Surface Normals Flipped Tweet

[kraken]

mailbox.blend

(3.05 MiB) Downloaded 201 times

Thanks Grimm.

It doesn't matter which file, they all do it.

Here's my latest project. I have to turn off "SMOOTH" on the material properties, but then it only renders as faceted. If you turn on "SMOOTH" it has screwed up normals and renders ugly. This is for any object. Even if you make it native in blender or import it from another source.

FYI - I exported the scene as an .orbx, imported it into the standalone, then imported the .obj mesh, then attached the "smooth" white material to the .obj. This "smooth" white material is the same on used on the .orbx model.
This is what I'm describing as the problem. The object mesh is somehow reordered via polygon, so that some are flipped and other are not. I think that the points are reordered in a way that still constructs a polygon, but are clockwise instead of counter-clockwise (or something like that). This is why they shade from light to dark when they should be solid. (Just spit balling, I really have no clue what is wrong).

Bad Textures

[grimm]

Hi kraken,

It's definitely a problem with your geometry. The walls have two planes that are connected with other polygons on the edges. This causes all sorts of problems for Octane to interpolate the surface normals. With 90 degree bends in the geometry it will cause that ugly shading. There are several ways to fix it. The easiest is to just select each object you are having a problem with and apply an edge split modifier. This separates any polygons that have a greater than 30 degree angle between them (so your 90 angles would be split). Now Octane doesn't interpolate over the sharp edges and ignores them.

Another fix would be to edit each object and select the edges. Then apply a bevel on them to add more geometry and lower the angle between the polys. Another fix would be to separate the faces of the walls and the edges into individual objects. Here is what I get when I applied the edge split modifier:

Jason

[kraken]

Wow! That's perfect. Why does it do it with any shape. Even if its made in blender. You make it sound like I'm creating my objects incorrectly. For instance if you make a cylinder in blender the problem occurs. So basically, no matter what geometry is introduced (or how) it has to be split so that octane will render it properly. And this is considered normal operation? I never had to do it with other programs. Looks like a script will have to be written as some of the models I work with have thousands of objects. That would suck to have to split all of them individually.

Thanks for figuring that out. Not sure if there is a better way Octane can automatically handle this, but at least there is a work around even though it adds time to the work flow.

[grimm]

It comes from the smoothing giving the impression of more geometry than there is, but it's not real geometry. For instance you can create a sphere in Blender and smooth it. Looks good until you zoom into an edge, then you can see the underlying geometry and see the hard edges and corners. The primitives you can create in Blender (sphere, cube, cylinder, etc.) are there for your convenience but it's just a starting point. If you create a cube and then smooth it, the smoothing interpolation will try and make it into a sphere. If your goal is to make a cube with rounded edges then you have to add more geometry to get it to work right, especially if you need to get really close to it.

Think of it this way, very few objects in real life have these artificial hard edges that are so easy to make in 3D packages. If you want your objects to look real you need real geometry to get them to that point. There are tradeoffs you can make. If the object you are making isn't going to be close to the camera then you can simplify the geometry and it will look good. Otherwise the more geometry you have the better it will look as a rule of thumb.

Octane does have the round edge function but it too is a fake, so it can only go so far with the geometry you give it.

[kraken]

Oh I understand the difference between virtual and real objects. I've been an traditional artist for 35 years. For the past 10 years I've been 3D modeling and rendering. What you are trying to tell me is that my models are built incorrectly. I argue that no other software I've used renders like this. It doesn't matter if I make the model or buy the model. If I use BI, Cycles, Octane SA, POVray, LuxRender, C4D, physical, non-physical, phong, or OpenGL I don't get these results. The fact that I have to go through these extra steps to condition my models to work with the Octane Plug-in tells me there is something wrong with the plug-in. You can blow it off and blame it on me or my lack of programming skills all day long. The fact remains- If I take the model (regardless of source) and render it in OctaneSA which renders as intended, verses Blender with Octane Plug-in and get crappy results then something is wrong with the plug-in.

I appreciate you figuring out why the problem occurs and how to fix it. However, I really think you need to re-examine your code and figure out why your plug-in does this - it is not acceptable. I have plug-in for Daz and it doesn't do this. The stand-alone doesn't do this. I bet no other plug-in does this. Maybe you can talk to one of those developers and ask them how and why their objects render correctly and yours do not. My guess its in the server code because no other plug-in has to use this intermediary app to work.

Thanks and good luck.
James