Materials Ep9: Furniture Fabric | All 3D Software

[@raulgoncalves1373]

Vjeko please do a video on your approach to concrete, with displaced seams and rough edges

[@danielmorgado1613]

Holy shit. Never thought of that way about fabrics, now i get why they always ended up looking a bit concret-ish like you said. Thankss, Man!

[@sociocynic]

Looks fabulous, thanks for sharing!!!

[@nejcskufca]

Man, I love the super simple solution you came up with, and it looks perfect! I am happily moving from the fallof method from now on. Thanks!

[@giovannesouza6870]

Its funny to see this, because when I see my past works, the materials were way complex than I do today. I simplified through the years, and I’m liking the results. You can do amazing things just with the settings.

[@3DRnD]

Nice and simple workflow, i think the fallof trick used in the days when we didnt have very powerful machines. Thanks for sharing

[@thereal1tap]

Just realised it's Sunday, great content as always! ❤

[@milantichacek7839]

For real, heroes ain’t gotta wear capes

[@WaspMedia3D]

The lack of shadow/light support in corona drives me nuts ... so many times I wanted to use it, but couldn't. SSS always attenuates bump, in corona it's a bit artificial, but the effect of SSS itself in reality also washes out the bump effect. Learned that from doing skin shaders. :) In real world skin has a lot more texture than it appears because of the SSS effect.

[@MarcoHayek]

Dude... You are so sick! 😂 I would have thought of many things, but not in my life the use of “SSS” for Textile-Materials. I love you.

[@sonambhutia2525]

Loved it..

[@LookRender]

very good!!!

[@FS4U-CH]

your videos are always great. cheers man 🍻

[@bgtubber]

Great tip! That actually makes sense. Fabric does scatter light as it's not a completely solid surface like concrete or something. I need to try this out now. I'm using V-Ray. I'm wondering how it will turn out there.

[@giovannesouza6870]

Hi again, thanks for another great video. There's a possibility to make a video just showing how do you organize your library? models and specially textures? that's a thing I've always been curious to see in every 3d artist

[@tausifkhan2189]

Thank you thank you so much. I also do furniture renders specially upholstery. I do face same problem. Now I am gonna try this tomorrow on my project. ❤

[@supoflex]

man I really love your tutorials, intricate yet simple things that you can't find anywhere else. one question though, why are you using the legacy material? is it for the displacemant or do you think it has an advantage over the physical material?

[@RenderRam]

Thank you! I prefer Legacy material because every aspect of the material is modifiable, it is equally "physical" as the Physical material, it's just that... I think @LearnCoronaRenderer explained it better "I would like to highlight that OLD materials are "physical" as well. They just have some parameters linked to avoid errors to less skilled users. Which is great in general, but produces less control as a side effect - Ciro Sannino"

[@Ajdjr2973]

You are genius bro👍

[@rajaththakur4234]

thank you for teaching...so informative

[@lucasmartins721]

Very good, simple and effective technique, I will test it on some of my work. Thanks for sharing this. I see you use Fstorm and Corona. I don't know many people who use Fstorm, I spent more than 1 year working with Fstorm for Packshot work, It would be interesting to make a video showing the differences between Fstorm and Corona and in which situations you like to work in one or the other rendering engine.

[@rajendrameena150]

I think corona has old legacy of physically based interior rendering and that's why you will find old model libraries are setup for corona/vray. Corona also has maximum number of render passes to help in compositing. It also simplifies some of 3ds max material nodes to have user friendly workflow. Fstorm on the other hand is a simple and straightforward physically based renderer. Its biggest advantage is GPU rendering with photorealistic result. I compared both engine and found that Fstorm is way faster than corona even corona use 100% of CPU and Fstorm barely touch 50%. I even heard the story of lawsuit file by octane render team on Fstorm developer about stolen their algorithm but Fstorm win the case. Anyway, I use both render because corona has implemented some AI algorithm that optimize render time in recent 2 versions.

[@sahaksahakyan2404]

The corona renderer has noticeably more settings and features/tools and amenities in general. there are more tools and many similar maps/materials, tools just have more settings, that is, additional features for advanced users. Nothing is clear about the speed comparison.. how and where did you compare what?) on which processor and on which video card did you compare them? and by the way, is this video card more expensive than your CPU?​@@rajendrameena150

[@lucaaffatato99]

i will try it😉😉

[@wafer102]

Have you tried corona bump map before connect it to the bump?

[@wonkaytry]

hey subscribed! thanks, keep making FStorm vids! :)

[@g3d894]

Dear friend, could you record a video playing this on FS? Thanks always!

[@BOPISbewitya]

thanks.. how to do this in fstorm?

[@AerowaIk]

how do you actually make something similar in FStorm ? :D

[@aongogo]

Please recommend computer specs for this job.

[@madheeh]

What if you raise the normal amount like twice the SSS value?

[@RenderRam]

for the bump? Tried keeping sss amount to about 0.8 so that 20% of the bump leaks out, and then I increased bump to 99, but it just looked nothing like what it should

[@juliussaurus]

​@@RenderRam What if you use a Corona bump converter?

[@RenderRam]

@@juliussaurus doesn't work still

[@Mranshumansinghr]

I have 128 GB on my C drive. :(. Great tip.

[@PetarStamenkovic]

Why use old legacy material on purpose when you want to use "physically correct" solution?

[@RenderRam]

I prefer Legacy material because every little thing is fully controllable, Physical material has things automated, and I'm not that big of a fan of that.

[@LearnCoronaRenderer]

In addition to the perfect reply of @RenderRam, I would like to highlight that OLD materials are "physical" as well. They just have some parameters linked to avoid errors to less skilled users. Which is great in general, but produces less control as a side effect - Ciro Sannino

[@RenderRam]

@@LearnCoronaRenderer Exactly! Thank you so much for extra clarification, that's the line I was missing!

[@sahaksahakyan2404]

​@@LearnCoronaRendererand there are examples of such cases when physical material creates limitations?? in my opinion, in addition to the fact that the physical material does not allow you to make some incompetent mistakes, it also simplifies and noticeably improves the process of creating materials thanks to many new functions that simply do not exist in outdated legacy material

[@PetarStamenkovic]

@@LearnCoronaRenderer Thank you. I don't like the legacy material. I like the new physical material a lot. Really smart implementation.

[@thes_eus]

🤯

[@thomaslamiaud]

All my homies disrespects AI

[@sahaksahakyan2404]

an interesting lesson, but it's a little strange that you're working in an old legacy material). and at the expense of the bump, did you just try to increase its value after turning on the SSS with the maximum value 1? the same way: your final material actually looks a little different.. for some reason, you removed the displace map from the material, this is a habit from the fstorm there is a feature and limitation, but why do this in the corona displacementMod modifier instead of the modifier taking the map immediately from the material.. This is not clear to me

[@sahaksahakyan2404]

then, when you replace the material, you will not have synchronization between the corona modifier and the new material.. you will also have to manually change the displacement map in the modifier itself.. which is not very rational.

[@RenderRam]

yo! So here's a breakdown, hope it makes things clear, 1) I always work in legacy material, I like to have every aspect of the material under control rather than having things being automated in physical material, just a personal preference 2) Bump value in SSS, yes tried it on max, even tried setting SSS Amount to 0.8 so that I can leak a bit of bump, and then crank it up, but it just didn't look right 3) In my material, bump map was always in Bump slot, not Displacement. Reason why I keep it in Modifier is because of World size, as mentioned in video, World Size tends to be very heavy on the scene performance and RAM, so it's too risky to set World Size in render settings because every Displacement use from material will automatically be in World Size mode, and a lot of times I don't need World Size quality, also as said in the video, World size once ate 128gb of RAM :) Hope this clarifies things a bit more

[@sahaksahakyan2404]

@@RenderRam 1) well, I'm sorry, but there is no advantage of outdated legacy material, except to create some not physically correct materials... but I am ready to hear examples (at least one real one) where the legacy material has an advantage. and so very useful matelness mode and not metal, presets for materials and a clearcoat layer in the physical material. just a large number of advantages 2) 0.8 is not a small value for the SSS, you can lower it to 0.3-0.6 and increase the radius. but on the whole, I understood you. 3) you misunderstood me, I know perfectly well what the Corona Displacement Modifier is for and how it works. I will try to explain my thought more clearly. in corona renderer, you can add a Displacement map immediately to the desired material slot and then select the Get from material setting in the Corona Displacement Mod (for example, there is no such useful function in fstorm- Get from material, that's why I mentioned it). and in this mode, the modifier will take the map immediately from the material that is currently assigned to the geometry. for some reason I don't understand why you have selected the displacement map > custom map mode in the modifier settings. that is, the connection between the map and the material itself is lost.. if you change the material, then you will have to manually change the map in the modifier, which is somehow not very rational. that's what I wanted to say, I don't understand what the point of this approach is?

[@RenderRam]

@@sahaksahakyan2404 1) I get what you're saying, I get results that I'm happy with, we can argue all we want about what features are better and what not, but at the end of the day, I'm happy with my workflow, you're happy with yours :) 2) all good here 3) Oh that Get from material, yes that's an FStorm habit of mine, and I do agree that your way is more convenient. Guess I would need to rewire some workflows on my end :)

[@sahaksahakyan2404]

believe me, it's really interesting to find out if the old legacy material has any significant advantages at all? weighty advantage, because there are a lot of advantages of the physical material, in fact, but I really do not yet guess what advantages the old material has .. I'm really interested in hearing at least a couple of examples.​@@RenderRam