Theresa Tennyson Posted March 2 Share Posted March 2 10 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said: Then why are we even doing this PBR thing? PBR is being sold as an enhancement to graphics in SL. Things will look better! SL will look a bit more like the realistic scenes you're used to from a Triple A computer game! Look, REFLECTIONS!! (But, no, sorry, not real mirrors.) Now, I DO get that that's only part of the story, and that a lot of this -- maybe, quietly, most of this -- is about updating SL's ancient code base and rendering systems, bringing them more in line (but only very partially so) with industry standards, etc. And, sure, that's worthwhile and maybe even necessary. But, really, if the best response you can come up to someone calling out the "PBR LOOKS MORE AMAZINGZ!" thing is by arguing that, really, the quality of lighting isn't that important, or is something they should just sort of shrug off, then you're undercutting the public rationale for this move. If it's true that, as you say, "when you're walking around someplace you probably don't think about it too much because your eyes have 'automatic white balance'" -- then why should we care? I didn't say that lighting isn't important, I said that the differences between lighting setups within the PBR system aren't going to be make-or-break things. The lamp from Target is going to act a lot like the lamp from Macy's because of how lamps work. Apparently, though, why should we buy electric lamps at all when we can just use candles? This is all sounding a lot like the old thread I referenced with the people saying, "Why use mesh at all?" from 2013. So, looking back - did they have a point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scylla Rhiadra Posted March 2 Share Posted March 2 22 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said: I didn't say that lighting isn't important, I said that the differences between lighting setups within the PBR system aren't going to be make-or-break things. The lamp from Target is going to act a lot like the lamp from Macy's because of how lamps work. Unfortunately, I think this is demonstrably not true. I and others have posted comparative images of pre-PBR items, and most especially clothing, that do not look at all good, yet alone "better," in a PBR-enabled viewer. The skirt I'm wearing below in this comparative image of the same EEP in two different viewers is an instance. There have been others. I want to be clear about two things: PBR isn't making everything that uses legacy textures look worse. Some things it likely IS improving the look of. And, to repeat something I've said before, I think some of this can be fixed by tweaking EEP -- although not, at least based on my experience, the vasoline slime on my skirt above or that weird blurry haze on the wood texture. The only way I can remedy those is by essentially going to a "nighttime" EEP. But to argue that we're not going to notice the difference is just not true. I am not sure that this outfit will actually be wearable anymore when everyone is on PBR. The second point pertains to this: 31 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said: Apparently, though, why should we buy electric lamps at all when we can just use candles? This is all sounding a lot like the old thread I referenced with the people saying, "Why use mesh at all?" from 2013. So, looking back - did they have a point? Many of us, myself most definitely included, want PBR to work well. As a photographer, I WANT to make use of reflection probes to give me more control over lighting differentials within a scene. I WANT objects to look better and more vivid and "3D" when shooting them. And I'm sure that, managed well, PBR can accomplish that. But right now, and despite having spent a considerable amount of time experimenting, buying or importing PBR materials, etc., I won't take a picture using a PBR viewer because it doesn't look good. Yet. I don't want to go back to living in a cave. I want them to make this work properly. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Extrude Ragu Posted March 2 Share Posted March 2 In your screenshots, The non-PBR one is showing a plywood cube, and the PBR one is showing a wood different material. Is this a PBR Material on the background on the left screenshot? Same question for the skirt - Is this a PBR material? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scylla Rhiadra Posted March 2 Share Posted March 2 2 minutes ago, Extrude Ragu said: In your screenshots, The non-PBR one is showing a plywood cube, and the PBR one is showing a wood different material. Is this a PBR Material on the background on the left screenshot? Same question for the skirt - Is this a PBR material? Yes, the wood texture on the left is a PBR material, and so doesn't show in a non-PBR viewer. So I used the default texture for the one on the right. The point, to some degree, is to show that blueish sheen on a PBR material while using a PBR-enabled viewer. The skirt and blouse use Blinn-Phong materials. (For what's it worth, it's a very new product from a popular and reputable clothing maker.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theresa Tennyson Posted March 2 Share Posted March 2 27 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said: Unfortunately, I think this is demonstrably not true. I and others have posted comparative images of pre-PBR items, and most especially clothing, that do not look at all good, yet alone "better," in a PBR-enabled viewer. The skirt I'm wearing below in this comparative image of the same EEP in two different viewers is an instance. There have been others. STILL not what I said. My post was in reply to the idea that "you need to use the same PBR settings as the maker or blah-blah-blah." What you posted was a 1) non-PBR item under 2) a legacy environment customized for non-PBR conditions. The more I think of it, electric lighting really was a mistake. Candles work, right? And you can make them RIGHT AT HOME instead of dealing with a bunch of outsiders. And someone working from home can make candles that are JUST AS GOOD AS ANYONE ELSE'S, and maybe become a TOP-SELLING CANDLE MAKER. You can even make them smell like potpourri and stuff... . . . Did any of that sound familiar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Extrude Ragu Posted March 2 Share Posted March 2 1 minute ago, Scylla Rhiadra said: Yes, the wood texture on the left is a PBR material, and so doesn't show in a non-PBR viewer. So I used the default texture for the one on the right. The point, to some degree, is to show that blueish sheen on a PBR material while using a PBR-enabled viewer. A wood material wouldn't normally reflect blue light so strongly, even outdoors. I think the wood material might not be packed correctly, just judging by the way it is reflecting so much light. It looks like either roughness channel is incorrect or somehow it has been set slightly metallic. If you take a screenshot of the edit material dialog, I can probably tell you at a glance if the material is configured correctly and might be able to spot any mistakes that might have occurred. 9 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said: The skirt and blouse use Blinn-Phong materials. (For what's it worth, it's a very new product from a popular and reputable clothing maker.) What I find interesting about the skirt being blinn-phong, is that I'd expect the non-pbr viewer to also show a reflection as even blinn phong does environment reflections, just very badly. It looks like reflections might just be plain off in the non-pbr viewer screenshot? Try putting it in the ultra preset? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scylla Rhiadra Posted March 2 Share Posted March 2 4 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said: STILL not what I said. My post was in reply to the idea that "you need to use the same PBR settings as the maker or blah-blah-blah." What you posted was a 1) non-PBR item under 2) a legacy environment customized for non-PBR conditions. Same principle applies, as we currently have exactly ONE (1) "official" EEP setting in the library that was designed for PBR. A great many of the others produce the effect I've shown at the left, above. The point that Rowan and others have been making is that an article that looks good only when seen in the re-configured EEP provided by (or used by) a creator is not necessarily, and quite probably won't, look good in the now-ancient EEPs that we have in our library, and that people are using as defaults in their parcels and regions. I am sure that I could probably demonstrate that. 8 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said: The more I think of it, electric lighting really was a mistake. Candles work, right? And you can make them RIGHT AT HOME instead of dealing with a bunch of outsiders. And someone working from home can make candles that are JUST AS GOOD AS ANYONE ELSE'S, and maybe become a TOP-SELLING CANDLE MAKER. You can even make them smell like potpourri and stuff... Implying in a rather condescending fashion that someone (me) who has actually spent a great many hours trying to learn about, and make this new tech work properly, but who is criticizing its current implementation, is simply a Luddite is not really a great argument or a good look, Theresa. To repeat what I said above (but that you apparently didn't read?), I want PBR to work. I want to USE PBR. I am sure that, eventually, PBR will be a boon to me. I don't want to "go backwards." I want to go forward properly. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted March 2 Share Posted March 2 Y'all are just haters! 🙂 Except for being "too shiny", and "too dark" (ironically, right?) I haven't noticed such an awful PBR Second Life. But I iz dum and do not go many places. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scylla Rhiadra Posted March 2 Share Posted March 2 12 minutes ago, Extrude Ragu said: A wood material wouldn't normally reflect blue light so strongly, even outdoors. I think the wood material might not be packed correctly, just judging by the way it is reflecting so much light. It looks like either roughness channel is incorrect or somehow it has been set slightly metallic. If you take a screenshot of the edit material dialog, I can probably tell you at a glance if the material is configured correctly and might be able to spot any mistakes that might have occurred. That's possible, of course: it's a commercial PBR product I bought off the MP, and it may well be that wasn't made well. I'll take a look next time I'm and on a PBR viewer. I should say that I DO use the PBR-enabled Black Dragon viewer, and haven't noticed that same issue with textures that are not supposed to be highly reflective (i.e., wood). 14 minutes ago, Extrude Ragu said: What I find interesting about the skirt being blinn-phong, is that I'd expect the non-pbr viewer to also show a reflection as even blinn phong does environment reflections, just very badly. It looks like reflections might just be plain off in the non-pbr viewer screenshot? Try putting it in the ultra preset? These were both taken at ultra settings (which is my default for picture taking always). I think there IS some reflectivity in the skirt in the non-PBR viewer; it's clearer when you move the light source (which is to say in this case, the sun) around a bit, or go to a darker EEP. When the light is not shining directly on, much of the "sparkle" you can see disappears. That is, it's not "baked in." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan Amore Posted March 3 Share Posted March 3 The PBR viewer should not have gone live unless every single EEP setting was replaced with one intended for PBR. Seems some of the same people who are for simplifying the viewer for the new user also are behind PBR which only complicates it further. "All those lighting presets? Oh, ignore those since they won't work right with the viewer anymore". New user just shakes their head wondering who the hell thought that was a good idea. You know, those gamers y'all think are coming in because of the new PBR shiny. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Extrude Ragu Posted March 3 Share Posted March 3 Obviously the skirt example here particularly sucks for you as a user especially if the item is no mod. It looks like the creator has set a blanket 'Environment' value under the specular setting, which is what is causing the vasoline slime type effect you describe. Still, it surprises me that you say this doesn't show up as much in the Firestorm viewer, as usually this effect would also show up there with such a setting. I'd be interested to see what the specular settings of the skirt are. It could be that you've actually managed to uncover a bug, because I really would expect them to more or less render close to the same. Speaking as a creator, I know it doesn't fix your existing skirt, but I reckon it would be possible to make an awesome sequin skirt under PBR, because you could use the normal map/combined with AO channel to do individual sequins, combined with metallic you'd be able to make something that naturally sparkles as you move around 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theresa Tennyson Posted March 3 Share Posted March 3 5 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said: Implying in a rather condescending fashion that someone (me) who has actually spent a great many hours trying to learn about, and make this new tech work properly, but who is criticizing its current implementation, is simply a Luddite is not really a great argument or a good look, Theresa. To repeat what I said above (but that you apparently didn't read?), I want PBR to work. I want to USE PBR. I am sure that, eventually, PBR will be a boon to me. I don't want to "go backwards." I want to go forward properly. The candle reference wasn't directed specifically at you; it's a reference to the way a lot of people seem to think around here though, and have for many years. But to you personally, because you seem to be the most willing to reason - what specifically would you like done to "fix" PBR? Because from my standpoint, a lot has been "fixed" already. I tried early project viewers and was basically horrified, but when the official viewer dropped I was all, "Hey! This is actually pretty cool!" And I generally do not do that with new graphics developments. Yes, the water doesn't look great under default environments; apparently shine looks blue but I haven't really noticed it. Those aren't forever issues any more than the two-tone hair I had when materials were introduced and which kept me from using that viewer for several releases. And a lot of the issues you're bringing up are not in the viewer developers' control, and quite a few of them are dealing with work-arounds for things that were essentially broken - or considered broken - in the old lighting, and they're not even "official" settings. How much should you have to honor something like that? There's also this emphasis on PBR being "released too early." That's not really how Second Life works. When was mesh "released"? People using Phoenix were seeing mesh as weird mutant prims for months after the official drop. People using Viewer 1.23 were seeing them for years. I remember 1920's Berlin having dire warnings against wearing mesh, and then a year or so later the builder was a big mesh fan. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theresa Tennyson Posted March 3 Share Posted March 3 7 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said: The PBR viewer should not have gone live unless every single EEP setting was replaced with one intended for PBR. The only EEP settings that are under the developers' control are in the library. What would happen to people using non-PBR viewers when those change? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan Amore Posted March 3 Share Posted March 3 Now you see my point. New users generally start with using the LL viewer. That they have a set of non- PBR environments is just poor planning. They gave them 1. Really? They touted PBR as bringing SL up to industry standards but for content only. They should have waited until they had the appropriate environments available. Sure, PBR is what all games have been using BUT with a set environment with very little the user can change. I asked that specifically. Real games with real game content creators create for a set environment. That is NOT how SL works. At all. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theresa Tennyson Posted March 3 Share Posted March 3 1 minute ago, Rowan Amore said: Real games with real game content creators create for a set environment. That is NOT how SL works. At all. How is that different from the pre-PBR world? Varnished sweaters come from somewhere... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan Amore Posted March 3 Share Posted March 3 (edited) 53 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said: There's also this emphasis on PBR being "released too early." That's not really how Second Life works. When was mesh "released"? People using Phoenix were seeing mesh as weird mutant prims for months after the official drop. People using Viewer 1.23 were seeing them for years. I remember 1920's Berlin having dire warnings against wearing mesh, and then a year or so later the builder was a big mesh fan. Apples and oranges. Mesh looked fine in the SL viewer when it was released because mesh couldn't have been released without a viewer that could handle.it. PBR doesn't look/work right with the current LL PBR viewer UNLESS you use the ONE environment made for it. LL isn't responsible for how people see.things in other viewers that haven't implemented their upgrades but it should look good in their own viewer. That is why we've been saying it was released too early. Edited March 3 by Rowan Amore 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Porky Gorky Posted March 3 Share Posted March 3 20 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said: That's possible, of course: it's a commercial PBR product I bought off the MP, and it may well be that wasn't made well. I'll take a look next time I'm and on a PBR viewer. I purchased a bunch of cheap PBR materials from the marketplace when I first started looking at PBR a month or so ago and some of them were very poorly created with roughness values not suitable for the surface types, resulting in many being too reflective. I guessed someone was using gloss maps for their roughness values, but who knows. Your wood material could be one of them. The PBR materials in the inventory library are good for testing, they all work well. There is also a pack on the MP of 1000 plus PBR materials sourced from AmbientCG.com, for free, for use under a creative commons license. I’ve tested maybe 30 of them and they all worked well enough. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Porky Gorky Posted March 3 Share Posted March 3 20 hours ago, Rowan Amore said: PBR doesn't look/work right with the current LL PBR viewer UNLESS you use the ONE environment made for it. This is not true in my experience. I can author a PBR material built using a HDRi environment that matches my PBR friendly EEP in SL. I import it in and it looks exactly as I expect. I then take that PBR material into another PBR friendly EEP which is a desert environment and it looks different, because the light is different, but the PBR is still working as expected, the surface looks different because it's a different type of lighting. I then take the PBR into a winter environment and it looks different again because the lighting is different, but the PBR is still reflecting the surface as it should. I’ve not had time to make other diverse EEP’s to test in so the examples end there. The point is, the PBR is working correctly in all 3 environments, but looks different because the lighting is different which is to be expected because that’s how PBR works. Anyone who is expecting their PBR surfaces to remain consistent when travelling in SL without using a personal EEP all the time is going to be out of luck according to the opinions I've read in this thread. PBR is not the problem, and PBR compatible EEP’s are not the problem, both can work together and deliver predictable results. I think the problem is people's expectation for consistency, they may spend a lot of time and money on making their avatar look great to both themselves and hopefully others. Anyone who wants to jump on the PBR train is going to have to leave that mentality behind and embrace the diversity of environments that PBR will find itself in, or just use a personal EEP. Maybe after a few years of everyone moaning about how bad their avatars look landowners will naturally gravitate towards using more universal EEP settings. Or maybe LL will roll out a new default environment that is fit for purpose and actually works with all old and new content. This would surely greatly negate the problem. 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan Amore Posted March 3 Share Posted March 3 50 minutes ago, Porky Gorky said: HDRi environment that matches my PBR friendly EEP in SL. I import it in and it looks exactly as I expect. I then take that PBR material into another PBR friendly EEP There is the problem. You have made PBR friendly environments so.of.course your PBR items.looks as intended. LL shipped ONE PBR friendly environment with their viewer. That is the issue. If they had shipped an entire PBR friendly folder with environments, then we wouldn't have a problem but they didn't. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlotte Bartlett Posted March 3 Share Posted March 3 On 3/2/2024 at 5:49 PM, Scylla Rhiadra said: Unfortunately, I think this is demonstrably not true. I and others have posted comparative images of pre-PBR items, and most especially clothing, that do not look at all good, yet alone "better," in a PBR-enabled viewer. The skirt I'm wearing below in this comparative image of the same EEP in two different viewers is an instance. There have been others. I want to be clear about two things: PBR isn't making everything that uses legacy textures look worse. Some things it likely IS improving the look of. And, to repeat something I've said before, I think some of this can be fixed by tweaking EEP -- although not, at least based on my experience, the vasoline slime on my skirt above or that weird blurry haze on the wood texture. The only way I can remedy those is by essentially going to a "nighttime" EEP. But to argue that we're not going to notice the difference is just not true. I am not sure that this outfit will actually be wearable anymore when everyone is on PBR. The second point pertains to this: Many of us, myself most definitely included, want PBR to work well. As a photographer, I WANT to make use of reflection probes to give me more control over lighting differentials within a scene. I WANT objects to look better and more vivid and "3D" when shooting them. And I'm sure that, managed well, PBR can accomplish that. But right now, and despite having spent a considerable amount of time experimenting, buying or importing PBR materials, etc., I won't take a picture using a PBR viewer because it doesn't look good. Yet. I don't want to go back to living in a cave. I want them to make this work properly. The challenge is also you are using an old EEP that hasn’t been updated for the latest PBR viewers. I am happy to send you one to run comparison with on legacy and PBR viewers. Which obviously brings us back to think a post I made at the start on how older EEP settings will need adjusting in the newer PBR viewers. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan Amore Posted March 3 Share Posted March 3 6 minutes ago, Charlotte Bartlett said: The challenge is also you are using an old EEP that hasn’t been updated for the latest PBR viewers. I am happy to send you one to run comparison with on legacy and PBR viewers. Which obviously brings us back to think a post I made at the start on how older EEP settings will need adjusting in the newer PBR viewers. Which, frankly, LL should have done, IMO. I have nothing against progress but giving us 1/2 of a product is pretty sad. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Porky Gorky Posted March 3 Share Posted March 3 8 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said: There is the problem. You have made PBR friendly environments so.of.course your PBR items.looks as intended. LL shipped ONE PBR friendly environment with their viewer. That is the issue. If they had shipped an entire PBR friendly folder with environments, then we wouldn't have a problem but they didn't. Yep it is a major problem, especially considering the one environment they did give us is pretty bad. Any average "player" who plops down some PBR for the first time in the default environment is not going to be happy when it doesnt look like it did in the store or the pictures. Undoubtably it will hinder PBR adoption. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scylla Rhiadra Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 1 hour ago, Charlotte Bartlett said: The challenge is also you are using an old EEP that hasn’t been updated for the latest PBR viewers. I am happy to send you one to run comparison with on legacy and PBR viewers. Which obviously brings us back to think a post I made at the start on how older EEP settings will need adjusting in the newer PBR viewers. Thanks Charlotte, but if it's one included with your PBR-enabled houses, I've already got it. And yes, you're right. LL really really needs to update at least some of the EEPs in the library, because the average resident isn't going to have a clue that that is even the problem, yet alone how to fix it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scylla Rhiadra Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 1 hour ago, Rowan Amore said: Which, frankly, LL should have done, IMO. I have nothing against progress but giving us 1/2 of a product is pretty sad. Ok, there are a lot of EEPs in the library. But tweaking an EEP setting to make it work better in an PBR enabled environment should be relatively trivial when compared to the labour that must have gone into actually changing the rendering system. I'd have thought that a single person who knew what they were doing could accomplish it in a few days, or a week at the outside. And I don't know why they haven't. It's like paying to have new tires put on your car, only to discover that the auto shop hasn't bothered to inflate them. Finish the job, LL. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zalificent Corvinus Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 8 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said: I'd have thought that a single person who knew what they were doing could accomplish it in a few days, or a week at the outside. 8 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said: And I don't know why they haven't. Hmmm. 8 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said: who knew what they were doing You just answered your own question. When did LL ever bother using people like that? 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts
Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now