Hi all,
the bump on base layer affect the clearcoat layer and consequently the surface reflection.
For my point of view it is should not, or this behavior is as expected?
Well… Isn’t ‘clearcoat’ just a ‘thin coat’?
It is, but like with snow, the upper surface should get evened out at one point. So it should/could have no or less bump than the base layer.
Thats what I’m talking about from the very beginning) we definitely need spinner to control a base bump influence on the clearcoat
We already have this logged for consideration 
(Report ID=CRMAX-85)
Right, I see now :)… since it has its own bump it should really be flat over when used & set in such way.
Sure then, a value (slider) to influence it and/or mix with bump under, could be another good feature to have.
///
Oof, am getting a bit slow, not interacting and brain storming as much as used to.
HI CORONA guyz… as a corona user over 2 years, i couldn’t find out why we should have Corona mtl and this one (PBR) simultaneously with same behavior!? 
instead of parallel parts i supposed that we see some dramatic improvements in VFX, caustics and speed of rendering for animating ANY WAY… infinite loop
after Chaos group
plz be U r self_ forward thinking nothing more!
Not sure what you mean, can you explain more? This material is not the same as the Legacy, e.g. the big obvious examples are that this one has Clear Coat and Sheen, but there are other differences under the hood too that makes this easier to use, less likely to create “fake” materials, and more compatible with other approaches to materials to make importing things from Quixel, Megascans, Substance etc. easier. All of those are the reasons why the material is changing.
As a note, the Physical Material is the new default and recommended to use - the old one is left in place simply for legacy scenes that use it, so you can continue to get identical results from your previous scenes (so that’s why you end up with both materials, rather than just the new one).
The merger with Chaos Group has nothing to do with deciding it was time for a new material with more functionality and better compatibility, still entirely our own decision
Hi,
what the future of legacy materials in actual Library?
TNX TomG, i mean why should we have the new tab as PBR? instead of improving current situation (corona MTL parameters) because after a couple of years users are completely compatible with them (any way, I’m worried it is just like another complexity or NT )
When looking at the new coat function, I’m thinking of something I wanted for a long time but never dared request: Wetness like in some game engines. So where there is a coat (of water) the underlying material gets darkened based on it’s porosity, and maybe depending on how wet, the material either just gets damp/darkened (and gloss might be affected too?) and if it’s really wet it gets a coat that also has a bumped edge?
It’s not like this is impossible to set up. It’s just that it would be very convenient to have built in to the material from the start. A lot of arch-viz people a lot of puddles And if the setup is smart I think it would interest some motion graphics and VFX-peeps too!?
Or maybe in future versions of Slate Max will let us make little macro nodes that multiply diffuse by an inverted wetmap and so on, so that you don’t have to do this over and over if you have many ground materials that need to be affected by the same puddles.
disclaimer: I’m not on daily builds, just trying to keep up here on news about the new PBR material
Maybe just a padlock on the Bump parameter of the Clearcoat layer would be enough to choose whether the two should have the same behavior as in the first image (Reply #104) or should be independent as in the second (Reply #108).
I think it is a good idea
Base layer bump intesity slider or some “coat water level” or maybe fake “coat thiсkness” slider can be very usable for fast recreating porus absorption effect, espessialy on laquered wood without having to create a new bump map or modify the existing
Any chance we will see some settings for an iridescent effect ?
It is in our plans for the future, granted that there’s a popular demand for it.
Also worth looking into https://forum.corona-renderer.com/ Iridescent shader - Corona 1.5.2
(Report ID=CRMAX-319)
Thanks (GeorgeK) I have tried using this technique in the link but for some reason I can’t apply a reflection colour to the non-metal material. And metallic materials no longer have that option for refraction I cant make a bubble shader. If I use the the metalness slot on the non-metal material I lose the ability to tweak the reflection amount etc plus it looks strange. Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.
Cheers
About Clearcoat, it’d be really great to also have metalness option for it.
Well, iridescence could be also described as some sort of coating, and in many cases a form of thin-film covering organic surfaces and whatnot. There are many ways to approach this, so far it will still be an artistic representation of the actual effect itself but it can come pretty close. (Attaching 3ds max file with base shaders no textures)
For CoronaPhysicalMtl you can use base color for metallics, or clearcoat absorption for dielectrics/non-metallics. You can control the effect with the amount of base color or absorption amount for clearcoat respectively.
iris_example_coronaphysical.max (1.42 MB)