Is it meant to be used as a replacement for the Built-in IBL?
Yes, except this requires a texture and does not ‘bake’ a procedural or ‘rebake’ a texture. This means it retains all the details of the texture.
Also, from my brief tests last night it seemed as if this shader has directionality to the lighting coming from the area light.
Don’t forget to make the light a ‘custom’ shape and attach the user_ibl_env to the mental ray environment connection of the render camera.
Doh! That was it. Much obliged. Seems like a script may be in order so I don’t forget steps. 
This is good info from one of your posts in another thread. I thought it would be nice to have this in the main thread for the user_ibl_env. I did this mainly for myself because I’m sure I’ll forget where this info is at some point.
On a side note, I just did a direct comparison between the user_ibl_env and the Native IBL. I think I am seeing some of the effects of the above quoted info. The Native IBL produced a much smoother result than the user_ibl_env. I imagine this comes from the loss of detail in the texture during the rebaking step. Since the user_ibl_env maintains that detail it’s giving me more noise. That’s my best guess from my limited knowledge anyways. Any thoughts?
Edit
One thing to note about the noise is the noise in the super bright glossy reflections of the lights remains exactly the same. The noise increases mainly in the more middle values of the image.
One other thing to note, the material is a polycarbonate with .75 glossiness. Only 1 glossy sample for brute force unified.
Would this be the correct usage for this setup: one convolved env map for final gather and one sharp map for reflections?
Two area lights. User_ibl_env with sharp texture plugged into one light, user_ibl_env with convolved texture plugged into other area light. Convolved user_ibl_env has primary checked, sharp user_ibl_env has as reflection checked. Each user_ibl_env is then fed into a rayswitch as normal which is fed into camera as normal.
Also, when using this set up, would it be advisable to reduce the samples on the user_ibl_envs since there are 2 of them instead of one? So for example, if normally I would use 4 samples, should I drop that down to 2 samples for each? Or just keep both at 4?
Just want to make sure I’ve got this set up right.
Edit
After some initial tests it appears my first idea is not correct. I haven’t come up with the right approach just yet. Still experimenting.
Thanks,
Justin
The ‘As Reflection’ option is the user_ibl_env does not mean that. It relates to how the environment image was captured and should be mapped to your environment.
If you shot your environment map using a mirror ball technique, so the environment is seen “As a Reflection” to you when you captured it, then you would select that option. If you captured your environment using normal nodal turn and shoot from origin out into your environemnt then you do not need to check that option.
I think with the importance sampling ibl method, the two environment map method is not really necessary anymore. You can light an exterior shot purely with the user_ibl_env light and not need to worry about flickering as it is now a direct light source.
If you want the extra bounce of final gather you can use it in conjunction with the ibl light as it will not sample the environment given that it is a direct light source. I think David says you should just set your FG Filter size to 1 just incase you have very bright values hitting your objects from your env light.
Best,
Rich
Thanks for the clarification on the ‘as reflection’ checkbox. I totally misinterpreted that. Does it specify that in the docs? I didn’t see that explanation in there.
I totally forgot about David saying I should filter my final gather as a solution to the bright spot problem. I’ve now wasted an hour attempting to solve the problem in the wrong way. Wonderful. At least now I can move on and quit trying to use the convolved diffuse map technique to get rid of those bright spots caused by the lights in the map.
Thanks!
-Justin
Yeah it is not obvious as to what that option actually means or does. When I was testing it I just saw differences in the way it was rendering in the background (ie the mapping of it) No it does not specify that on in the docs yet. I am sure Bart or David/Brenton will post all the necessary details about the nodes soon.
Best,
Rich
We’re working on a tutorial and examples. But I think it sounds like you have a good handle on how to use it.
Just remember that your FG can be less aggressive now. I use 32 rays for most of my scenes, some cases even less depending on the scene and what cannot see the user_ibl
Any guidelines or rules of thumb for point density? I’m going pretty low at this point. I’ve used 0.5 and 0.3 with rays of 32 and filter on 1 and it’s looking good. Before the filter I was getting the nasty bright rings due to the bright point lights in the map. The filter totally got rid of it. Just worrying about stills right now. But I imagine it’s about the same thing for animations using your fg_shooter script or pre-calculating by hand.
Since the IBL is doing your main lighting, the only thing you might risk from reduced point density is less detail in your indirect lighting. That would show in places where it’s your primary light source. (Holes, covered areas, crevices, etc.)
I am having some problems getting the user_ibl_env to work correctly with the mia_env_blur node. I am noticing a distinct brightening of the image when the user_ibl is used with the mia_env_blur. I’ve done a number of tests now and it’s consistent.
If I use the old school workflow of using one diffuse convolved map and one sharp map along with final gather only, the overall brightness of the scene is very similar to the user_ibl setup without the mia_env_blur. Using the old school set up, I can add and remove the mia_env_blur node with no change in brightness happening in my scene. If I do this with the exact same mia_env_blur node with the exact same settings to the user_ibl setup then there is a consistent brightening of the scene.
Have you noticed any of this behavior?
I am only inserting the mia_env_blur between the user_ibl and the environment slot of the camera. Tried inserting it in between the area light connection just to see and it was chaos. So I assumed that was incorrect.
I would like to use the mia_env_blur in conjunction with the user_ibl because it takes care of the fireflies in my light reflections. Even when I crank high on quality with Unified, without the mia_env_blur the reflections of the lights are still ugly.
The mia_envblur connects to the camera environment. Then the user_ibl_env to the mia_envblur.
Be sure the materials are set to ‘single sample’ from the environment.
I have some high resolution maps at work so I have to go to 4096 on the resolution for the env blur. It’s a memory hog.
But I have not noticed a drastic change in lighting.
I’m starting some explanation on on the way to writing up some tips on user ibl
http://forum.mentalimages.com/showthread.php?9470-Can-somebody-explain-new-user-ibl-shaders
Simple tutorial here for user_ibl_env: http://elementalray.wordpress.com/2012/05/07/the-user_ibl-shaders-pt1/
In Maya 2012, where do you find the user_ibl_env shader in the Create Render Node window?
Instructions are:
“Under the mental ray -> Custom Shaders attach a user_ibl_env shader to the Light Shader connection”
I click on the Light Shader swatch, a Create Render Node window opens. But I don’t see the user_ibl_env
U have to unhinde hidden shaders to see it.
Mel command
optionVar -intValue “MIP_SHD_EXPOSE” 1
Ran your MEL command in the script editor, but the Create Render Node choices under MR seem the same. Where is user_ibl_env shader under?
Run it from script editor mel command and restart maya.
Then just type in search box and it should pop up.