There are several different ways in which we can implement this, and we would like to get some input before choosing one of them. If you can put your vote for this, it will be very helpful.
Some notes:
*) Rendering of MetaSL shaders is likely to be slower than rendering native V-Ray materials, at least in the beginning;
*) Internal conversion to VRayMtl materials won’t allow you to use V-Ray specific options for the materials;
*) A script conversion looses the original materials and might be somewhat difficult to control (because the settings for the Autodesk materials may do a lot of automatic stuff under the hood, which may lead to complicated shader networks).
Best regards,
Vlado
Use MetaSL to render the shaders as closely as possible
Internally convert the materials to VRayMtl materials
Provide a script that converts the materials to V-Ray materials
So before voting I would just like to understand the options a little better. Only the third option would allow me to tweak the materials in Vray? All three options are based on file linking FBX, right? It seems to me as if the FBX is linked option 1 or 2 would be better but if it is a straight FBX import option 3 would allow material enhancement (which is a strong reason as to why it is sent to Max anyway).
I think it would be good to have a choice between options 1 and 3. So by default the materials come in as close to the original shaders as possible, but if someone wants to convert them to vray materials at a later stage this is also possible.
Not quite; you can always tweak the actual Autodesk materials, and this will be reflected in the rendering. But you won’t be able to use V-Ray specific options for them.
All three options are based on file linking FBX, right?No, this has nothing to do with how the Autodesk materials end up in the 3ds Max scene - created from scratch or imported from somewhere else.
Thus may just be my ignorance, but from the user standpoint is there really any difference between option 1 and 2?There is a difference in how the materials appear in the rendering, and how they affect render speeds.
I guess my point is that it’s hard to vote between 1 and 3 because we cant see the difference in either look or time at this point, and it seemed to me that they are equivalent in that there is no user level of control over that difference anyway.
Do you have examples so we could make a meaningful vote, otherwise isn’t it just a guess?
Option1 would be useful if you used different renderers and wanted to have a consistent look, but Option2 would be better if you weren’t, because of the speed (i’m guessing). Why couldn’t one write a MetaSL shader with the same flags that hook into VRay? What options of the VRay shader would be missing or inaccessible?
I only use VRay - if i use something else like MR it’s to render out other passes. What is most important to me is that VRay makes a literal translation of the MetaSL shader and not something where the translation process only supports 10% of the features.
We have a Auto-Cad Architecture > 3D max File link relationship most of the time in our firm. it’s always annoying that when the model comes into max it’s given a MAX texture, it would BE AMAZING if they converted into Vray Materials right away, Auto-cad glass to Vray glass, that “Chip” to a decent white diffuse etc…
ALSO - are you guys thinking of putting in some pre-set Materials as Standard with a Vray Install, things like Glass, Chrome, Aluminium, normal architectural materials. Would be fab, and one day a library as big as auto-desk’s built in as standard. that would be AMAZING!
I voted for 2 simply because the models I am getting from our designers tend to have Autodesk materials, so I am thinking this is the way Revit is set up. Without knowing Revit I am wondering if it is going to be difficult to get the designers to switch to MetaSL materials, when they are used to working with Autodesk materials?
I would only leave the materials as Autodesk materials for the quick studies that designers want to do. If a material needed developed more, I think I would rather work from a Vray material directly in Max to develop it more, rather than use a MetaSL simply because it is compatible with Revit.
My designers ar not going to know how to make more advanced MetaSL materials, nor should they.
At least this is how I feel now. Maybe the comparison between MetaSL materials and Autodesk materials will change my mind.
If you fancy mailing them to me Vlado, I’ll quite happily make a maxscript tool to make them load in all versions of max etc… Got something here i’d be able to adapt.
I brought this topic up years ago… I for one, warned you guys of this impending issue, as it goes, countless hours are being wasted and internal administrations and oversight are taking notice. The link between Revit and Max are clear whether via FBX or otherwise. Vray ROI is diminishing rapidly as this production set-back is creation descension and defection to other renderers. I was not making this up 2 1/2 years ago and can unequivocably state that, you are lossing market share rapidly if this material conversion issue is not addressed immediately - don’t believe me, read the lines… -faithful to Vray…Make this happen!!!
I’d like to second that question. This is now starting to get to a point where I need to choose path for the future. I think it would be fair if you guys could share some form of road map with us.
I’d like to mention that i’ve been using a script to convert from promaterials to vraymaterials. It converts autodesk bitmaps to the default bitmap pager, changes glass types to a vraymtl with white refract/reflect/fresnel reflections, also handling multi-sub materials. This has so far been working fine, and if you are using the fbx link, they automatically replace the promaterials if you tick the right options when reloading. It seems that the texture tiling is never correct in promaterials coming out of revit though, but I don’t know what the reason of that may be.
Impossible, Vlado?