[Bf-funboard] Re: ShadowBuf name
public at konrad-haenel.de
Fri Dec 1 22:47:09 CET 2006
How about the other way around: descriptive names for the shadow types
and the real name of the algorithm in the tooltip. I would guess that
the vast majority of artists will not really be that interested in the
intricate details of the algorithms if their initial selection gets the
job done. And once they're at a level where they actually read up on the
shadow-calculation details it won't matter to them how it's named in
Blender, they'll know wich is which anyway.
Although I understand the desire for precision in naming items I don't
think there's a compelling reason for it. At the same time it's obvious
how descriptive naming would improve workflows. I'd really rather opt
for the more artist-friendly interface in contrast to a more
Never forget: digital creation is all about workflows. Good workflows
make the difference.
Campbell Barton schrieb:
> Can we use tooltips in popup menu's even..?
> We can have 1 tooltip for all 3 but Im not sure theres a way of having
> a tooltip for each.
> if its a choice between algo and a descriptive name. Id opt for
> descriptive. If people want to know the math behind it- they can look
> at the source.
> These names arnt well known like Phong...
> GSR wrote:
>> matt at mke3.net (2006-12-01 at 1519.28 +1100):
>>> With legacy being the old style approach that I presume is only
>>> there for backwards compatibility, Soft being normal shadow buffers
>>> and Sharp being the irregular ones. Perhaps something like
>>> 'Versatile' or 'Flexible' would be better than Soft since those can
>>> also become sharp to an extent...?
>> Legacy / classic / minimum can also be used for translucency effects
>> better than soft / halfway / midpoint, as it follows the first surface
>> without caring about how far is next surface.
>> BTW, halfway idea comes from Renderman where it is called with the
>> more appropiate term "midpoint" (see page 60 of Siggraph 2000 paper
>>> In any case, names that actually help artists in understanding what
>>> these do, unlike the tech-centered names that are there currently
>>> would be a big improvement.
>> OTOH, those new names hide any option of looking for paper that
>> explain how and why things happen. It reminds me of those chemical /
>> car / software companies that hide generic things (cyano glue,
>> variable injection, sorting algorithm...) behind cryptic trade names
>> and acronyms (SuperDuperGlue, VITXplus, FooIntelliSystem), to create a
>> brand, confuse the buyer or negate the information to competitors
>> (being GPL software, they are failed tactics except for branding,
>> So I propose to just use the names that define how the samples are
>> done and matching "tooltip" (better with wrapped or autowrapped kind)
>> accepting there will always be terms and knowledge required for any
>> - Minimum "Samples are the minimum distance from the light source,
>> requires bias tweaking, traditional method for soft shadows"
>> - Midpoint "Samples are midpoint, the average of 1st and 2nd distances
>> from light, improved method for soft shadows"
>> - Irregular "Irregular distribution of samples to match scene geometry
>> as seen by camera, pixel sharp shadows, invisible for raytracing"
>> No magic, no guessing, no radical changes if details change (imagine
>> if irregular type gets some kind of softness tech and you named them
>> sharp, it would be full rename vs tooltip change).
>> Bf-funboard mailing list
>> Bf-funboard at projects.blender.org
More information about the Bf-funboard