Join Now

With the more recent addition of the volume absorption shader is this formulaic method of absorption needed? In my own tes…

Forum Archive › With the more recent addition of the volume absorption shader is this formulaic method of absorption needed? In my own tes…

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • July 13, 2015 at 2:59 am #4643
    Tony Grisham
    Participant

      With the more recent addition of the volume absorption shader is this formulaic method of absorption needed? In my own testing the volume output does show the characteristic gradient effect however when additional inputs are added to the surface, these inputs seem to almost circumvent the volume output.

      July 13, 2015 at 2:08 pm #22900
      Kent Trammell
      Participant

        When the volumetric features were added I thought they would make the formulaic method obsolete. But in my experience the formulaic method is much more flexible and manipulatable. Maybe it’s ignorance/preference on my part, but I haven’t noticed an overwhelming benefit (neither flexibility or render speedup) of the volume options – at least not enough to replace the formulaic method imo.

        July 25, 2015 at 7:22 pm #22901
        Tony Grisham
        Participant

          I complete agree with the flexibility of the formulaic method, just was checking up on my own ignorance. But thanks again for the prompt response (even though it took me awhile to check for an answer)

        • Author
          Posts
        Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
        • The topic ‘With the more recent addition of the volume absorption shader is this formulaic method of absorption needed? In my own tes…’ is closed to new replies.