/3/ - 3DCG

just use multi-scatter GGX. Are you stupid? Why make this thread?

>>906840
I wish I had enough autism to see such details you offline rendering VFX guys are able to. I'm focused on realtime game art so UE5 already looks pretty damn good to me and I can't see any issues with any path tracer, except for different ease of use. In Unreal you usually don't even bother with things such as specular and it is recommended to keep it as is.

>>906849
Unfortunately, that actually doesn't fix it.
- Only workarounds are what's in the video. Or use a different renderer. Or stick to diffuse or metallic BSDF.
>>906850
This is for achieving realistic renders using Cycles. Other render engines don't have this problem.

>>906840
I mean, it's not exactly a secret that Cycles isn't physically-correct. Take a look at the design goals in Blender's official documentation (https://wiki.blender.org/wiki/Source/Render/Cycles/DesignGoals):
>"We do not intend to make a physically correct render engine per se, but we do think that a physically based shading system is much easier to use."
Use something like LuxCore for realism instead. Cycles only uses PBR because it's easier to create materials compared to traditional means. Just because a renderer has PBR doesn't mean it's physically correct.

>>906853
it fixes it. Whats your problem, guy?

>Essentially, the improvement is that unlike classical GGX, which only models single scattering and sets the contribution of multiple bounces to zero, this new model performs a random walk on the microsurface until the ray leaves it again, which ensures perfect energy conservation. In practice, this means that the "darkening problem" - GGX materials becoming darker with increasing roughness - is solved in a physically correct and efficient way.

>>906859
I've been fighting with Cycles for over two years. I'll actually give another renderer a go. Installing Lux Core now. Thanks for the tip.
>>906861
If you go through the stuff I posted, you'd see others have already tested that. It doesn't actually resolve these issues. I'm done with cycles for now.
- But for anons using Cycles the info in OP could help them. This isn't very known.

>>906864
enabling multiscatter ggx can drastically change the look of your render. Are you calling Brecht a liar?

Principled v2 just dropped. Life is sometimes weird with synchronicities like this.
I think it looks fixed now, but I need to do some more tests...

>>906865
Yes, but it seems he agreed with me about himself and now fixed this after all these years ;) No more stupid specular slider.

report any bug here
https://devtalk.blender.org/t/principled-v2-feedback-discussion-thread/24997/3

>>906866

>>906869
I also have the SSS bug already reported there. Model turns black when scaling.

>>906873
jesus.

sounds unusable

>>906873
So are you saying we should use https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgORQ5tMe2I for now?

>>906874
Subsurface scattering is broken in this build.
But the issues I complained about in the OP have been fixed. And I'm now wondering if normal maps look better also. Everything looks so "crisp"
But might just be the lack of Subsurface scattering *<:o)

>>906877
I guess so lol

As a blender user I haven't used principled in literal years, messes up my shades and it's really constrained.

>>906882
what do you use, senpai. Dont say luxcore, because i will hide you

>>906883
I use literally any other actual shader, principled isn't a rendering engine?

LuxCore is a real renderer, problem is that it's only good use is for rendering blank modern rooms and people only use it because "oh look this isn't cycles"

>>906885
Were you not using multiscatter ggx, anon? Fess up.

>>906887
Stop telling me how to do things the shit way. I combine shaders and use math like it's actually supposed to be used, not just slap a single big shader on it, it's not because of how it looks.

>>906888
heres something for you to chew on : you can make front row, rank #1 of artstation and blender artists with the "old" principled, v1. Have you done this? No? Why you talk so much shit?

>>906885
LuxCore is arguably more "correct" than Cycles, but aside from a few small lighting effects (reflective caustics and thin film iridescence for example), they're practically the same. Unless you decide to render the same scene in both Cycles and LuxCore and compare the results, you likely won't notice a difference.

>>906890
I'd still use cycles
The one major thing lux has that's above cycles is that it actually has a coherent UI without all the hidden random tab shit that cycles has

>>906889
wtf are you on about?

>>906892
Fair point. Lux is definitely more straightforward.

i'm going to go ahead and assume most of you don't have more than a single gpu, in which case, why aren't you using octane?

>>906910
Im invested in cycles, from a time spent learning standpoint and a money standpoint

>>906853
>This is for achieving realistic renders using Cycles. Other render engines don't have this problem.
I never noticed such things he mentioned in the video, but does Unreal really do it better than Cycles in this case?

>>906915
Octane for a single GPU is free though.

>>906840
This is telling me to ignore blender+cycles and just stick to good ol Maya+Arnold.

>>906918
how? do you mean just the trial?

>>906918
Octane looks like sterile trash though. It's got a fucking LOOK to it. I used to think it looked good, but now I think it looks awful.

>>906929
No, it’s literally free, has been for years. Why don’t you check their website or google blender octane render?

I tried the white furnace test in LuxCore and the disney material does the same thing, although it's only noticeable at roughness values near the extremes.
The effect is still there with Bidir but it's way more subtle.

>>907005
Bidir for reference

>>906993
its free as in beer, not as in freedom, anon. If I can't view the source code, I'm not going to be using it.

I watched the video linked by OP (https://youtu.be/kgORQ5tMe2I)), and at around 16:25, he talks about clearcoat mixing being a broken mess in the OG principled shader. Is clearcoat also fixed in the new principled v2 shader?

AAAANNNNDDD!!!!! This is why we say, Don't use Blender!

Just kek

>>906840
holy shit finally someone noticed something was off about cycles. i've done hundreds of hours of research and i have my own folder of tests - it's much more than you mention but it's a start (stuff like micro roughness is also missing and much, much more). in the end, i just fucked off to octane render because cycles is god fucking awful. yeah, if i want it fast, i'll do it in cycles but final renders are now always in octane. it's like the same gimps who say everything needs scratches for added realism (even though im doing a fucking studio product rendering) so yes, I would say you're a based and autistic default cube user.

>>907096
why are you so aggressive while stating that you use a paid product while we can collectively farm our renders much much faster than you with sheep it?

>>906948
2a42g
Then WTF is the "good" renderer then?

>>907097
because if there is one thing in 3d that lives rent-free in my head, it's blender users and their undying love that it can do no wrong. i've been trying to explain to people for close to 3 years there is something off with cycles from BA forums to reddit to YT and each time i'm "corrected" by some beeple clone.

i mentioned i pay to use octane because the look that comes out is 1. (actually) physically accurate 2. far greater feature set (displacement is worth it alone) 3. better default renders but with tweaks, they are on par with the industry if you actually have a trained eye.

i also mentioned that if i want it quick and dirty, i will use cycles but all final images will be done in octane because it is superior. instead most blender users have their tongue so far up tons socialist ass they can't see it's dependence on corporate donations fuelled by capitalism. i could angrily rant about blender for hours so i'll save you the time and say yes, i'm angry, yes i hate blender but it's free and i use it to model product shots for a living and thats about it.

>>907173
Most Blender users unironically think PBR = physically correct. That's why you might have come across one who got defensive after being told Cycles isn't accurate to real-world shading.

>>907173
>i mentioned i pay to use octane because the look that comes out is 1. (actually) physically accurate 2. far greater feature set (displacement is worth it alone) 3. better default renders but with tweaks, they are on par with the industry if you actually have a trained eye.
this will be the final take :

look at any of the open movies by BF. They all hold up. Individual renders dont sell product, a good story and animations do. You could say that the new film "Lightyear" for example, using all the latest and greatest rendering tricks should be an instant mega hit, but it was not. It flopped. People dont care if something is pbr or realistic or not. They want a good story. They want cool. Cycles is great with sheep it and newer features like light groups. If you cant realize this, you have your head in the sand. Principled v2 is great, simple as.

>>907177
while i agree that's a reason, 95% of blender users are uninformed and the stuff they are informed about comes from a bad feedback loop of youtubers who have never been in the industry. post a pic on reddit of a commerial product shot and the first 5 comments will be "nice but needs more scratches and dirt to look realistic" - you know how I know that? I did it.

>>907180
why are you bringing up sheep it all the time? do you lack reading comprehension? i never even claimed half the shit you are rambling on about. my point was that people are so invested in blender that every feature set is revolutionary but quite literally, 99% of the shit coming out is either garbage beeple eevee tier or box cutter hops robotic thingy with awful topology. the whole point of the movies is to showcase FEATURES being worked on AND that it can be used in a production environment but its extremely limited use case scenarios. it simply doesn't hold up in actual commercial rendering (we've needed better displacement, shaders and glass/caustics for ages). there is a reason v-ray and now redshift are used in major blockbusters and why maya is still the animators choice and zbrush for sculpting. i'm a blender user to save money which i use on octane and it's still cheaper than my old C4D licence but C4D is by far the better package in terms of feature set. if your trained eye doesn't notice any different between octane/cycles then you got to stop watching blenderguru bro.

>>907194
i dont watch blenderguru. I watch open movies. They hold up. Sprite fright, agent 47, tears. They hold up. Again, things using the latest tech like i mentioned, Lightyear, people didnt care for. Your bullet point features dont matter, interesting stories do.

>>907195
stories. stories. stories. what is it with you people that always talk about story? story literally doesn't matter. if you had half a brain to critically inspect the driving force behind early pixar and the blender short movies you would know that emotion is the most important thing. this is why you will never be in the industry.

>>907207
ive been in and out of the industry for years. You keep defending the latest rendering features and ill keep proving to you that the audience just simply does not care

>>907209
okay you clearly lack reading comprehension and probably why you are in and out of the ever-revolving door of the industry because you are the first to be gotten rid of each time a project finishes. not once did i talk about the latest rendering features - when BASIC features are broken and have been broken for multiple years like the shader mentioned in this post and instead they are tied up in development hell with the LATEST features of geo nodes (literally nobody in a professional setting will use this lol) but im done talking to you - go share your stories in the metaverse you rtard.

>>907210
No basic features were broken. The irony is that you are telling me that _I_ lack reading comprehension while cycles was always PBR aka _based_ in physical rendering. Go away now.