You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Purely a VFX bias here, but we generally initialise colours to be the value of "middle grey", which as a result of our logarithmic perception, ends up being 0.18.
Was 0.8 chosen because if someone sets metallic to 1.0 with default values elsewhere, then this would result in a plausible metal?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
We took the 0.8 default from standard surface (except moved to the base_color rather than the base_weight, as people almost always just moved the weight up to 1 on connecting a texture to base_color).
We considered 0.18 but it just ends up looking very dark, given the typical defaults for viewport lighting in the DCCs. Also note that the sRGB color components that produce a 0.18 albedo are more like 0.45.
The 0.8 is basically just to avoid an albedo of 1 which is rather extreme and requires high bounce depth to converge (also, that value matches roughly e.g. how Maya objects look in the default viewport). I agree it's a bit arbitrary, but we had to choose a value that works practically in the DCCs.
In practice it doesn't seem too big a deal what the default is, as artists will almost always change it.
Purely a VFX bias here, but we generally initialise colours to be the value of "middle grey", which as a result of our logarithmic perception, ends up being 0.18.
Was 0.8 chosen because if someone sets metallic to 1.0 with default values elsewhere, then this would result in a plausible metal?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: