Alembic finally loads but dayum...PROBLEM RESOLVED

[LuvMultimedia]

Had some great help resolving this issue--thanks a million guys.

Scaling conversion issues would make the maps appear squashed or tiled or otherwise out of place along the "plane" of each surface. The issue you are seeing is the values affecting how deep the maps appear, which is, as bepeg suggested, pretty much always a value thing for the bump/normals. Try lowering them 0.1, maybe even lower. I've often found 0.05 to often be adequate, depending on the maps used.

So just to be clear guys--all I have to mess with are the bump maps? No UV or anything????

[sikotik13]

Scaling, UV mapping, and anything that strikes you as remotely similar is how the surface is divided by the materials applied on it. IF seams are apparent because the UV is misaligned, or there is shifting/compression/stretching of how the surface looks spread across the faces you are looking at, then it is a map/UV issue (these are interchangeable in many cases, but one or the other is true in these specific circumstances). How "deep/textured/reflective/insert-a-descriptive-variable-here" those surfaces appear (OTHER than how they are aligned on a surface), is an issue with the values pertaining to the strength of the particular parameter set on the images/maps being used. In this particular instance, the strength of your bump or normal map appears to be too high. Yes, that is it. It should only need minor adjusting from the baselines presented by bepeg and myself, and has nothing to do with the (currently nonexistent) issues you are for whatever reason associating with the problem that I think I have finally illustrated sufficiently are entirely unrelated to this situation.

[LuvMultimedia]

Scaling, UV mapping, and anything that strikes you as remotely similar is how the surface is divided by the materials applied on it. IF seams are apparent because the UV is misaligned, or there is shifting/compression/stretching of how the surface looks spread across the faces you are looking at, then it is a map/UV issue (these are interchangeable in many cases, but one or the other is true in these specific circumstances). How "deep/textured/reflective/insert-a-descriptive-variable-here" those surfaces appear (OTHER than how they are aligned on a surface), is an issue with the values pertaining to the strength of the particular parameter set on the images/maps being used. In this particular instance, the strength of your bump or normal map appears to be too high. Yes, that is it. It should only need minor adjusting from the baselines presented by bepeg and myself, and has nothing to do with the (currently nonexistent) issues you are for whatever reason associating with the problem that I think I have finally illustrated sufficiently are entirely unrelated to this situation.

Ah okay, just wanting to make sure I was getting it correct as translation can get lost in text ( I am mostly visual too--slightly dyslexic so sometimes too many steps in a process confuse me so I need deep clarifying). IN other words a picture often helps me more than words. It's something I struggle with to this day and no reflection on you fine gents. In other words...I am little slow at the upstart but once I get it, I get it...

[LuvMultimedia]

no worries about motion blur, it's easy to get rid of it
In the left side of the info bar in the render viewport there are the animation settings, basically the shatter interval control the strength of the motion blur effect:

Schermata 2015-10-19 alle 09.32.33.jpg

just set it to 0 for removing completely the effect:

Schermata 2015-10-19 alle 09.32.49.jpg

ciao beppe

How do I mark this as solved....?

[sikotik13]

No worries, I am often the same way, but didn't have access to my rendering station at the time, so figured I'd throw a bunch more words at it, covering as many angles as I could think of. Also mildly dyslexic, so I feel you there. I think you can change the thread title by editing the first post (never tried, so not positive), and if nothing else, you can edit the first post itself to reflect it's solved, even if you can't change the thread title itself.

[LuvMultimedia]

No worries, I am often the same way, but didn't have access to my rendering station at the time, so figured I'd throw a bunch more words at it, covering as many angles as I could think of. Also mildly dyslexic, so I feel you there. I think you can change the thread title by editing the first post (never tried, so not positive), and if nothing else, you can edit the first post itself to reflect it's solved, even if you can't change the thread title itself.

Kewlio, once again thanks guys...I am now off to try and tinker...I'll let yah know how it goes....LOL

[LuvMultimedia]

Scaling conversion issues would make the maps appear squashed or tiled or otherwise out of place along the "plane" of each surface. The issue you are seeing is the values affecting how deep the maps appear, which is, as bepeg suggested, pretty much always a value thing for the bump/normals. Try lowering them 0.1, maybe even lower. I've often found 0.05 to often be adequate, depending on the maps used.

So just to be clear guys--all I have to mess with are the bump maps? No UV or anything????

[LuvMultimedia]

Had awesome help to resolve the issue...now off to the show...


quote="LuvMultimedia"]

Scaling conversion issues would make the maps appear squashed or tiled or otherwise out of place along the "plane" of each surface. The issue you are seeing is the values affecting how deep the maps appear, which is, as bepeg suggested, pretty much always a value thing for the bump/normals. Try lowering them 0.1, maybe even lower. I've often found 0.05 to often be adequate, depending on the maps used.

So just to be clear guys--all I have to mess with are the bump maps? No UV or anything????[/quote]

[LuvMultimedia]

Hey guys -- still having the issue and I wonder if I am changing the values in the right area as the interface still confuses me -- I opened a new thingie...


viewtopic.php?f=44&t=50781&p=252793#p252793