Vray 1.5 Final????

[chris-x//]

just got my dongle. For belgian friends, you can contact no-trouble sprl and they have them "in stock". Open till 6 pm

[Adam H. Stewart]

Updated Help files ?

I can't seem to get onto the documentation page in the support section - have the help files been updated for the new release or is anybody else having trouble gettting to them ?

Thanks as always

[DaForce]

No updates yet AFAIK.

Vlado was going to start working on it when he got back from siggy.

Try here instead.
http://www.spot3d.com/vray/help/150R1/

[Shimakaze]

So does this new version support transparency in z-depth render element? Still waiting for my dongle...

[instinct]

@Shimakaze : nope surely doesnt, as it is impossible with standard image formats.

Regards,
Thorsten

[Shimakaze]

I think maybe you misunderstood my question. I'm talking about having the transparency of objects be taken into account when making the z-depth map. So that if you for instance have a billboard of a cut-out of a person the billboard isn't just rendered as a single flat place but as the shape of the cutout. other renderers support this, and as you can see on this page http://www.spot3d.com/vray/help/150R...r_elements.htm VRay supports transparency in many other render elements.

[instinct]

indeed misunderstood you. thought you were refferring to multilayered z-depth (for example behind a semstransparent window).

I will test it. gimme 5 mins.

Regards,
Thorsten

[instinct]

no it doesnt. i assume that this is due to the fact that it is actual similar to semitransparent windows. An opacity map can be both transparent, opaque and semitransparent. i assume the only way would be some kind of threshold to determine wether the render pixel should use the back z value or its own z value...

To answer your question, no it doesnt

Regards,
Thorsten

[Shimakaze]

Damn I was hoping for that feature... oh well just gotta keep working around it then

[gfa2]

Not trying to flame anyone here but noone can or should complain about the efforts at Chaosgroup. Here's why. I spent $800 on Vray nearly 18 months ago. I haven't spent anything more but I've gotten the vraysun, sky and physical camera, which wasn't in the original version I bought. I got faster rendering times and nicer renderings, which have increased my profit margin and gained new clients. I keep seeing the new jobs roll in thanks to vray. Yet at every new release they ask for nothing. Thank you Chaosgroup. I wish all software companies were as commited to their user's community.

By the way, I would have paid to upgrade to 1.5

At the Vray users meeting they did mention that the price will be changing in the next couple of months. Not that I like spending more money...but it does seem long overdue.

[chipnuts]

I've got a tutorial that does a quick walkthrough of creating zdepth using a falloff distance blend. I can be kind of handy if you're wanting to use transparency on some materials such as you are describing.

http://obtuseorange.electrotoast.com/dofTut01.html

Hope that helps!

[instinct]

Mind you that this approach will lead to sever artifacts with post-dof. As the semitransparent areas will have a blended radius for the DOF wich is just wrong. To do it right you need to render to seperate layers, seperatly add DOF and comp them with proper alpha.

Regards,
Thorsten

[chipnuts]

Mind you that this approach will lead to sever artifacts with post-dof. As the semitransparent areas will have a blended radius for the DOF wich is just wrong. To do it right you need to render to seperate layers, seperatly add DOF and comp them with proper alpha.

Correct, that's why I say at the end of the tut that there's the issue of partial transparency, but for some people that wouldn't know the difference (a.k.a. clients), or doing a prepass, this is a 'quick tool' for people to get a 'good enough' result without having to render a lot of layers.

[instinct]

indeed. Sorry didnt read the tut to the end :/

Regards,
Thorsten

[chipnuts]

No worries, I do that a lot myself.

I've been wanting to do a more 'correct' version, but time always seems to escape me.