Something I'm working on...

V-Ray V-Ray Common Gallery
1

Hello guys,

Here are some images of something I’m working on for SP3; might be interesting for those who were asking…

Best regards,
Vlado

2

Are you giving those objects (any geometry?) VRay light properties? Have them behave as VRay lights or are they like the VRay light material?

3

That’s great news! Thanks Vlado.

4

The exact UI is to be decided exactly a bit later on; for now it’s an option in the VRayLightMtl material.

Best regards,
Vlado

5

looks very good vlado.
will there be any control over the subdivs?

6

Yes, of course.

Best regards,
Vlado

7

fantastic.
Maybe it could be a new vraylight type “VRay_obj_light”

8

There are several possible places to hook up the UI:
(*) In the VRayLightMtl material;
(*) The VRayLight itself (as a new light type where you can attach a mesh source);
(*) A new VRayLightMod modifier to turn an object into a light;

There are pros and cons for each of these and I am currently evaluating them. The underlying code for the actual calculations is all the same, it’s a matter of finding a place for the controls.

Best regards,
Vlado

9

my vote is for-
(*) The VRayLight itself (as a new light type where you can attach a mesh source);

10

Any particular reason it can’t be all of them (or at least the first two) so we can use whichever one is easier for the situation? Looks great though.

11

I would vote for this option as well.

This will be very useful for creating different light types. In a project I am working on now, I created a tube with a VRayLightMtl trying to simulate fluorescent lighting, and in a previous project I used it to simulate a long curving “rope light” (like the examples posted). It would definitely be a nice improvement to have more controls over this type of lighting.

12

Nice Feature.

(*) The VRayLight itself (as a new light type where you can attach a mesh source);

I vote for this as well.

13

I assume these will work with textures (emit from object texture)?

14

Yes, two reasons - time and resources… both are limited :slight_smile:

Best regards,
Vlado

15

I think it should be part of the vray light too. Does it require GI to be active to emit light?

V Miller

16

I also like the VRayLight idea, but on the other hand this will make it more difficult to rework older scenes that already use the VRayLightMtl material…

Best regards,
Vlado

17

Nope, it will work without GI too. However the calculations are more efficient with GI, especially if the light surface is close to other objects - in this case, the calculations will be split between the GI and the direct lighting in an optimal way (similar to how this is already done for the VRayLight).

Best regards,
Vlado

18

8) Aren’t they always! I’d go for the vray light option then.

19

very cool, if we have to choose one I’d prefer it to be part of the vraylight, mainly for class reasons

20

Create a modifierer (which works only on vraylights) which can attach an instance of one or more Objects to a vray light setup.

Advantages:
Simple UI (Attach Objects, disable geometry for rendering, lightemiting edges or vertices or faces ..)
You can work normal on the geometry which later will be a light or skyportal
You can use IES vraylights for any geometry (splines/faces/edges/vertices)
You can have all options of the vraylight and not only materialsettings (IES lights are possible)
You can work with UVM map modifier for the light
You can use objects like glas as a skyportal without placing a light object AND an Object which should be rendered.
Not another vray material.. :-/

Disadvantages:
You have to place a VraylightOBJECT which do nothing to scenelighting.
Light with a Material is much easier to setup

anyway ..good idea! (it was time ..right?)