I just wanted to give a quick breakdown of what the different material types are as it was asked in a post today.
VRayMtl - this is the main V-Ray material. It consists of layers of different types that can be combined to make pretty much any material you can think of.
VRayLinkedMtl - this is a special kind of VRayMtl that is linked to a native Sketchup material. Essentially it will grab diffuse layer information from the SketchUp material and use it in a VRayMtl as a read-only diffuse layer. You can then append other layers to it, so you can “wrap” up a native SketchUp material inside a VRay material. When you create VRayLinkedMtl you are asked to pick a SketchUp material. After you’ve done this the VRayLinkedMtl will be applied to any object in the scene that had the SketchUp material on it.
VRay2SidedMtl - this material can be used to fake transluceny or very thin materials like paper or curtains. It is still under development and is not working completely as it should.
VRaySkp2SidedMtl - this is a two-sided material that acts the way SketchUp’s two-sided materials work. Each side is completely independent of the other.
I hope some of this basic information is enough to answer some of your questions regarding the different material types while our tutorials are being created.
You post is just what is needed to jump start
even the pros.
The basics of just how things work first and
then we could use info on the settings and
how they interact.
For sure Vray is a killer for features, but in math
parlance most of the SU types like myself want
to avoid the “Factorial” multiplication of endless
incremental settings that bump in the night.
Don’t want to be a big mouth, but a smart
point and shoot version would sure be nice.
Cut and try till you die gets old very quickly EH?
there is a resource out there which has a those kind of explanations. Its called Spot 3D and itsis a great resource for explanations of all of the vray functions. Its directly from ChaosGroup (the guys who wrote Vray) so it is completely reliable. It may be slightly more technicall than Joe’s explanation above, but it is easy to understand and can tell you about every nook and cranny of Vray.
I know you guys are doing your best to get this all together
but I for one have just had enough of learning curves and
would just kill for the smart point and shoot render app.
The render for Architects is just not a life in itself, but a tool
to explain the project to the whomsoever and get on with building it.
Sketchup has just set the bar for ease of understanding and use
and the render that matches will win the day without a doubt.
No disrespect intended, but if V is a grind to get to OZ,
even for free I would miss the trip.
The “huddled masses” await !!!.
Hope y’all can work it out as V is a real jewell for results that I have seen.
I for one have just had enough of learning curves and
would just kill for the smart point and shoot render app.Yeah that seems to be a common feeling among Sketchup users.
Yep - I’m not upset by the reactions or comments from anyone. We expected this was going to be a different experience for us. The purpose of the beta for us was to feel out the Sketchup user and test our product, since none of us are actually full-time SketchUp users. So any feedback is good feedback - I’d much rather be told why someone would choose another product over ours than have them sugar coat it to “not make me feel bad”. Any comments are just going to focus our attention where its needed.
Taking the K.I.S.S principle in mind, i wonder if things can not be made more simple and comprehensive.
Do we really all those different types of materials? Why can’t these functionality be implemented in to one and the same vraymaterial system?
Here some suggestions to make things simpler:
step 1:
Wouldn’t it be easier if all sketchup materials would be automatically linked as vray materials and you can start from there?
In this way the ‘vraylinkedmtl’ doesn’t have to be a seperate type of material anymore since all SU materials become vraymtl by default.
step 2: In sketchup there is an option to assign a different texture to each side of a surface.
Why can’t we just assign two different materials in vray for each side instead of using the vray2skp2sidedMtl?
Is this new type of material necessary?
step 3: the VRay2SidedMtl.
Why not making a ‘thickness’ option in the ordinary vraymaterial instead of having to use yet another type of material.
I am not a programmer but I have the feeling that things can be made more rational. Instead of just adding new things as separate functions with strange names there is a need for a general concept/strategy behind the software.
Sketchup itself has a very clear and simple strategy that is easy to read and appreciated by its Pro users.
Otherwise we would all be using Lightwave instead…Not
Joeb,
I know you guys are working very very hard to make vray work with sketchup.
You probably didn’t expect to have such a ‘whining’ audience.
Those Sketchup users sure are a whacky bunch..
Good luck with further development, i am sure the software will become super.
Ok - yeah! That is a good idea. So the material editor will start off populated by the Sketchup scene materials. I do think we should maintain separate material types, just for clarity and so we don’t have one uber-cluttered material (especially since most people feel we have too many options already )
step 2: In sketchup there is an option to assign a different texture to each side of a surface.
Why can’t we just assign two different materials in vray for each side instead of using the vray2skp2sidedMtl?
Is this new type of material necessary? We did this like that before but we felt it was too cluttered. Since we can’t use the simple Sketchup paint-bucket it became became necessary to add stuff to our context menu. So our context menu was filled with extra clutter - basically 2 of everything for a front and back side
step 3: the VRay2SidedMtl.
Why not making a ‘thickness’ option in the ordinary vraymaterial instead of having to use yet another type of material. I’m not sure of the logistics of this, it is an interesting idea, but the thickness idea is basically using real translucency - the idea behind this is its a kind of “hack”.
I am not a programmer but I have the feeling that things can be made more rational. Instead of just adding new things as separate functions with strange names there is a need for a general concept/strategy behind the software. I suppose our problem is that we are trying to stay true to V-Ray and stay true SketchUp. So the naming convention you see currently is adopted from the way V-Ray names its materials. As you may, or may not, be aware we also develop our V-Ray for Rhino plugin. So we are trying to have a “global” interface that can go with us whereever we go. So we’re trying to weigh the different users of different applications together to meet in a common ground. Your suggestions are valid and will definitely lead to some discussions around the office
Sketchup itself has a very clear and simple strategy that is easy to read and appreciated by its Pro users.
Otherwise we would all be using Lightwave instead…Not
Joeb,
I know you guys are working very very hard to make vray work with sketchup.
You probably didn’t expect to have such a ‘whining’ audience.
Those Sketchup users sure are a whacky bunch..
Good luck with further development, i am sure the software will become super. I don’t see it as whining - SketchUp is a very direct, simple and powerful tool. We’re excited to be here, and are confident we’ll find our market, but there will always be growing pains as we move into place
Thanks for those answers. The things you say all make sense.
However , concerning double faced materials, I bet people will try to assign a different vraymtl to both sides because it’s a natural and intuitive reflex to do that , only to find out it doesn’t work like that and another type of material is needed.
Expect some repetitive questions about that in the forum when final release is out.
By the way, both sides are easily assigned from the ‘entity info’ panel in SU when the surface is selected.
Just click on one of the two side materials and you 'll be able to reassign.
No, i meant Sketchup materials.
If the sketchup textures would be automatically linked as vraymtls as suggested above, yes, then you could say vraymtls can be setup that way.
By the way, that ‘autolinking’ of SU materials can be taken even one level higher:
After setting the vray parameters of the autolinked material and saving that material , these settings could automatically be transferred to other SU files where you choose that SU material.
In this way, applying a native SU material can automatically connect to a saved vraymaterial with all presets ready. ( this could be done by a script that autoconnects a vraymaterial to a SU material by name (vray can execute a query command to look for corresponding vraymtls that are preset. If the query doesn’t find a corresponding premade vraymtl, it will automatically make a ‘blank’ vraymtl just sharing the same diffuse map as the SU material. The user then can start from that ‘blank’ vraymtl and set all needed parameters and save it for future ‘autolinked’ use, even in other files )
In other words: apply a sketchup material and you are done!
This would make the workflow very easy and fast and this method stays loyal to the vray system..A very WYSIWYG workflow.
In this way,users can build up their own little linked library of vraymatls that corresponds to the SU materials in their SU material list.
After a while every sketchup material will have a corresponding vraymtl and the workflow will get faster and faster.
Users could even start sharing full SU material libraries and the corresponding vraymtl libraries with eachother or through the forum.
I hope this explanation is clear . English isn’t my native language so i hope the message is understandable.
I like your ideas - that could definately work for us. I guess my question is what happens for those users who want to just create V-Ray materials, should I create a SketchUp material counterpart to be applied in the scene via the paint bucket?
Yes Joeb! It’s sounds like a good thing that biebel is sugesting - that is how i would like to work. Just to be able to start sketchup set up different colors for all the different materials - then when done building i go into vray editor and apply different settings to each material - or load a existing material INTO the material that is allready defined. So i paint with a yellow color and name it Gold - it’s not gold but when i go into vray material editor i would then just load a material into that “slot” or allready defined material.
…mmm, i haven’t thought about that.
Can making the sketchup material counterpart be automated as well?
Maybe it can be made so that if you use the same name for the vraymaterial as the sketchup material they get automatically linked?
In that way, the user just makes a new SU material. If he names it the same as the presaved vraymtl, vray automatically recognises it and links them.
Fluke, i didn’t mean it exactly the same way as you describe.
In the suggestion i made , the SU material will need a texture , and that texture is automatically used as diffuse map in the autolinked ‘blank’ vraymtl.
In this way it always stays WYSIWYG.
The method you describe also could work, but that would take out the WYSIWYG, because you would end up with just colours in Su, and textures in vray.
…or did I misunderstand what you said?
biebel: Im with you… i meant both color or texture. It was just an example. You still will need to go in and make things in the vray material editor, like adding other maps, like bump, mask specularity and so on so changing the texture and diffuse within the vray should override the the texture in SU like it do today - but if you assign a wood texture in SU then that would be the same in vray and then adding stuff to that in the material editor.
At some point you justy might to have representive colors and textures in sketchup and then others in vray but from SU to vray it works.. but the otherway arround would be strange… like changing the texture in vray material editor will not be able to change then texture within SU.
…By the way, I think the ‘autolinking by name’ can be implemented easily in vray.
It would take writing a script that compares the names of both SU-material library and Vray-material library.
If Vray detects both a SU material and a Vray counterpart material (they have the same name) it will automatically link them.
If Vray detects a unique SU material (without an identically named vraymaterial) it will automatically create a ‘blank’ vraymaterial with the same name and with a diffuse map that is the same as the sketchup texture.
But what would happen if vray detects a unique Vraymaterial (without an identical counterpart in SU)?
Then a script could automatically add the counterpart material in SU?..I don’t know if that is possible…maybe by making a rubyscript integrated in Su that does that?
In this way we would have ‘autolinking’ in both directions.
But what would happen if vray detects a unique Vraymaterial (without an identical counterpart in SU)?
Biebel: that’s where we drift appart… i think vray should keep track on what’s going on in SU but not vice versa… if you change in vray… it’s still what it is in SU material… because sometimes you want a representative image in SU like leaf or a billboard guy. Then you have a png thingie there. And in vray you use maybe a transparancy map - or maybe you’re creating some complex material that you want to represent with a certain texture like windows for intance. Maybe you want them to have a light fade or faked reflection within sketchup.
)