31 Replies Latest reply on Apr 17, 2016 12:27 PM by Steve Erickson

    Transparency toggle switch?

    Steve Erickson

      I gave Visualize a try on a project last week and found the following curious behavior when attempting to create a slightly transparent material.

       

      This first rendering is set to:

      Appearance Type: Plastic

      Color: Black

      Highlight Color: White

      Transparency Color: R:11, G:11, B:11

      Diffusion Color: Black

      Solid: Unchecked

      Visualize Test 1.png

      This second rendering has the exact same settings with the exception of:

      Transparency Color: R:12, G:12, B:12

      Visualize Test 2.png

      I can assure you I'm no amateur when it comes to rendering. I can't recall ever running into toggle switch like behavior like this with any of the many rendering applications I've worked with in the past. I've tried all the logical materials and many settings, to no avail. It seems highlight color is tied to transparency. Why is this? Can you please explain this behavior and lend insight on how to create a slightly transparent material. Also, are there tutorials available for Visualize? If so, where? If not, will they be available in the future? When?

       

      Thank you for any insight you may pass on.

        • Re: Transparency toggle switch?
          Shaodun Lin

          You are right. It should be a BUG.

          Solid : Unchecked , Upper material : RGB=11,11,11, Lower material: RGB=12,12,12

          1.png

          Solid : Checked, Upper material : RGB=11,11,11, Lower material: RGB=12,12,12

          Note: Rendering become much slower when Solid is checked.

          2016-02-16_15-12-03.png

          2.png

           

          Please report this issue to your VAR.

            • Re: Transparency toggle switch?
              Steve Erickson

              The same settings as the second rendering with Solid checked. Color Density has no effect. Changing the Transparency Color to 100% black also has little, if any, effect with Solid checked. Making the Highlight Color darker will darken the material, but the white highlights are lost so neither setting or setting combination will result in a correct slightly transparent material. Highlight Color should not effect the amount of transparency, but it certainly does. It's as if Highlight Color and Transparency Color have gotten their wires crossed... they're interconnect, backwards, or have the same function somehow.

               

              Visualize Test 3.png

                • Re: Transparency toggle switch?
                  Shaodun Lin

                  By all means, change RGB by one digit should not dramatically change the appearance so much.

                  • Re: Transparency toggle switch?
                    Brian Hillner

                    Hi Steve & Shaodun,

                     

                    Thank you for your help here finding this issue. We have escalated this to our R&D team and are looking into possible solutions.

                      • Re: Transparency toggle switch?
                        Steve Erickson

                        Brian,

                         

                        That's good news, but I find it disappointing that such a fundamental flaw is left up to your customers to discover. I lost a day's work finding this flaw for your team. Being new to Visualize, I thought I must be doing something wrong, not believing that a such seasoned rendering package could possibly be at fault. I explored many options and work arounds, to no avail. I was obviously wrong in my assessment. A thank you doesn't compensate me for doing your team's job for them. I haven't used Visualize since finding this flaw for fear of losing another day's work and I don't plan on using it again until I'm assured that all the bugs are worked out. Disappointing... I was excited about the alternative to PV360. If DS put as much money and effort into developing their software as they do marketing it, it would be flawless. You've made a poor first impression. Venting complete.

                         

                        I noticed that units are in meters and that geometry can be "Autosized" on import. Does this mean that millimeters are converted to meters? And what are the units if Autosize is deselected? It would be preferable to be assured that the source files units are maintained... or at least have some idea of how your model has been scaled.

                         

                        Also, the Visualize appearance thumbnails should have a checkered background to gauge transparency. Come on guys... this is rendering software 101. I can't recall the last rendering package that didn't at least offer a checker option for the thumbnails.

                          • Re: Transparency toggle switch?
                            David Randle

                            Good vent, i hope that felt as good as it sounded. Every now and then, users identify a specific workflow limitation or quirk that has somehow evaded common usecases. I don't think the team ever expects you to be performing a QA role. It turns out, there is a rather interesting and compound explanation for your discovery:

                             

                            "This has to do with pre-gamma correction of our parameters. The values we expose in the UI are post-gamma correction; this way the colors you pick are the colors you see in the presence of neutral light. This means that we need to correct the values before we give them to the renderer, by raising them to the 2.2 power. In this case: (12/256)^2.2 = .00119, and (11/256)^2.2 = .000983. Notice the extra zero there. The threshold we use to turn off effects (and effectively change shader types) is .001. 12->11 crosses this threshold so the effect turns off.

                             

                            Clearly the threshold should be lower and that is the fix that has been applied.

                             

                            For reference in the past we did not pre-gamma correct. This meant the threshold was at .1% light intensity; usually negligible. Now with pre-gamma it is effectively at about 4.3%, which is much more visible.

                             

                            Color density of course has effect; but if the color density value is much higher than the thickness of the part which the material is assigned to, the effect will be tiny. It’s a value of real-world-units and there is no reasonable way to set good defaults or make the slider ranges meaningful for all geometries. Also, rendering performance is affected with solid checked due to the introduction of refraction, caustics (if enabled) and more light bounces required fully converge.

                             

                            As a note, the test material is set to IoR 3 which is very high. (Look here for real world IoR values: List of refractive indices - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) This will make any solid transparent object very reflective, and as a consequence, less transmissive. This could be contributing to some confusion as well. Also at that high an IOR you will get many more internal reflections; this makes the rendering slower and makes the material appear less transparent / darker, among other things.

                             

                            Highlight Color should not effect the amount of transparency, but it certainly does. It's as if Highlight Color and Transparency Color have gotten their wires crossed... they're interconnect, backwards, or have the same function somehow.”

                             

                            The shader does in fact appear to have the transparency and reflectivity tied together. We imagine this has to do with balancing between the different bsdfs which requires the transmission and reflection to be considered in the same bsdf, therefore their weights are summed, instead of being able to be treated independently. We are working with the rendering team to understand what options are available here, ofcourse to always favor physical correctness, and when we have a better understanding, we can move forward with a solution."

                             

                            As for AutoSize: The technique is always relative to the units maintained during import. It's not like units are translated or changed when selecting to AutoSize your model. Autosize applies a power of 10 scale factor to your geometry until its bounding box fits within a pre-determined size. The defaults are no smaller then 2.5 Meters and no bigger than 25 Meters. These defaults can be changed in Tools > Options > Import > Auto-Size Options. For example, if your model is microscopic and you choose to autosize, it will apply 10x scale as many times as necessary until the model fits within the > 2.5 < 25 M bounding box. We only recommend using AutoSize when you have one model and your scene doesn't require any dependency on context. The net effect is that the relationship between your model and the camera changes to make it easier to navigate and focus on your product within the AutoSize bounding box vs. if it were tiny or huge.

                             

                            And finally....your thumbnail background suggestion...We tried that a long time ago for the same reasons you suggest and the feedback received was negative. Claims were that it was too complex to look at and in the end, didn't represent the behavior of the material once applied to the actual part. I'll let PM determine if this is something to re-consider for the future but it was decided to be the way it is for good reason.

                              • Re: Transparency toggle switch?
                                Steve Erickson

                                David,

                                 

                                First off, thanks for your response.

                                 

                                The abrupt transparency slider switch off point is only partially the issue. More importantly, the progression of the transparency and its relation to highlight value is the issue. If the highlight is set to 100% white, transparency is basically fully opaque or fully transparent instead of having a natural progression between the two. I've tested this with Visualize primitives and with various stock materials with identical results so I'm assuming it has nothing to do with the thickness of the model or my tinkering. No testing I've done has resulted in different behavior than what I've demonstrated. Again, this has something to do with the Highlight Color value affecting transparency... when it shouldn't. A materials transparency has nothing to do the highlight value... they're independent of one another, at least in the real world. Intuitively, in a rendering application UI, there should be no connection between the two settings. The way Visualize works now transparency is basically either fully opaque or fully transparent and you must adjust the highlight value to adjust the material's opacity. This means that you can't create an appearance that is substantially opaque yet has a 100% white highlight. Surely I don't need to name real world materials that essentially have these characteristics... they are not uncommon. If you know how to make such an appearance, I'm all ears.

                                 

                                "The shader does in fact appear to have the transparency and reflectivity tied together. We imagine this has to do with balancing between the different bsdfs which requires the transmission and reflection to be considered in the same bsdf, therefore their weights are summed, instead of being able to be treated independently. We are working with the rendering team to understand what options are available here, of course to always favor physical correctness, and when we have a better understanding, we can move forward with a solution."

                                Yes... actually, depending on the material type, creating a transparent material seems to require a blend of various values regardless of the transparency value. For instance, using the Generic material type, with transparency set to a low value... diffuse, specular, and diffusion all affect transparency... and the toggle switch effect comes into play at various values. The materials transparency is a blend of all values. Again, the transparency value is the only setting that should alter a material's transparency. In my opinion, physical correctness... aside from the ways rays work, only applies to a material designed to reproduce a specific real world material. The reality is that the controls are often used to reproduce what is seen... or to get a specific look. I understand that transparent materials are complex, but you shouldn't need a degree in optics to control a material as desired. Physical correctness should not hamper the ability to tune a material as desired and the controls should work in a intuitive predictable logical manner... having to blend seemingly unrelated values to achieve desired results is anything but that. Beyond that, the controls don't seem to adhere to physical correctness anyway. It's my hope that you can find a solution. When's the next update due to be released?

                                 

                                "the test material is set to IoR 3 which is very high... makes the material appear less transparent / darker, among other things."

                                Yes, that was my work around attempting to make the material less transparent/darker while maintaining a lighter highlight value.

                                 

                                "the > 2.5 < 25 M bounding box"

                                The project I was working on was an earphone... <20mm. This scale is not uncommon in product design... not all products are cars. This is why I brought up the subject. Thoughts?

                                 

                                Checkers... Who am I to argue with the majority. I suppose I can live without the option.

                              • Re: Transparency toggle switch?
                                Chris Clouser

                                Steve Erickson wrote:

                                 

                                Brian,

                                 

                                That's good news, but I find it disappointing that such a fundamental flaw is left up to your customers to discover. I lost a day's work finding this flaw for your team. Being new to Visualize, I thought I must be doing something wrong, not believing that a such seasoned rendering package could possibly be at fault. I explored many options and work arounds, to no avail. I was obviously wrong in my assessment. A thank you doesn't compensate me for doing your team's job for them. I haven't used Visualize since finding this flaw for fear of losing another day's work and I don't plan on using it again until I'm assured that all the bugs are worked out. Disappointing... I was excited about the alternative to PV360. If DS put as much money and effort into developing their software as they do marketing it, it would be flawless. You've made a poor first impression. Venting complete.

                                 

                                I noticed that units are in meters and that geometry can be "Autosized" on import. Does this mean that millimeters are converted to meters? And what are the units if Autosize is deselected? It would be preferable to be assured that the source files units are maintained... or at least have some idea of how your model has been scaled.

                                 

                                Also, the Visualize appearance thumbnails should have a checkered background to gauge transparency. Come on guys... this is rendering software 101. I can't recall the last rendering package that didn't at least offer a checker option for the thumbnails.

                                Steve,

                                 

                                For the past 16 years I have felt exactly as you have for several weeks to a month or two each year, whenever we update.  Some years I might just have a few days of growing pains if the release is pretty solid.  This last release to 2016 has taken a couple of months to weed through the problems.

                                 

                                The amount of time and money that myself and my various employees has spent doing SWX's R&D is staggering.  I would guess it's over $100k and climbing as we speak.

                                 

                                You are correct.  WE as the customers are doing a huge amount of SWX's R&D, in an uncompensated capacity.

                                 

                                You should really be glad you a "thanks".  I've never even got that, despite MAJOR contributions to the software in enhancement requests, bug reports, etc.

                                 

                                I've suggested time and time again, and I will continue to plant the seeds, that SWX needs to create a program to reward their customers who are positively contributing to their development process.

                                 

                                I think every bug report needs to have a monetary credit towards maintenance costs.  That's only fair.  I think SWX should credit users with a $250 credit for each bug they report (that is approved bugs that need to be fixed).

                                 

                                I think in some cases, bigger bugs should get even more money.  If the bug is huge and effects all users in a negative way, a $5000 reward is not out of line.

                                 

                                What will this do?

                                 

                                -This will first allow those of us that are pissed off for being enslaved to Dassault as non-indentured servants to be properly compensated for our efforts.

                                 

                                -It will encourage many users who would rather not get involved to join in the process.  Many of my employees won't bother reporting bugs.  They will just motor on by finding a work-around whenever possible.  This is not good for the community! 

                                 

                                -Also it will increase the urgency to develop a strong and successful Beta program, which is now flailing miserably, so that SWX can avoid as many of these embarrassing situations that you've just pointed out as possible.

                                 

                                Next, enhancement requests need to be compensated.  Depending on the magnitude of the request, there could be a scale for the compensation.  The enhancement requests are a large part of the creative side of the product development team.  These enhancements account for a lot of the features that will hopefully distinguish SWX from it's competitors or at least help them to keep in the game.

                                 

                                To take labor from an individual and not compensate that individual, well I'm not sure what you call it, but in California it's illegal.

                                  • Re: Transparency toggle switch?
                                    Chris Clouser

                                    As an addendum, in California, our labor laws are so strict that they are trying to make it illegal for you to visit a Vineyard and help process the grapes "for fun", as this might put an unfair business advantage against other Vineyards, or some crap like that.

                                     

                                    So, by leveraging free labor as was explained above, may get legally sticky down the road.

                                    • Re: Transparency toggle switch?
                                      Brian Hillner

                                      Hi Chris,

                                       

                                      All these are great ideas and myself, as an avid digital artist and photographer, see much value in a compensation plan for active users.

                                       

                                      I will make some suggestions, and maybe we can see some program like this in the future.

                                        • Re: Transparency toggle switch?
                                          Chris Clouser

                                          Thanks Brian.  I believe something like this could really patch up some of the relationships and trust with some of the users, hopefully pull in some less involved users, and hopefully make a huge improvement in the overall SWX experience by improving the refinement of the software.

                                           

                                          I was thinking about it more and I'm not sure how many bugs the program has after each release, but if there's 1,000 that's pretty bad.  Judging from the SPR lists I've looked at in the past, it's in the "hundreds".  So that being said, if you said there were less than 1000, at $250/bug, that's under $250K budget in incentives for finding bugs.  That's far less than the burdened cost of two engineers!  And think about how many engineers SWX would need to hire to find all the bugs that are missed.

                                           

                                          Next, I was thinking that Beta-level bugs could be like $100.  That's because I'm guessing it's easier to find beta bugs.

                                           

                                          Ask yourself, how many more people would participate in Beta if they might be able to make a few hundred bucks for their time!?

                                           

                                          In the Beta program, I think there could be a points reward system for reporting bugs.  Any reasonable bug reported gets some points.  Any bug confirmed by SWX would get a $$ reward, but for the "ambiguous" or not really a bug reports, the points would go towards a variety of SWX goodies like shirts, 3D mouse, or other SWAG.  Then the involved people at least get a little love even if their bug isn't on the fix list.

                              • Re: Transparency toggle switch?
                                Ron Bates

                                As this thread certainly seems to be diverging a bit off topic, let me try to offer some advice to the original issue at hand.

                                 

                                Right or wrong, heads or tails, can you use refraction roughness (or what Visualize calls "Internal Roughnes") as a way to get the results you want?

                                 

                                In the real world, I think of transparent materials as always starting out life as 100% transparent.  They only begin to look less transparent (ie "cloudy") as light gets diffused, or spread around, and it bounces around INSIDE of them.

                                 

                                Here I've made my specular (reflection) color red, so they stand out... and they are not blurred (Roughness value set to 0) so you can see they remain crisp reflections on the outer surface.  The only value changing is the Internal Roughness. 

                                 

                                Internal Roughness 0.0

                                Tester1 2.jpg

                                 

                                Internal Roughness 5.0

                                Tester1 6.jpg

                                 

                                Internal Roughness 15.0

                                Tester1 5.jpg

                                  • Re: Transparency toggle switch?
                                    Steve Erickson

                                    Ron,

                                     

                                    Thanks for the input, but that's not really what I had in mind. Internal roughness doesn't affect the opacity other than to scatter the rays. I'm looking for clarity with just a bit of transparency. Think very dark tinted window or dark champagne bottle. Also, adding internal roughness hits rendering time pretty hard. I test rendered a sphere with internal roughness set at: 0% - 2:54 min, 20% - 3:36 min, and 100% - 5:02 min. That's for one sphere with 500 passes and a floor similar to yours at 1920 x 1080... imagine how long a few complex parts would take to render.

                                      • Re: Transparency toggle switch?
                                        Ron Bates

                                        Ah.  Gotcha.  Yeah I realize what refraction roughness does to render times.  But if it's the "cloudy" look you need...  This kills render times on every renderer I've ever used...

                                         

                                        So you're thinking more along the lines of the current PV "thick gloss" glass materials?  Is that right?  ie:

                                        PVThickGlass.jpg

                                          • Re: Transparency toggle switch?
                                            Steve Erickson

                                            Yes, that's more like it. I tried the glass material with the following results:

                                             

                                            Appearance: Glass

                                            Solid checked

                                            Density: 1.5

                                             

                                            Screen shot, which is pretty close to what I was looking for:

                                            Abient-Pro-20-30-ss.png

                                            And the final rendering:

                                            Abient-Pro-20-30-4.png

                                            Obviously not WYSIWYG. At 7 minutes per rendering, who has time to dial in the final rendering. And this is just to dial in one of multiple transparent materials for this particular image. The seconds gained by a fast preview renderer is more than negated if it's not accurate to the final render. I suppose there's a learning curve for any rendering application, but still. (UPDATE) I discovered ACCURATE mode for the preview renderer... the screenshot was taken with FAST mode enabled. Accurate mode seems to be quite... well, accurate. Yeah... something positive to praise.

                                             

                                            Which brings me to the camera. This is a small model and it's very easy to lose. How about some standard views... front, side, top, etc. that maximize to the model. Also, when you get a shot the way you want it, adding a camera should maintain that shot instead of switching to the default view. For this particular model, it becomes a barely discernible dot when adding a camera.

                                             

                                            Any word when the Space Mouse will be supported?

                                             

                                            Tutorials and demo's, other than the intro leassons... any word on if and when they will be available? The help files aren't all that helpful.

                                              • Re: Transparency toggle switch?
                                                Brian Hillner

                                                Hi all,

                                                 

                                                UPDATE:   9 new tutorials for Visualize will be uploaded by the end of next week...for a total of 15 Visualize tutorials.

                                                 

                                                To provide another tip for "cloudy" or "milky" or semi-transparent appearances...we have an advanced appearance type called "Subsurface." "Accurate" raytracing mode is required for this appearance. Subsurface appearance will take longer to resolve, due to the inherent complexity of this appearance type.

                                                 

                                                This is perfect for translucent milky plastics that become less transparent the thicker the part, since it allows less light to bounce around inside the part.

                                                 

                                                Might help what you are trying to achieve, without the complications at the beginning of this thread.

                                                 

                                                Here is an example, using the "Raw Honey" appearance from the Visualize Cloud Library (with a roughness of 5.0):

                                                Appearance Model 2.jpg

                                                  • Re: Transparency toggle switch?
                                                    Brian Hillner

                                                    Hi all,

                                                     

                                                    SOLIDWORKS Visualize has 2 diferent raytracing modes...both of which are very beneficial to your everyday workflow. This is a screenshot from the Visualize Help Menu:

                                                     

                                                    • Re: Transparency toggle switch?
                                                      Steve Erickson

                                                      Brian,

                                                       

                                                      Yes, Subsurface works too... much like Glass. The color density slider was throwing me off on these materials. Intuitively I was thinking that higher numbers would increase the opacity... color density, but the opposite is true... and it's a very small number... especially compared to the default setting of 250. These two materials differ from Plastic and Generic in that transparency is only tied to density. Plastic and Generic tie transparency to a blend of controls... which is counterintuitive and difficult to tune for a transparent appearance.  The help files lend no reference to this blending. Coupling these factors with the toggle switch issue explains my difficulties and frustration. Very time consuming lessons learned. Perhaps I'll give Visualize another try on my next rendering project. I may be in the market for an additional video card. On the other hand, I could put that money toward a rendering application that has all the features of Viz Pro and save a substantial chunk of change while getting all the functionality I would like to have. Time will tell.

                                                       

                                                      That's good news about the tutorials.

                                                       

                                                      Space Mouse... any word on if and when it will be ported?

                                                        • Re: Transparency toggle switch?
                                                          Ron Bates

                                                          Brian,

                                                           

                                                          "..the color density slider was throwing me off on these materials. Intuitively I was thinking that higher numbers would increase the opacity... color density, but the opposite is true... and it's a very small number... especially compared to the default setting of 250. ."

                                                           

                                                          Totally agree.  Density works opposite I thought it would and indeed the seemingly unit-less values are very touchy...

                                                           

                                                          I didn't spend terribly long here to make things try and match perfectly (camera angle, brightness) ...but figured it was worth showing a final result of "thick glass" in Visualize.

                                                           

                                                          ThickGlass.png

                                                            • Re: Transparency toggle switch?
                                                              David Randle

                                                              Steve -

                                                               

                                                              Seems like Ron picked up on your transparency questions and was able to help before i had a chance. Brian's feedback regarding the use of Subsurface material type to represent cloudy or milky substrates is good too. To back you up, Color Density is probably the most bizarre setting for any of our materials because it depends entirely on the size of the part which that material is applied to. This means that there is no good "default" because we can't predict the intended scale of the geometry for which the user plans on applying the material. For example, achieving a dark blue glass like shown above on a tiny model may require a different Color Density value than trying to achieve the same dark blue glass on a model 10x the scale. Here is my best recommendation for how to use Color Density:

                                                               

                                                              If you want the physically correct distribution of color tint throughout the entire depth of a solid object slide the Color Density slider to its max. This effectively tells Visualize to use the full geometry as the total thickness of the glass and attenuates the tint accordingly. This will also work to capture the widest gamut for tint colors. Adjusting the slider down from max value will artificially darken or exaggerate the tint linearly basically telling visualize to simulate full tint thought only part of the geometry.

                                                               

                                                              I hope this helps.

                                                                • Re: Transparency toggle switch?
                                                                  Steve Erickson

                                                                  David,

                                                                   

                                                                  "To back you up, Color Density is probably the most bizarre setting for any of our materials because it depends entirely on the size of the part which that material is applied to. This means that there is no good "default" because we can't predict the intended scale of the geometry for which the user plans on applying the material."

                                                                   

                                                                  This is true of Glass... in artwork anyway, but, as a product designer, I let you in on something you guys don't seem to understand... 99.9% of the plastic parts on the planet are no thicker than 3mm. It could be argued that the vast majority of glass parts are under 7mm thick. The only instance that you're going to see thicker glass is for architectural applications. SolidWorks is used to design real world products and seeing that your rendering package name is "SolidWorks" Visualize, it makes sense that your UI and materials should be optimized for real world parts. Meters for base units? Really? 250 meters... or whatever the units are after import, as a default Color Density value? ... and the slider goes up to 1000? Given that color density is based on part thickness and is not based on transparency percentage, which is my understanding, how do these values relate to any real world part?... in any real world units? That's why I inquired about the model scaling at import. It seems pretty clear that your materials don't work predictably because models are not scaled properly... or your materials are not tuned/scaled for real world parts... or some combination of the two. Beyond this, how is a user supposed to get the results they want if they don't know how the controls relate to the real world?... or if they even do relate to the real world? Ideally, users shouldn't even need to know... if the Color Density slider is at 0 the material should be 100% transparent and it should progressively gain opacity as the slider moves to maximum. The way it's set up now it doesn't seem to follow any logic at all and lacks predictability and consistency. It's baffling to the uninitiated.

                                                                    • Re: Transparency toggle switch?
                                                                      David Randle

                                                                      Thank you for your continued feedback. There are some nuggets here that the product team i'm sure will find valuable but here is some additional info.

                                                                       

                                                                      The scale associated with Color Density represents the largest dimension of the part which the material is assigned to, not just it's thickness (think of the diagonal dimension of the part's bounding box). This is why there is no such thing as a good default...although you're right that from a product designers perspective most translucent parts are ~3mm thick but there is no telling what their largest dimension is.   For example, a car windshield. its ~2.5mm thick but diagonally ~182cm. For this to appear physically correct, your glass Color Density would be 1820mm. Another example would be a 4x4 lego block...1cm cube where the wall thickness is~1.5mm. in this case, you would set the Color Density to be ~13mm. The Color Density slider units are Millimeters. So, our default is 25mm which is what we determined to be a reasonable bucket for transparent parts on products.

                                                                • Re: Transparency toggle switch?
                                                                  Brian Hillner

                                                                  Hi Steve,

                                                                   

                                                                  "Which brings me to the camera. This is a small model and it's very easy to lose. How about some standard views... front, side, top, etc. that maximize to the model. Also, when you get a shot the way you want it, adding a camera should maintain that shot instead of switching to the default view. For this particular model, it becomes a barely discernible dot when adding a camera."

                                                                   

                                                                  Just simply click on the camera you want to copy...and then do Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V to easily copy and paste an existing camera. Then just double click on the copied camera to activate it...and rename it as well. Super easy.

                                                                   

                                                                  We currently support Space Mouse navigation. Please make sure you have the latest driver from 3Dconnexion. You have 2 options of how to then interact using your space mouse within Visualize:

                                                                   

                                                                  spacemouse.jpg

                                                      • Re: Transparency toggle switch?
                                                        Barry Shapiro

                                                        I'm having similar issues with transparency.

                                                        This is from Lightworks using iRay that has a good explanation of IOR and Roughness settings.

                                                        PhysicalTranslucent Component

                                                        Note that their scale settings may be different but the theory is the same.

                                                        As I understand it based on reading about iRay on nVidia's web site is that you can only change settings given for a particular material definition which is controlled by nVidia. Some aspects of the material are not editable within Visualize. Basically you need to try different materials to find the one that most closely resembles the one you are after even if you have to choose glass when you are actually rendering translucent or transparent plastic. Again this is from the best of what I can find as there is little info available and zero info from Visualize.

                                                        BTW I have to confer with the earlier post about the appearance previews and user interface is absolutely terrible. It needs a major overhaul. Regardless of actual controls for a given appearance, the user interface could be simplified to to a few sliders that make multiple tweaks of those settings in the background and replaced with something less obscure.

                                                        They might want to look at Photoview :-)

                                                         

                                                        Modo     Visualize

                                                         

                                                        I don't know about you guys but I can't tell anything from the previews in Visualize. Looks like something from 1980s rendering software.

                                                          • Re: Transparency toggle switch?
                                                            Steve Erickson

                                                            Barry,

                                                             

                                                            Thanks for sharing. The Lightworks explanation at least lends some understanding, which, as you point out, is 100% more than Visualize offers. It took an inordinate amount of time to figure out that glass is the material I needed to use instead of plastic... mainly because none of the transparent materials act as one would expect... and Visualize help offers none.

                                                             

                                                            Seeing that SolidWorks and nVidia seem to be sleeping around, and nVidia's iRay has the "disease", I think it the responsible thing for Solidworks to insist that nVidia visit the clinic to straighten their **** out. It's in everyone's interest to nip this thing in the bud. In the meantime, it would be kind and responsible of you Visualize guys to print some informative pamphlets with lots of pictures explaining what to expect and how to deal with the unpleasantness you're exposing your customers to. :~ )

                                                             

                                                            Previews... Apparently the majority of users find thumbs like Modo's... and the thumbs of the majority of rendering packages out there, "too complex to look at". Brian posted a "Raw Honey" material example in an earlier post that's along the lines of the Modo thumbs... something like that works. Anything similar would be an vast improvement on the current thumbs.

                                                          • Re: Transparency toggle switch?
                                                            Vernon McCoy

                                                            The concept you elaborated was good enough.

                                                            • Re: Transparency toggle switch?
                                                              Steve Erickson

                                                              David,

                                                               

                                                              I understand the need for some dimensional input to calculate Color Density. However, from a user standpoint... if you're going to use dimension as a UI basis for a slider, material thickness would be the logical measure of Color Density. It's the only dimension someone can actually wrap their head around from a UI standpoint. The reality is that most people are just going to adjust the slider to get the look they're after. That's all they really can do because going by actual bounding box dimensions forces the material to be tailored to each individual part, which means that the slider would also react differently for each part. All the sliders should work intuitively and predictably to allow the user to accomplish their goal. Extreme increments, one way or the other, and having the material behave differently for each part is anything but intuitive and predictable. In the case of Color Density, 100% transparent to 100% opaque, in a linear fashion, would be the prefered slider interaction.