GI and I originally made this scene using standard lights. Someone suggested that I add GI, and now, here we are. I know what you're saying about learning standard lighting techniques before using skylight. Lots of times I will see people post work that really isn't good, but they add skylight, thinking it will make it look cool. edit: Oh, and what were you saying about a major scale problem? If you're talking about the center bar in the window being out of position, that's just a little accident that has been fixed. The room is to scale: Twenty, by twenty, by eight feet in 3ds Max.

jampoz: If you are talking about the funky wavy shadow things in the corners, those are no longer a problem. As I said in a previous post, version 5.1 of max gets rid of them, in this scene anyway, with the regathering filter set to 10. That setting is about the minimum I can use before other problems start showing up that have nothing to do with the way a mesh is set up. As for the other thing you said, "Each corner must NOT coincide with the next tile's corner," I'm not really sure what you mean by that.

teewsandy: Thanks. :) I know what you mean about being "exact" and I assure you that I NEVER eyeball the position of anything. Now, I have seen many different models where faces go through each other, and they always look fine, but you say that it causes a problem with radiosity? Well, I think, as I've said like five times now, hehe, that Max 5.1 made some drastic improvements in that area. My scene no longer has any problems in those corners, so are there other situations where you think a problem like that might come up?


Thanks everybody for replying! I REALLY appreciate the effort. :) :) Oh, and remember that the fourth image where you can see all the nasty shadowy things in the corner was just posted for reference so people can see the problem that I WAS having but am NO LONGER having now. :)

[spirogyro]

how do people using maya acheive these effects?

[hypercube]

Hmm, how large are the tables and tiles supposed to be?

I think as far as the 'out of scale' issue, that's what's confusing about looking at this..the main thing is the cross bars on the windows would be like 2x4's if the tables are end table sized, but if they're dinner table sized, something's still wrong, the cross bars are way too deep. Maybe that's a style of window I'm unaccustomed with. :shrug:

The size of the window vs. the size of the wall trim and the height of the ceiling also are hard to figure out vs. the tables and tiles. The size of the room may be accurate, but the size of the rest of it seems debatable. Some other universal items like electrical outlets or chairs etc. might help to define the scale.

Just my .02.

[Zytrex]

Ohhh! I see what you are saying. If you look at the third pic, you can see a little bit of the ceiling showing that eight feet is about six inches or so above the windows. That should help you see the room in perspective.

One thing I guess I forgot to mention is that this scene is a copy of another scene made by someone else which inspired me to try my hand at realistic architectural modeling. The windows in the original scene were deep like that too. I think deep windows like that are an older architectural style. When I made them, I didn't really think about anything other than what I was copying.

Looking back at it now, the base paneling in my pic is taller, forcing the windows to be shorter than in the original pic. Also, in the original pic, there was not separate windows, but one big frame that continued on, with several support columns. The smaller size of the windows in my pic might be what makes their depth seem too much. I'll upload the pic...

For those of you who didn't read the above text, this pic here is NOT my work. I am just displaying it for reference. :)
http://www.zytrex.com/ftp/chiasa_27tSi6T.jpg

[Zytrex]

So does that clear things up a bit?

[Zytrex]

jampoz: Hey, I just noticed the edit you made. I hadn't even noticed that, but now it is very obvious. I'll just go into photoshop and move some of the square around so none of them match up like that anymore. Thanks for pointing that out! :)

[jampoz]

Damn, sorry man, but i didn't know another way to explain that, i was clueless, i'm glad you understood that finally ;o)

Sometimes i wish i did listen to my english teacher... ehehehe

[Zytrex]

Nah! You don't need an english teacher! All you need is this: CLICK HERE (http://www.homestarrunner.com/sbemail64.html)

[Zytrex]

Okay, I'm rendering off some new versions with the new tiles, however, I'm not sure how soon I will have something different enough to upload.

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.