Comments on: Clay Rendering in 3DMax https://www.digitalurban.org/blog/2007/01/13/clay-rendering-in-3dmax-2/ Data, Cities, IoT, Writing, Music and Making Things Wed, 16 Apr 2008 15:30:00 +0000 hourly 1 By: Anonymous https://www.digitalurban.org/blog/2007/01/13/clay-rendering-in-3dmax-2/#comment-961 Wed, 16 Apr 2008 15:30:00 +0000 http://digitalurban.net/?p=2240#comment-961 is that UCL??

]]> By: 3dcircle https://www.digitalurban.org/blog/2007/01/13/clay-rendering-in-3dmax-2/#comment-960 Tue, 15 May 2007 06:30:00 +0000 http://digitalurban.net/?p=2240#comment-960 I think it is looking better in way its different giving more of a better view of what’s in it.

But definetly not competitive with vray…

]]> By: jphelps https://www.digitalurban.org/blog/2007/01/13/clay-rendering-in-3dmax-2/#comment-959 Tue, 30 Jan 2007 16:49:00 +0000 http://digitalurban.net/?p=2240#comment-959 I tried this clay modeling method with good results but… I noticed a bunch of black artifacts showing up in the renders. They looked like little bits of shadow, some occuring along edges, others out in the middle of a flat surface. This was not too distracting until I animated the model (camera fly-around) and then it looked like World War Two over Germany (lots of flack exploding randomly everywhere). Any ideas?

]]> By: Grafdom https://www.digitalurban.org/blog/2007/01/13/clay-rendering-in-3dmax-2/#comment-958 Sat, 27 Jan 2007 08:01:00 +0000 http://digitalurban.net/?p=2240#comment-958 This looks rather premature for a clay portrayal…. True, i agree with ervin vray could be a substantial upgrade in thought.

]]> By: ervin https://www.digitalurban.org/blog/2007/01/13/clay-rendering-in-3dmax-2/#comment-957 Tue, 16 Jan 2007 13:09:00 +0000 http://digitalurban.net/?p=2240#comment-957 …this visually sucks in my opinion. donno how much time it takes, but it looks not really cool for some sort of “clay” rendering.
something much faster and visually more appealing can be achieved using vray+vray dirt material with the proper fallofs. has some AO touch then, but looks far more cool than this above mentioned….

]]>