paride4331 wrote:Hi paulforgy,
this test is obvious, you said they have the same size, so what is your test? Power is in watts but adjusted to the surface, if surface brightness is on.
Scale issue are if you think working with system unit instead of another or when system unit is not considered.
This happens importing assets, with materials (transmission, medium, displacement ...), with camera values (DOF ...), post processing.
using unbiased render engines, unit of measurement is not very important and many users who have experience with them, have render artifacts with biased render engines.
Regards
Paride
The test is that system units aren't a factor in terms of lighting and geometry. Doesn't matter if they're set to millimeters or miles. You were suggesting in other posts, that Octane only worked correctly when the Max system units was set to meters. You said: "Octane Render works in meters, then system unit scale 1 unit = 1 meters..." This is wrong. If Octane didn't correctly interpret system units, there would be a clear difference in light falloff in the renders I provided. There isn't. This is because the power setting of the light didn't change, and neither did the size. What did change was system units. If Octane only worked with system units set to meters, there would be a huge difference as there are almost 40 inches per meter. Since light falls off with the square of the distance, the visual difference would be enormous--much larger than 40:1.
If there are settings in the Octane camera, materials, or kernel settings, for example depth of field or density, that are dimensional, and the Octane plugin isn't correctly interpreting the values from Max, that's an issue with the Octane plugin--an oversight. Max provides everything needed internally for developers to correctly deal with both system and display units of any variety.
Having objects and scenes built to scale and the correct size is important, but you can do that in any system unit setting, not just meters.