lighting analysis image overlay numbers look wrong

[Richard.Vivanco]

Hi

Any idea about why the numbers looks wrong in the frame buffer when i use lighting analysis image overlay effect?

Im using 3dsmax 2017 and mentalray.

[Alfred.DeFlaminis]

Hello @Richard.Vivanco and nice to see you again!

I'd like to help with this issue regarding improper lighting analysis displays with Mental Ray.  Would it be possible to replace your scene model objects with a sphere or two and attaching the scene so I can investigate it, please?  This is a bit bizarre and I'd like to get a closer look.   Please leave lights and cameras so I can do a 1:1 analysis.  Thank you very much for taking the time to do that. 

Best Regards,

[Richard.Vivanco]

Hi Alfred

Thanks for the support again.

This is the file, its in 2017 version

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jgr42gbd71nk5im/light.max?dl=0

The lighting analysis image overlay effect its enable, you only need to render the scene.  Im not using IES files.

Hope you can find a solution.

Thanks

Richard

[Alfred.DeFlaminis · Accepted solution]

Hello @Richard.Vivanco,

Unfortunately this is a bug.  It has been entered into the tracker and will be looked at by the devs.  I tried to find a workaround but sadly there seems to be none.  I also included a link to this thread with a copy of the scene file you attached.  Thank you for reporting it.  

Best Regards,

[Richard.Vivanco]

Thanks Alfred

So, in the next SP will be solved? 

Cheers.

[Alfred.DeFlaminis]

Hello @Richard.Vivanco,

The truth is that I am unsure.  If I did know, I would still be unable to share that information even if I wanted to.  We're asked not to share development release information regarding updates and extensions.  I realize that's a bummer but there's not much I can do.  

I will say that this issue is easy to repro and very obvious so there will be no issues getting it to appear which is a good thing.  

Best Regards,

[salamonQSV8H]

Hi, I'm using 3DS Max 2017 and have had the same issue.  Has there been any fixes for this bug yet? Thanks- David

[Alfred.DeFlaminis]

Hello @salamonQSV8H,

This tool was developed by NVIDIA specifically for use with Mental Ray and had added support for Autodesk materials.  Based on what I'm reading in the tracker, the fix for this may likely need to come from NVIDIA.  I checked in 2017 and 2018 and it's still a problem in both. 

Best Regards,

[salamonQSV8H]

Alfred,

Thank you very much for your reply.  I'll check with NVIDIA and post here if I find anything out.  I appreciate your help!

[Alfred.DeFlaminis]

Thank you for your great attitude and nature, I do appreciate it.  If you need anything from me please let me know and I'll do whatever I can for you.  Thanks!

Best Regards,

[salamonQSV8H]

Hi Alfred,

Could you look at my post regarding Autodesk's interpretation of the LEED Daylighting credit? https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/lighting-solar-analysis-forum/leed-compliance/m-p/7322635#M910

For your convenience I've copied the relevant portion below but if you go to the link, there is also a screenshot of the summary and results table that you can download.

Thanks for your help!

Best,

David

To determine compliance with LEED EQ credit Daylight, Option 1 Simulation:  Spatial Daylight Autonomy and Annual Sunlight Exposure, the project team has performed a preliminary annual computer simulation using Revit's daylighting analysis tool. The attached "SDA-ASE Results Summary.jpg" shows the software output summary, which indicates that 64% of the building area (that is considered regularly occupied) meets both sDA300/50% and ASE1000,250 requirements. The report summary notes that the results meet the 55% threshold for 2 credit points.

LEED EQ credit Daylight, Option 1 Simulation:  Spatial Daylight Autonomy and Annual Sunlight Exposure awards 2-3 points for projects that demonstrate sDA300/50% at least 55% or 75% of regularly occupied floor area. Additionally, the credit requires projects must also demonstrate that ASE1000,250 of <10% is achieved in the regularly occupied floor area that is daylight per the sDA300/50% simulations.

The attached "SDA-ASE Results Table.jpg" is the software output of the project's regularly occupied spaces and notes where the spaces meet/do not meet sDA300/50% and/or ASE1000,250 requirements. As shown in both the results summary and table, only spaces that meet both sDA300/50% and ASE1000,250 requirements are counted towards the overall 64% of compliant area. Please confirm that this approach is correct, or whether all regularly occupied spaces must not exceed 10% for ASE1000,250.

[Alfred.DeFlaminis]

Hello @salamonQSV8H,

I have to admit I'm not totally sure what is being asked in that thread.  This is a bit beyond my level of knowledge, but mstein7484 might be a good person to @ mention into your thread.  My expertise is limited to Max, and the lighting analysis tool was actually developed by NVIDIA.  I'm not sure how to help here, and I am sorry for that.  Is there something I can do for you without having that knowledge of the Lighting & Solar Analysis Forum? 

Best Regards,

[salamonQSV8H]

Alfred,

Thanks for your response.  I'll follow up with mstein.

All the best,

David

[Alfred.DeFlaminis]

Thank you for your patience @salamonQSV8H.  I will follow the thread so I can learn more about this for the future.

Best Regards,

[m.silletti]

any update? I have the same issue