The Official aweSurface Test Track

1181921232466

Comments

  • Sven DullahSven Dullah Posts: 7,621
    edited February 2019
    kyoto kid said:

    ...some dry lakebeds here in the states look like that as they originally were salt water lakes. 

    Yea it looks kinda cool but not really as intendedlaugh Been working on the scene a bit more... update coming up;)

    ...update...rendertime 1h...

    image

    The Dry Mud Desert awe.png
    1920 x 1080 - 3M
    Post edited by Sven Dullah on
  • kyoto kidkyoto kid Posts: 41,094

    ...much better Adding a strong sun really makes it come more alive. 

  • Sven DullahSven Dullah Posts: 7,621
    kyoto kid said:

    ...much better Adding a strong sun really makes it come more alive. 

    Yes, I struggled a fair bit with the lighting. Tried to use HDRI lighting only but couldn't get the desired result. So added an area light;) Those awePTarea lightsheart...laugh

  • kyoto kidkyoto kid Posts: 41,094
    edited February 2019

    ...so those come with the AweSurface shader system?

    Post edited by kyoto kid on
  • Sven DullahSven Dullah Posts: 7,621
    kyoto kid said:

    ...so those come with the AweSurface shader system?

    Yes, highly optimized for speedyes

  • Sven DullahSven Dullah Posts: 7,621
    edited February 2019

    Kit bashed the Dry Mud Desert and The Waterhole revisited by FB... and the Lost World by AM;) 10x10 ps, 1h

    image

    Seaview awe.png
    1920 x 1080 - 4M
    Post edited by Sven Dullah on
  • kyoto kidkyoto kid Posts: 41,094

    ...nice work there.

  • Sven DullahSven Dullah Posts: 7,621

    Tks kk, much appreciated:)

  • wowiewowie Posts: 2,029
    edited February 2019

    Just another test. winkWanted to render a scene that's completely lit from the outside. 8x8 pixel samples, 2048 irradiance samples, f-stop 1/4, ISO 6400 and shutter time 1/2, so the interior looks very well exposed.

    Indoor lit version.

    36 minutes 7.99 seconds.jpg
    450 x 600 - 185K
    13 minutes 4.22 seconds.jpg
    450 x 600 - 207K
    Post edited by wowie on
  • kyoto kidkyoto kid Posts: 41,094

    ...love the AO in that.

  • Sven DullahSven Dullah Posts: 7,621
    wowie said:

    Just another test. winkWanted to render a scene that's completely lit from the outside. 8x8 pixel samples, 2048 irradiance samples, f-stop 1/4, ISO 6400 and shutter time 1/2, so the interior looks very well exposed.

     

    Indoor lit version.

     

    Nice! Looks pretty clean too;)

  • Sven DullahSven Dullah Posts: 7,621

    Run into some problems while testing some skin shader settings. A Genesis figure with hair and some fibermesh body hair, skin SS samples 256, shadowsamples 1024, HDRI lighting, raytracer final with10x10 ps. Rendered in bucket mode, cancelled the render when 26% done after 55 min. Finally found the reason, I used the AshikhminShirley classic on the cornea and fingernails. After changing every BRDF to the default AshikhminShirley it completed in under 20 min. I was under the impression those two BRDFs was pretty similar, only using slightly different ramping, but apparently not:)

  • wowiewowie Posts: 2,029
    edited February 2019

    Run into some problems while testing some skin shader settings. A Genesis figure with hair and some fibermesh body hair, skin SS samples 256, shadowsamples 1024, HDRI lighting, raytracer final with10x10 ps. Rendered in bucket mode, cancelled the render when 26% done after 55 min. Finally found the reason, I used the AshikhminShirley classic on the cornea and fingernails. After changing every BRDF to the default AshikhminShirley it completed in under 20 min. I was under the impression those two BRDFs was pretty similar, only using slightly different ramping, but apparently not:)

    Ashikhmin-Shirley Classic, Cook-Torrance and Cook-Torrance Classic are there basically for fallback and debugging. I recommend sticking to default Ashikhmin-Shirley.

    I'm actually considering releasing a new shader built of AWE Surface, but with much of the controls simplified (either hidden or removed) and re-ordered in a more logical manner. Internally it would be the same shader.

    Proposed arrangement:

    The biggest change will be it will be a strict PBR Metalness Roughness workflow shader. So, all your diffuse/base/transmission color textures will go to the 'Base Color' and all roughness will be controlled with the 'Base Roughness'. You can still use the second lobe with different roughness settings/textures if you want.

    Other notables:

    • All UV and tiling options will be moved to DAZ's UV Maps section.
    • Thin Film gets its own section. You'll find all dials dealing with thin film for base and clearcoat in this section.
    • Unify Bump, Normal and Displacement settings into one section.
    • Backside Diffuse settings moved to the Mask section.
    • All current lighting options are set to hidden by default.
    • Normalize Specular Map will always be enabled. So this will no longer be exposed to users.
    • Multiply Specular & Reflection with Opacity renamed into Multiply Specular Through Opacity so it shares the same name as dsDefaultMaterial (and will be imported during conversion).
    • Removed all other specular options.
    • General Options will be limited to the bare essentials - Use Face Forward, light linking, trace group options, scale multipliers, transmission bias and subsurface/irradiance samples.

    Some other ideas:

    Base color will be the surface color, currently diffuse color. DAZ Studio renders this in the viewport, so you'll be able to at least see/select objects with their color/texture.

    I'm considering using Glossiness, so you can actually have some idea of specular highlight in the viewport. It will be converted internally to roughness.

    As an added visual cue but isn't used in rendering (at the moment) is the ability to plug an environment map (HDRI or just lat/long jpg) into 'Reflection Color'. DAZ Studio viewport will display this in the viewport as a cubemap reflection. I found setting this to 100% gives a nice 'fake' reflection in the viewport for metals. For dielectric, reflection strength of around 12.5% looks almost like renders.

    The biggest problem is that the viewport 'inverts' the reflection map. The viewport also don't allow UV offset for this map, so you'll have to adjust the offsets on the environment sphere to match.

    base layer.jpg
    475 x 634 - 71K
    viewport.jpg
    1365 x 738 - 168K
    base layer2.jpg
    474 x 635 - 74K
    Post edited by wowie on
  • Sven DullahSven Dullah Posts: 7,621

    @wowie

    A bit unexpected to be honest:) But not necessarily a bad idea, I guess many end users would find that easier to start working with:) A couple of questions: How would transmission shadow be implemented? A fixed value? Since they would be the same shader under the hood, I guess they would convert well one way or the other? Any thoughts on how opacity would be implemented both in the new simplified shader and the next build of aweSurface? (If that's still in the pipeline)

    Personally I like to have too many options, rather than too little, but I figure the simplified shader would be enough for most things, and setting it up would probably be a bit faster;) Very interesting!

  • wowiewowie Posts: 2,029

    @wowie

    A bit unexpected to be honest:) But not necessarily a bad idea, I guess many end users would find that easier to start working with:) A couple of questions: How would transmission shadow be implemented? A fixed value? Since they would be the same shader under the hood, I guess they would convert well one way or the other? Any thoughts on how opacity would be implemented both in the new simplified shader and the next build of aweSurface? (If that's still in the pipeline)

    Personally I like to have too many options, rather than too little, but I figure the simplified shader would be enough for most things, and setting it up would probably be a bit faster;) Very interesting!

    Internally they would be the same. That includes things like opacity or transmission shadow. There are some adjustments, but shouldn't be nothing major and mostly made since the parameters exposed are slightly different.

    I think I've finally got opacity optimization working right. Rather than allowing users to select the actual raw value, opacity filters now mixes between 0 to 0.85/0.9. Previously having opacity filter 2 at 100% will make everything be filtered out and makes everything disappear. SInce now it's limited to 0.85, that won't happen.

    Since they share the same code, they will be updated concurrently. As for transferring settings, I think they should, though some stuff with renamed parameters will likely need to be manually transferred.

  • Sven DullahSven Dullah Posts: 7,621

    Looking forward to seeing this new shader;)

  • Sven DullahSven Dullah Posts: 7,621
    edited February 2019
    Blue Planet awe.png
    1920 x 1080 - 2M
    Post edited by Sven Dullah on
  • kyoto kidkyoto kid Posts: 41,094

    ...very nice.

  • Sven DullahSven Dullah Posts: 7,621
    edited March 2019
    kyoto kid said:

    ...very nice.

    Tks:)

    Did a quick convertion of https://www.daz3d.com/starship-astra, progressive render:

    image

    Any tips for making it look smoother in close up? I already converted to SubD, but had to use the bilinear algorithm to avoid deformation, and so it made no difference, still a bit jaggy with this high contrast lighting:(

    ASTRA AWE 1.png
    1280 x 720 - 1M
    Post edited by Sven Dullah on
  • wowiewowie Posts: 2,029
    edited March 2019
    Any tips for making it look smoother in close up? I already converted to SubD, but had to use the bilinear algorithm to avoid deformation, and so it made no difference, still a bit jaggy with this high contrast lighting:(

    If you don't mind manual work, spot render troublesome spots at higher res ie 1080p, then use an image editor to downsize with a bicubic filter. The much harder way is to a geograft or replace the troublesome parts with a higher res mesh with proper SubD friendly topology.

    If you have several places to smooth out, someone long ago suggested making a plane attached to the camera to block out parts you don't need rendered. Make sure the planes are visible to camera but have everything (diffuse,spec,reflections, shadows) turned off. Here's an example setup.

    Pretty effective though not as effective as using AOV (arbitrary output value) mask.

    Another set of tests.

    For hair, the default settings already works pretty well.

    21 minutes 27.81 seconds.jpg
    400 x 600 - 107K
    8 minutes 27.88 seconds.jpg
    400 x 600 - 109K
    cutout.jpg
    859 x 689 - 68K
    Post edited by wowie on
  • Sven DullahSven Dullah Posts: 7,621
    wowie said:
    Any tips for making it look smoother in close up? I already converted to SubD, but had to use the bilinear algorithm to avoid deformation, and so it made no difference, still a bit jaggy with this high contrast lighting:(

    If you don't mind manual work, spot render troublesome spots at higher res ie 1080p, then use an image editor to downsize with a bicubic filter. The much harder way is to a geograft or replace the troublesome parts with a higher res mesh with proper SubD friendly topology.

    If you have several places to smooth out, someone long ago suggested making a plane attached to the camera to block out parts you don't need rendered. Make sure the planes are visible to camera but have everything (diffuse,spec,reflections, shadows) turned off. Here's an example setup.

    Pretty effective though not as effective as using AOV (arbitrary output value) mask.

    Another set of tests.

    For hair, the default settings already works pretty well.

    Tks wowie, I'll see how that affects rendertimes, nice tip!

  • Sven DullahSven Dullah Posts: 7,621
    edited March 2019

    Another Astra render with 16x16 ps, diffuse bounce 6 and ray/specular depth 16, looks cool from this angle without having to postwork. One area light as the main lightsource:

    image

    Astra Vanguard awe pp.png
    1920 x 1080 - 3M
    Post edited by Sven Dullah on
  • kyoto kidkyoto kid Posts: 41,094

    ...wow looks almost cinematic.

  • wowiewowie Posts: 2,029

    Decided to rework how subsurface takes into account actual diffuse texture. For one, the rendered brightness/luminance should be roughly equal between 0 and 1.

    What do you all think?

    0.jpg
    338 x 600 - 127K
    12.5.jpg
    338 x 600 - 126K
    25.jpg
    338 x 600 - 126K
    50.jpg
    338 x 600 - 127K
    75.jpg
    338 x 600 - 127K
    100.jpg
    338 x 600 - 127K
  • Sven DullahSven Dullah Posts: 7,621
    wowie said:

    Decided to rework how subsurface takes into account actual diffuse texture. For one, the rendered brightness/luminance should be roughly equal between 0 and 1.

    What do you all think?

    Care to ellaborate a little? Not sure what you are doing there...are the numbers diffuse strength % for a fixed SSS value?

    blush

  • wowiewowie Posts: 2,029
    edited March 2019

    Care to ellaborate a little? Not sure what you are doing there...are the numbers diffuse strength % for a fixed SSS value?

    blush

    Its this - Use Diffuse Texture SSS.

    It mixes the diffuse texture used with the result of subsurface. It should help vary the subsurface a bit more. Earlier it would just take into account the texture, but I'm tinkering to make it also vary subsurface a bit depending on the how much light hits the surface.

    Post edited by wowie on
  • Sven DullahSven Dullah Posts: 7,621
    edited March 2019
    wowie said:

    Care to ellaborate a little? Not sure what you are doing there...are the numbers diffuse strength % for a fixed SSS value?

    blush

    Its this - Use Diffuse Texture SSS.

    It mixes the diffuse texture used with the result of subsurface. It should help vary the subsurface a bit more. Earlier it would just take into account the texture, but I'm tinkering to make it also vary subsurface a bit depending on the how much light hits the surface.

    Aah ok:) Well this says something about the complexity of your shader, I've been playing around with it now for..what..six months, and there is still a whole bunch of things I haven't really looked into yetlaugh Yeah the math is getting a bit comlex too...first set a diffuse strength value, then SSS strength with all those other  SS parameters, and finally mix in the diffuse with the result, I need to do some testing before commenting any further at this stagelaugh But I can see it makes fine tuning easier from the renders you postedyes

    So how does the SS know how much light hits the surface? Almost sounds like some sort of dynamic controlsurprise

    Post edited by Sven Dullah on
  • wowiewowie Posts: 2,029
    edited March 2019
    So how does the SS know how much light hits the surface? Almost sounds like some sort of dynamic controlsurprise

    It is. Only really noticeable in certain situations though. Not going to look any different with a HDRI environment or really big area lights.

    Now, this one should be easier to comprehend. Better opacity optimization code.

    Original value without optimization.

    100% optimization. Most of the very thin strands are now retained.

    Render times are 8 minutes 11.16 seconds for unoptimized, 4 minutes 27.46 seconds for 100% optimization.

    With the new code, most of the time you only need to adjust the first filter value.

    unoptimized original.jpg
    338 x 600 - 106K
    100% optimization.jpg
    338 x 600 - 107K
    Post edited by wowie on
  • Sven DullahSven Dullah Posts: 7,621
    wowie said:
    So how does the SS know how much light hits the surface? Almost sounds like some sort of dynamic controlsurprise

    It is. Only really noticeable in certain situations though. Not going to look any different with a HDRI environment or really big area lights.

    Now, this one should be easier to comprehend. Better opacity optimization code.

    Original value without optimization.

    100% optimization. Most of the very thin strands are now retained.

    Render times are 8 minutes 11.16 seconds for unoptimized, 4 minutes 27.46 seconds for 100% optimization.

    With the new code, most of the time you only need to adjust the first filter value.

    This is great news:) I've been struggling a bit lately trying to get some complex hair models to both look good and render in a descent amount of time;) So very much looking forward to this update! Nice Job!

  • timeofftimeoff Posts: 49
    wowie said:
    So how does the SS know how much light hits the surface? Almost sounds like some sort of dynamic controlsurprise

    It is. Only really noticeable in certain situations though. Not going to look any different with a HDRI environment or really big area lights.

    Now, this one should be easier to comprehend. Better opacity optimization code.

    Original value without optimization.

    100% optimization. Most of the very thin strands are now retained.

    Render times are 8 minutes 11.16 seconds for unoptimized, 4 minutes 27.46 seconds for 100% optimization.

    With the new code, most of the time you only need to adjust the first filter value.

    This sounds excellent, adjusting opaciy on hair models is a bit hit and miss, so any simpliication will be very gratefully recieved!

Sign In or Register to comment.