The proposed models involve a normal ball, a cloth object, and a fluid object. This will definitely be useful for cases where you don’t want to try a preview render of a highly detailed scene to get a good handle on one shader.
early this week i was shading on maya and i discovered a variety of mesh to try our material on and i was wondering why we dont have the same for blender, and here we go
To be sincere, they don’t look good at all.
The test objects are nothing special, the cloth is a piece of rigid plastic, which doesn’t help to visualize a realistic result, the spash one could be more extended, with more parts backlighted, and more differentiated thicknesses.
But what is ugly IMHO are the environment and the lighting, the former is too dark and devoid of something to reflect, the latter is too harsh with black shadows, very far from an average working scene where materials have to be used.
Moreover the point of view is too high, it doesn’t allow to see reflections and diffuse light from the floor.
A new zusanne would be awesome.
The plastic look of cloth preview comes from an inappropriate material. What you have to look at is the geometry shape. We are producing bent, folded cloths. And the preview mesh correspond to that.
Maybe it is too thick. It would be great to have a variation of width corresponding to a little bit of stretch.
They did not make great materials but the mesh looks like a piece of cloth.
The liquid does not look a big splash but like a viscous one. But IMO, it is great. A big splash would correspond to a lot of transmission bounces and would require time. That is a preview scene.
You are not supposed to wait one day to see black pixels becoming clear and clear ones becoming reflecting surface details.
I can understand why clément is in favor of a simpler one.
Maybe that is not the most elegant choice to put darker shadows at center of preview.
But at least, there is a variety of penombra intensities.
I agree. Most of previews could have their margin reduced to obtain a render closer to mesh like Cube preview. Even though it is supposed to be used to preview displacement, shapes are rounded or oriented in a way that would make it visible.
It looks like William also agrees in the comments.
I disagree with Clément. IMO, a preview for cloth is a good idea. A ball is not really ideal to notice sheen variations or velvet shader effect.
Clothes usually have a certain amount of both transparency and SSS, to efficacely judge them a more draped, less rigid cloth would help, along with a backlight.
you’ll never get those black shadows in renderings, unless the scene is on the Moon; reflections are absent and on setting up glossy materials they are necessary.
Remember how people used bang on about how Blender had such a small download size and could do so many amazing things let’s keep going this way and they won’t say that for long.
Those material preview where many MB big if I remember correctly even compressed I doubt the will be small and who needs such fancy material previews when we have viewport rendering.
As was pointed out in the original discussion, that shaderball just does t have enough surface variation to get a full reading of material properties.
On the development thread they just determined that they were going to retopologize and use more Subdivision; that should make the files somewhat smaller.