Poll

3 features you want the most:

PBR Style material (Disney, Unreal Engine, etc..)
95 (15%)
Refraction/Reflection working with masking render elements (CMasking_Mask,CTexmap, etc...)
43 (6.8%)
Render-time booleans (cut/slice objects)
36 (5.7%)
Dedicated CarPaint Shader
6 (0.9%)
GPU/Hybrid rendering
102 (16.1%)
Speed improvements
66 (10.4%)
Cryptomatte
27 (4.3%)
Geopattern
72 (11.3%)
Sketch/Toon shader
26 (4.1%)
Reworking tone mapping (DSLR-style tonemapping)
100 (15.7%)
Interactive rendering in 3ds max viewport (with gizmos, object selection, manipulation, ...)
17 (2.7%)
Adding own materials to Corona Material Library
45 (7.1%)

Total Members Voted: 249

Author Topic: The most wanted feature?  (Read 258144 times)

2020-03-02, 11:40:11
Reply #765

romullus

  • Global Moderator
  • Active Users
  • ****
  • Posts: 6533
  • Let's move this topic, shall we?
    • View Profile
    • My Models
@JViz, i'm pretty sure that there some misinterpretation took place. I don't think that Corona team would want to silence its users. Everyone is free to express their opinion and concerns and it would be nice if we could stay respectful to each other.
I'm not Corona Team member. Everything i say, is my personal opinion only.
My Models | My Videos | My Pictures

2020-03-02, 11:52:53
Reply #766

JViz

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 137
    • View Profile
    • Behance
@romullus sure respect is at the top of my list
Although a purist, my work is anything but.
https://www.behance.net/ImageInnate

2020-03-02, 12:23:48
Reply #767

agentdark45

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 532
    • View Profile
Changes on the roadmap are because we had a hackathon with chaosgroup guys and found several of their technologies useful - new cache that is more stable in animations, adaptive dome light sampling, and bloom&glare effect that is better looking, more customizable, and also significantly faster. The sky model is result of independent research.

The only downside is that we will probably not make the PBR material on time for v6 release. I am still not expecting the PBR material to cause any sort of revolution, Corona material is 90% there. I am worried that when we finally release it, people will still be disappointed, because it will not make their images magically better.

I will not address the ridiculous conspiracy vray theories. If there is somebody not burned out by dealing with entitled fanboys, please do it for me ;).

Ondra, re the PBR material update - will it include the new diffuse shading model? There were a couple of images posted in another thread showing Arnold's Lambertian shading implementation that looked light years better on rough/diffuse surfaces. Would be great if we could get some controls for sheen/coating and whatever controls the falloff effect on fabrics (via realism and not falloff fakes).

Also any word on improving bump mapping (similar to how you can achieve realistic super fine anistropy in Fstorm just through bump mapping and it's not view/zoom dependant). I don't know if this is linked to improving the material model or a general engine improvement.
Vray who?

2020-03-02, 12:35:54
Reply #768

Ondra

  • Administrator
  • Active Users
  • *****
  • Posts: 8912
  • Turning coffee to features since 2009
    • View Profile
We will investigate the diffuse models when doing the PBR, as well as other changes, this is why this feature is currently ranked as the most development-intensive one in our tracker. I cannot tell in advance how the end result will look like and what models it will use.
Rendering is magic.
Private scene uploader | How to get minidumps for crashed/frozen 3ds Max | Sorry for short replies, brief responses = more time to develop Corona ;)

2020-03-02, 12:46:56
Reply #769

JViz

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 137
    • View Profile
    • Behance
We will investigate the diffuse models when doing the PBR, as well as other changes, this is why this feature is currently ranked as the most development-intensive one in our tracker. I cannot tell in advance how the end result will look like and what models it will use.

agreed, it's very hard to do. a lot of research needs to be done. few in the industry have a good understanding of how this works or can be implemented. Andrey Kozlov implemented diffuse roughness very early to Fstorm, but he might be using a simplified recipe or something, or he's just the Einstein of render engines. cheers Ondra, you can do it too! *don't ban me :D :D
« Last Edit: 2020-03-02, 13:06:46 by JViz »
Although a purist, my work is anything but.
https://www.behance.net/ImageInnate

2020-03-02, 15:04:14
Reply #770

agentdark45

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 532
    • View Profile
We will investigate the diffuse models when doing the PBR, as well as other changes, this is why this feature is currently ranked as the most development-intensive one in our tracker. I cannot tell in advance how the end result will look like and what models it will use.

Awesome, thanks for the update!
Vray who?

2020-03-02, 15:38:24
Reply #771

lupaz

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 489
    • View Profile
Changes on the roadmap are because we had a hackathon with chaosgroup guys and found several of their technologies useful - new cache that is more stable in animations, adaptive dome light sampling, and bloom&glare effect that is better looking, more customizable, and also significantly faster. The sky model is result of independent research.

The only downside is that we will probably not make the PBR material on time for v6 release. I am still not expecting the PBR material to cause any sort of revolution, Corona material is 90% there. I am worried that when we finally release it, people will still be disappointed, because it will not make their images magically better.

I will not address the ridiculous conspiracy vray theories. If there is somebody not burned out by dealing with entitled fanboys, please do it for me ;).

In my opinion you're right. a PBR material would make things slightly easier to work with, for example, substance. But with the current material I can still do it. It takes a bit longer.
However, it is the standard and IMHO it has to be done sooner or later.

I really don't understand why a new cache map that is more stable in animations. As far as I know your user base does mostly still images. If I needed to do animations I'd use vray or a GPU based render engine. I wouldn't use Corona at all even with a new cache. Who knows. It may blow our minds off though.
EDIT: I just realized there's the C4D user base :)

Nice to see this!: "Comes with fog/aerial perspective" in the new sky model.
But aren't most of us using HDRI nowadays? Is the aerial perspective compatible with HDRI?

Thanks.


« Last Edit: 2020-03-02, 15:59:41 by lupaz »

2020-03-02, 15:57:07
Reply #772

TomG

  • Corona Team
  • Active Users
  • ****
  • Posts: 3091
    • View Profile
Just a quick note on conspiracy theories (I am not too burned out ;) ) - it was expected, and part of the reason for the merger, that one team would borrow code from the other. Why re-invent the wheel? When one team has done the research, read the white papers, done some feasibility checks and tests, written some code, optimized the code, got it production ready - why would the other team not take advantage of that? It may even mean that the work involved is "only" the outside part of getting that code hooked into the other engine (of course sometimes it's more involved than that, and sometimes even that is non-trivial - but, it still means skipping the research, reading, feasibility investigations, and so on, which is always a chunk of time saved).

So if there is something that is good, has been proven to work, and it can be integrated faster than normal, we will take advantage of that. This goes both ways, V-Ray features making their way into Corona, and Corona features making their way into V-Ray. In no situation does that mean the engines are combining, becoming one, one is being dropped for the other, and so on (after all, each team comes up with new and innovative solutions, often on their own - this happens BECAUSE there are two engines, even though in the end both engines may benefit).

2020-03-02, 17:19:15
Reply #773

bluebox

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 232
    • View Profile
look tough guy, a major feature got shot down, we want an explanation or we are storming area bs bs something. seriously though, it's a big feature what did you expect? and nothing out of the ordinary was said above.
two options:
a technical difficulty
OR
a business decision

very reasonable actually. don't blow things out of proportions. just don't be the censorship, it's vastly unpopular these days.

This.
Each time people start asking questions there ALWAYS comes someone who's not even part of the Corona team and advocates on their behalf like he knew exactly what and when the team was doing and reasoning behind teams decisions. Or suggests that you are being disgracefull to the team because you dare to ask questions about the product you pay for.

Questions asked to Corona team should be answered by Corona team members. Unfortunately many topics in feature request section (not only here) are left with no answer at all IMHO because it works like this:
A: "hey team, what about feature X, that would work like this and that"
B (user, not Corona member): "why dou you need this, I think that it is not necessery and you can always workaround this"
...
Same goes to even slightest critique of the development subjects.

I still remember the days when Ondra himself talked to people on the forums about new features and introduced them overnight.
I also understand that things are now way more complex and this is not doable anymore.
However recently in daily build section there was a discussion when dedicated people posted examples concerning some hints about research being done elswhere on the PBR shader, diffuse model, some papers on the subject etc. only to be removed by moderators as pointless discussion. Rly ? When people try and be helpfull in any way ?

And the initial roadmap is not being followed once again and top three features from the poll are not being developed.
What is the reason behind this topic then ? This supposed to be a major version with new features and yup, there are many. Just not those that majority of the people want aparently.
Development of V6 will take over 6 months, then standard period of 3mo code cleanup version and there you have it. 9/10mo development cycle that introduces none of the most wanted (according to the poll) features ? Quite possible.

Was really hoping for that new shader with lambertian controlls, sheen etc. as well as tone mapping rework. So disappointed again.



2020-03-02, 17:30:26
Reply #774

marchik

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 47
    • View Profile
Changes on the roadmap are because we had a hackathon with chaosgroup guys and found several of their technologies useful - new cache that is more stable in animations, adaptive dome light sampling, and bloom&glare effect that is better looking, more customizable, and also significantly faster. The sky model is result of independent research.

The only downside is that we will probably not make the PBR material on time for v6 release. I am still not expecting the PBR material to cause any sort of revolution, Corona material is 90% there. I am worried that when we finally release it, people will still be disappointed, because it will not make their images magically better.

I will not address the ridiculous conspiracy vray theories. If there is somebody not burned out by dealing with entitled fanboys, please do it for me ;).


There is no problem merging features from two different engines, I only worry about the fact that this merging comes at the expense of adding new most wanted features such as pbr shader, new tonemapping and geopattern support, projection mapping and parallax bump. maybe it’s worth a bit to increase the development cycle so that you do not suffer from such a shortage of time? I’ll be happy to wait a few months before the release of the new version of corona, if after that we will get another well-thought out feature as it was with caustics. I love corona render for doing everything in its own "corona-way" and I hope you will please us with new ideas, good luck in your difficult work!

2020-03-02, 17:32:58
Reply #775

TomG

  • Corona Team
  • Active Users
  • ****
  • Posts: 3091
    • View Profile
As a note on the roadmap, as the roadmap clearly says, it is not WHAT will happen, but what we are planning. And as with everything in life, plans change, and when that happens, we update the roadmap. This is why it's important to keep a watch on it, and not just glance at it when 5 comes out to see what 6 will have, as what 6 will have will change (e.g. we start development and find it will take longer than expected; we find something not on the roadmap that can be quickly integrated so we add it; and so on).

Just that I've seen some people basically complain that the roadmap changes, which is a misunderstanding on what the roadmap is.

2020-03-02, 17:48:11
Reply #776

Frood

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 1472
    • View Profile
    • Rakete GmbH
A: "hey team, what about feature X, that would work like this and that"
B (user, not Corona member): "why dou you need this, I think that it is not necessery and you can always workaround this"

If you don't like it that way, you can always submit a feature request using the helpdesk without public involvement. But if there would not be such, we would already have about 100 checkboxes scattered anywhere to suit every request made. Those requests often end in a "oh, I didn't know that, tnx" or "wow, already there" because "non Corona members" took their time to help and offer alternatives which work perfectly for them and thus maybe also for the requester. And keep in mind that 1. feedback and 2. discussion are valuable resources for development in general.


Good Luck


Never underestimate the power of a well placed level one spell.

2020-03-02, 17:50:09
Reply #777

maru

  • Corona Team
  • Active Users
  • ****
  • Posts: 9838
  • Marcin
    • View Profile
However recently in daily build section there was a discussion when dedicated people posted examples concerning some hints about research being done elswhere on the PBR shader, diffuse model, some papers on the subject etc. only to be removed by moderators as pointless discussion. Rly ? When people try and be helpfull in any way ?

The posts were not removed, just moved: https://corona-renderer.com/forum/index.php?topic=27739.0
This was because often in the "daily discussion" thread users are reporting issues they face, and that could easily get buried in the PBR discussion.
Feel free to discuss further, and suggest the things you would love to see implemented.

2020-03-02, 17:53:36
Reply #778

JViz

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 137
    • View Profile
    • Behance
As a note on the roadmap, as the roadmap clearly says, it is not WHAT will happen, but what we are planning. And as with everything in life, plans change, and when that happens, we update the roadmap. This is why it's important to keep a watch on it, and not just glance at it when 5 comes out to see what 6 will have, as what 6 will have will change (e.g. we start development and find it will take longer than expected; we find something not on the roadmap that can be quickly integrated so we add it; and so on).

Just that I've seen some people basically complain that the roadmap changes, which is a misunderstanding on what the roadmap is.

Are you a coder, your logic is too flawed for a coder.
(note to humanity, this is not an attack on his personality, I'm pointing out the flaws in his logic which is my OPINION)
Don't shoot yourself in the foot again, you just did twice don't make them thrice.
One: reading your argument about engines borrowing features from each other, (read it guys) they'll become, eventually, indistinguishable, ie become one. I know you'll say they develope separately, but so far we've seen features that set them apart... cancelled.

Two: are you redefining what a roadmap is? A roadmap is a plan, cool! You're not sticking to the plan. Is it fair to say you're not sticking to the plan?

Jeeez.
I didn't mean for my comments to hit so deep to the point the entire team comes after me, so I'm sorry, and I have full faith that you (vray team and corona team) will be able to outsmart the one Russian guy developing fstorm from the backseat of his car.
Although a purist, my work is anything but.
https://www.behance.net/ImageInnate

2020-03-02, 18:00:09
Reply #779

bluebox

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 232
    • View Profile
As a note on the roadmap, as the roadmap clearly says, it is not WHAT will happen, but what we are planning. And as with everything in life, plans change, and when that happens, we update the roadmap. This is why it's important to keep a watch on it, and not just glance at it when 5 comes out to see what 6 will have, as what 6 will have will change (e.g. we start development and find it will take longer than expected; we find something not on the roadmap that can be quickly integrated so we add it; and so on).

Just that I've seen some people basically complain that the roadmap changes, which is a misunderstanding on what the roadmap is.

To clarify. You guys added that statement pre V5 as far as I remember because we had the exact same discussion after slicer clipper was postponed for the second time (as of then).
Most of the people clearly perceive the roadmap differently than you guys do. And IMHO they are right.

A map by definition is a medium by which you can tell a road from A to B. You by definition make assumptions based on that.
If you're in point A in your business and you want to get to point B and you treat the engines roadmap as a map (or a road, for that particular example does not matter) that lets you guess that you will be able to reach point B in a certain amount of time. People make decisions that this road is the right one. Or search for alternatives. That often implies decisions like costly hardware upgrades (you can clearly go CPU way now, or GPU way).

If you change the map midway you let people to a dead end. That was our case with slicer/clipper that first appeared on the roadmap before V3 as far as I remember, was postponed two times, and hasn't been developed till today.
If you treat the roadmap the way you do, just name it as a "big bag of loose ideas that we might or might not develop as we see fit" and people will stop taking it serious.

But this on the other hand looks like there is no long term development strategy people can count on. If there is none and you decide from version to version - OK. But make it clear and obvious it is that way.

Same thing was discussed recently on Fstorm group. People wanted to know what will be developed next and they got no information. Just make it clear.
« Last Edit: 2020-03-02, 18:03:32 by bluebox »