The idea is that we create a database of the best vray materials similar to the maxwell material site linked to in the thread above. It could also be made part of the ChaosSquid
We will need a light box type scene similar to Maxwells to show of the materials in a fairly neutral environment then perhaps some mini arch scenes (interior and exterior) to show how the materials would react in a production environment.
So before we jump into the materials we need to get the scenes done first.
Do we rip maxwells idea? but with a slightly different setup and model? (lets face it theres is pretty good)
For the mini arch scenes, do we use LWF? vray sun and sky or direct lights?
What would be needed…etc..etc..
These are the things we need to brainstorm about first to get an ideal set of scenes. THEN we work on the materials.
Some ideas I have had:
Lightbox: Would be similar to maxwells idea, so all properties of the materials can be displayed in a neutral enviroment.
Mini Arch scenes
Interior: We could have a basic room modelled or maybe a couple so we can display floor, wall, ceiling, glass, curtain, fabric. leather, metal and ceramic materials (to name a few) in a more useful enviroment.
Exterior: Perhaps a part of a house which would include some road, grass and perhaps pool areas to be able to show off those sorts of materials.
Im thinking for the mini arch scenes, we would need multiple cameras in the scenes located specifically to see the material at its best.
For the nitty-gritty physical light response of materials on the little bits filling out our scenes, it’s great. But, I can’t see siding, shingles, stucco, concrete, etc. on a toy trailer hitch. So… what do we do about the bread-n-butter arch vis mats??
I think there is a good issue to look at here - mapping. If you have a metal or glass or a little sss on a monkey ass that you want to test thats one thing and yes the “maxwell member” is great but once you need a bitmap applied that adds another level of detail. I paint many of my maps now and I paint them by unwrapping the uvws, adding grime and funking them up a bit. Not only that but most of the time I have to alter a bitmap to get rid of tiling and all that so scale is an issue. Or do we limit ourselves to non tiled bitmaps?
Mostly what I am driving at is that I think we may need 2 objects for archi work so we can really understand the scale issues one object with a set scale that is very small (close up) the other that shows the object running a course so tiling can be addressed. Sorry I am a bit sick right now and rambling.
IMO, that gets us off into the theoretical, esoterical world of Maxwell. All good things to look at, sure. But, most of us do arch vis. And almost every mat has something in the diffuse channel. And the materials need to be at least 2’ - 5’, if not much larger, in order to really see them.
I still think we need 2 scenarios if for no other reason than scale.
Yeah ll this then falls back to the mini arch scenes, or some varient of them.
I still think these are necessary to full visualise how the materials will look.
And given what you guys are saying I think you would all agree.
Yeah I think a little street scape with winds doors and maybe panels (think windows but not glass of different sizes for scale issues) that could take anything you put at it.
The lightbox for simple(hah) shaders should stay, maxwells is good.
For arch vis, I vote a simple exterior scene, simple interior scene - both with a chamfered box in the middle of the view for the materials to go on rather than changing the view and applying it to different objects. I think for quick referance on a site like that you’d need to keep camera angles locked and the base properties as close as possible. Unless thats what you had in mind and I misunderstood…
I dont think we should use LWF either - it just adds more variables. Something like linear colour mapping at 1,1, IR map & LC, - really basic easy settings which give predictable results. Its what everyone started on, so you’ll know how those results will look within your own settings/workflow.
true…hmmm yeah.. simpliest is probabaly going to be the best option.
Its not going to be possible for us to show the materials in all the “ideal” situations.
it’s called chaossquid and it’s meant to be an internal exchange for legit vray users similar to turbosquid (hence the name :P) Sadly i’m really in crunchtimes at work atm, and it’s hard to find the time to get it productionready.
I disagree with this part. Going with LWF actually *reduces* variables, not increases. If we use “the old way we all got started on”, then you throw each person’s gamma, etc. into the mix.
and it’s meant to be an internal exchange for legit vray users similar to turbosquid (hence the name :P) Sadly i’m really in crunchtimes at work atm, and it’s hard to find the time to get it productionready.