I’m not sure exactly what you guys are trying to do, but if its to get shadows to show on the other side of an object try turning up the translucency…
Not really… The point is to make an object that has that translucent effect but being opaque. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you need alpha to make the translucency work.
You dont need alpha. So, it can be opaque and the shadows still show on the other side. Adding SSS to this helps it even more.
Here’s an example without SSS. Just translucency turned up to .6:
Here’s one with SSS. A bloom effect added the glow for both images, but you can see its brighter with the SSS. Glows more from behind:
MPPIC,
That looks great. I can’t wait to read more about it.
/ Mats
Crititrozoz: Yes, that’s the effect I was looking for. I just can’t make it work on things other than planes. Try it with a thin box and shows us if you get any good results. 
You are absolutely right Crititrozoz, if it’s only about getting the shadow to show on the other side “TrsLu” even without transparency will perfectly do the job.
Thank you for your comment, it made me re-inspect what I was doing which gave me some new ideas and confirmed that there really are problems with using only translucency for what I want to do - it happens from time to time that I get so carried away in solving a problem that I forget to double-check if it actually exists 
Like Spockless said, the problem basically is this:
-
With alpha = 1, translucency only works on faces, not objects that have “depth” or volume, and the shadow does not propagate to other objects.
-
setting alpha < 1 fixes this, but obviousely means the objects are not opaque any more…
This is an example of how far ‘simple’ materials will go:
It’s almost what I want:
- Textures contribute to the shadows
- no baking/UV mapping, so everything is animateable
- solid objects cast black shadows
- translucent objects show shadows on the bottom
- shadows propagate to other objects and add up
But: The alpha of the translucent objects’ material has to be < 1, so a background destroys the opaque look (even with ztrans and raytrans disabled!):
Basically I’m trying to work around this by using transparent copies of the translucent objects and then composite this layer’s shadow pass on the original (opaque) one. This is what you can see in the examples in my other posts. If anyone has a less complicated idea please share!
@Mats Halldin & The Storm: Thanx! I have little time right now but I’ll try to finish my experiments over the weekend and post a detailed description 
If I don’t find the time I’ll at least post the .blend, promise!
Hi all,
I figured these experiments are rather off-topic and really belong into “Blender Tests”, so now you can find my results so far (including .blend) in this thread.
Back on topic: The Storm, that rose looks sweet! Wanted to say that right away but got lost in noodles and render layers :o.
Happy holidays everybody!
Björn
PS: “MPPIC” is something from a story me and my brothers made up when we were kids. It has lost any meaning a long time ago - except that it’s been my pseudonym ever since
So, this is about what I came up with. My dad commented that it looked ‘papery’, but I don’t know exactly what he meant by that.
Not so sure what to change with it. I think it looks nice enough to be titled as DONE
It was supposed to be a present for my mom, but she actually wanted me to make some wine bottle designs. sigh. But I did lean a lot from this rose that helped in the wine bottle labels.
Attached are two presents I did give away. They are from my sister and brother-in-law’s favorite game Portal (I love Portal too. It totally rocks). I rendered them in Indigo since I was last using Indigo when it was…0.5 or so. Indigo is much better now with 0.9 and they turned out decent after 10+ hours.
MPPIC: My sister has a similar acronym name that has now lost most of its meaning. TAOSAP or The Adventures Of Sigma And Phi
