Here's a quick render with one of the "visceral" materials applied to a flattened sphere in the bowl. Breakfast anyone?

Bagginsbill, I gave your suggested base color some test renders and it seems to give a good representation of 18K gold. I was shooting for an equivalent shade to what SM released in their P11 content as "Superfly Basics". In that regard, it was a match, but it is certainly too "yellow" IMO to be physically accurate, more toward 24K if anything. That said, given your example, I have incentive to play with the GlossyBsdf/FresnelBlend combination now. The ultimate goal of course is to be familiar enough with each type of node to use them "semi" effectively. From there, I hope I can grow into creating some more useful and versatile materials for SF renders, or at least have fun in the process. ;) Best Regards, Jerry

bagginsbill posted at 6:38PM Sat, 28 November 2015 - #4241329

I applaud your desire and effort to share.

However - I feel you should know that your basic gold metal (left) isn't at all close to realistic. Your color ratios should be at or near RGB 255, 215, 150 (middle is your shader with that value). However, it is my opinion that the Poser 11 Physical Surface isn't quite correct yet and should be used with some caution at this time, although the errors I've found in it are really small. On the right is my own shader for gold that I made from Cycles GlossyBsdf and a FresnelBlend, using the same RGB 255, 215, 150, but blending to white at the outer edges. The PhysicalSurface is blending to pink, which is incorrect - not physically correct at all. I'm going to do more experiments and have a talk with SM about it.

Also, your FireFly versions are using Diffuse - basic polished metal has 0 or near 0 diffuse, so you should be setting Diffuse_Value = 0 for the FF versions of metals.

In fact, if you had just used the colored Reflect in FF and SF you'd get the same shader working fine in both. Note, however, that SuperFly roughness numbers don't match those in FireFly - so the same shader works, but the same parametric values do not. Such a shame.

Yep, just experimenting (trial and error). Great info, BB!

• Jerry

Quote - Fully agreed to that subject!!

Whereas I personally mostly avoid doing landscapes in Bryce (this being a long story) and prefer doing Abstract Images and (presumed funny) "woodwork".

But doing photo realistic landscapes with "ASCII-Bryce" (around 50 years ago) was really hard to achieve, not to forget the endless render times then! ;)

Hubert

Amazing stuff.  I only started brycing about 8 years ago, so I had no idea about the legacy.  Thanks!  Jerry

P.S.  I guess I should have read on...  :)