rofl
Not sure what you mean by "funny". I'm saying HDRI is a good thing - BUT the reflections looking like they do, is most likely because of a tonemapper.
See if something like this is being used, and either tweak or remove it (I'd recommend you remove it).
The material you are using was made for a car which was modeled for rendering. LFS cars' aren't modeled for rendering.
Have a look at pic #1 and pic #2.
In pic #1 you can basically see straight through the glasses, but in pic #2, you can't, even though glass refracts more than water, which is what's in those glasses. The empty glasses "aren't refracting more" because of volume/thickness. Glasses are thin, so the effect is little. That's the issue with your rendering. The windows are flat, but in 3D apps that doesn't mean they are thin - it actually means the opposite. You need to add some thickness if you want to do true glass material.
BUT.. I'm also saying that refraction on car windows is so little noticeable, that you can avoid using it altogether, and more than often no one will ever notice - and your renders will be quicker.
This is happening to me right now:
Last edited by r4ptor, .
There is still a way to go. The numberplate you are seeing looks very much like a wrong texture close to where the gearshifter is. Look closely, and you can see the shifter itself
It also apears like there are 3 front seats and this is because you are using heavy refraction. Don't use refraction at all. Even realistically speaking, the refraction on car windows is so little that it's barely noticeable - but even then, you'd need to do some modeling to archive that. Just stay away from refraction.It also looks like you are using some sort of a tonemapping filter - look at the the bright reflections on the front window and the hood - they are gray and "squashed" - very unnatural looking. You need to tweak the tonemapper so that bright reflections don't get clipped that much (before you ask: a gray sky doesn't equal gray reflections - that's why HDRI's are considered realistic vs. regular images as for instance backgrounds).
A note on tonemapping: You should avoid using it. It's advanced stuff for ppl who understands lighting. I may be wrong, but I will assume that you don't know the full meaning of it - if that's true, then you could end up tweaking reflections (because they look gray) when you shouldn't: because it's the tonemapper causing the reflections to look off - or the light or colors to look off.
Internet wins!
lal ^^
e2mustang:
Presets will do you no good if you don't know how to tweak them, to fit your needs.
Anyhow, it seems like you need to look into Fresnel. If you are already using it then the falloff may be completely off.
Fresnel:
http://wiki.blender.org/upload ... Part-III-fresnel-ball.png
I bet the "fresnel IOR" defines the falloff rate - a high number would probably give you something like the 3rd ball in the link... but I don't use vray, so don't take my word for it on that one
Set the refraction IOR falloff to 1 - even though some may say set it to something low like 1.05 or whatever. It's not worth it IMO and adds to rendertime.
That *should* be it, really.. oh, and ofcause.. crank up transparency. How transparent it should be depends on how clear or tinted you want the windows to be. Just experiment
Presets will do you no good if you don't know how to tweak them, to fit your needs.
Anyhow, it seems like you need to look into Fresnel. If you are already using it then the falloff may be completely off.
Fresnel:
http://wiki.blender.org/upload ... Part-III-fresnel-ball.png
I bet the "fresnel IOR" defines the falloff rate - a high number would probably give you something like the 3rd ball in the link... but I don't use vray, so don't take my word for it on that one
Set the refraction IOR falloff to 1 - even though some may say set it to something low like 1.05 or whatever. It's not worth it IMO and adds to rendertime.
That *should* be it, really.. oh, and ofcause.. crank up transparency. How transparent it should be depends on how clear or tinted you want the windows to be. Just experiment
Funneh thread. I just recently finished a model of a '51 Chevy pickup truck for RC cover production, for an actual RC dealer who does "custom" covers.
Are there any fantasy covers out there, or are they all based on real cars? If so then LFS covers seems rather unrealistic, unless someone here can produce or knows someone who can.
Are there any fantasy covers out there, or are they all based on real cars? If so then LFS covers seems rather unrealistic, unless someone here can produce or knows someone who can.
Yah, I know. There is no way to output such result unless you use some fancy filter in the 3D app .. which you btw shouldn't do. As you probably know or are getting aware of, it is better and easier to do so in PS etc.
Heh, I've made same mistake many times. Make it a habbit to take small breaks away from what you think is final (or while working) and then come back and look at it again. It's normal.. happens all the time
Edit: Just completed this one... hope you guys like it.
PNG versions: 1280x1024 . 1600x1200 . 2560x1600
Breakdown video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEfNjPYJ3yM
Last edited by r4ptor, .
Very good render - I'd have to say though that the dark's are too dark. You can have "super dark's", but when dark's from skin, tire and shadow can't be distinguished then it's too dark with the kind of lighting you have here. It's close to be perfect. but just a tad too much dark.. IMO.
Brakes: a bit more reflective.
Tires: Too much reflection.
The tires are most off, of those two.
Tires: Too much reflection.
The tires are most off, of those two.
Looks lovely.. btw, if you can model while being sick, then you aren't sick at all, are you?!
Cool idea
Odd - I converted from CMX myself and still have the unmodified on my drive - there's no problem like that in them
Very cool render
The verticies that are causing smoothing related problems are pretty much on top of eachother (on all cars IIRC), so you can get away with a very low threshold - it's good because then you avoid accidentally removing smaller details that you might overlook.
Thanks - it was actually a simple straight on shot, and I then rotated the render in post
Something looks very off with the window. Anyhow, high poly meshes will no doubt result in better looking renders, but the LFS models aren't that bad - see attached.
Your windows looks a bit like a triangle or more have been offset from original position.
You need to tweak the geometry as iFastLT suggested - that window should be a smoothing only thing (not verticy related). Play with smoothing settings (not meshsmooth/subdivision surfaces, but Normal based smoothing). I have mine set to 44.5 degrees.
Thanks
There is no triangle that covers that area, so he can't do it. As I don't use 3DS, I don't know what is causing this. Some things that could be useful to check:
Make sure your lighting solution isn't frozen - like, if you have Global Illumination (or whatever it's called in VRay) calculated, then make sure it's being recalculated when you render again.
Reset the material: remove/delete the current material and give the entire skin area a new material.
Although the render artifact looks odd, I kinda lean towards the lighting solution being the cause of this.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG