<div dir="ltr">If we need multiple models then I think it would be good to have them as an enum in a single node. For tutorials, addons and our implementation it's a lot simpler I think. We can hide/show sockets as needed, and convert parameters between the different models automatically.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 9:52 PM, Clément FOUCAULT <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:foucault.clem@gmail.com" target="_blank">foucault.clem@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">I also don't quite like the fact of removing the specular workflow. But supporting it would add some usability issue (discussed previously but maybe reopened for debate). Adding a Specular Node is just a matter of usability / UI point of view. For now just supporting the Principled BSDF should cover most of the use cases.<div><br></div><div>About your statements on the Metallic workflow:</div><span class=""><div><br></div><div>>There are often texture interpolation issues where a dielectric and metallic materials meet (<a class="m_4577513004900593642gmail-m_-6466991265151713360moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://s3.amazonaws.com/docs.knaldtech.com/docuwiki/light_fringe_values_close.jpg" target="_blank">https://s3.amazonaws.com/docs<wbr>.knaldtech.com/docuwiki/light_<wbr>fringe_values_close.jpg</a>)</div></span><div>This will happen with both workflow. I understand that interpolation of metallic values produces colored specular. In specular workflow it won't.</div><div>The real workaround on this is to use layered material that are rendered separately, but this is too heavy for realtime games.</div><span class=""><div><br></div><div>>The metallic workflow is most often locked to 4% reflectivity for dielectrics which gives less control to experienced artists.</div></span><div>False, the metallic workflow (as per Unreal Implementation) is using disney approach to give a specular input to tweak dielectrics specular values. So you can go up to 8% with default range and beyond if you want. Unfortunately it seems that Unity does not handle that. Still Metallic material inputs can be exported as Specular inputs. The other way in not easily doable.</div><span class=""><div><br></div><div>>Semi-conductors (Rust, Magnetite etc.) and crystalline objects (gem stones etc.) cannot be rendered accurately as they require a reflectivity of between 4-18%.</div></span><div>Read previous point.</div><span class=""><div><br></div><div>> It's much easier to use incorrect values within the metalness mask when less experienced artists author content, which can break the workflow.</div></span><div>It's equally easy to put incorrect Specular values with specular workflow ;) that's why they came up with the metallic one in the first place.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">Regards.</div><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">Clément</div><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div class="h5">2017-06-27 19:42 GMT+02:00 metalliandy <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:metalliandy666@googlemail.com" target="_blank">metalliandy666@googlemail.com</a><wbr>></span>:<br></div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div class="h5">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Hey all,</p>
<p>I wanted to pop in and mention that the Specular workflow is
absolutely not a legacy option within PBR game dev. It's a higher
quality alternative to the metalness workflow that is often used
when users are not constrained by memory limitations. This is why
it is supported in Unity & Toolbag etc.</p>
<p><a class="m_4577513004900593642gmail-m_-6466991265151713360moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://docs.unity3d.com/Manual/StandardShaderMetallicVsSpecular.html" target="_blank">https://docs.unity3d.com/Manua<wbr>l/StandardShaderMetallicVsSpec<wbr>ular.html</a><br>
</p>
<p>The metalness workflow has some great positives ofc, but it also
has some serious limitations when it comes to accurately rendering
materials.<br>
</p>
<p>For example:</p>
<ul>
<li>There are often texture interpolation issues where a
dielectric and metallic materials meet
(<a class="m_4577513004900593642gmail-m_-6466991265151713360moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://s3.amazonaws.com/docs.knaldtech.com/docuwiki/light_fringe_values_close.jpg" target="_blank">https://s3.amazonaws.com/docs<wbr>.knaldtech.com/docuwiki/light_<wbr>fringe_values_close.jpg</a>)<br>
</li>
<li>The metallic workflow is most often locked to 4% reflectivity
for dielectrics which gives less control to experienced artists.</li>
<li>Semi-conductors (Rust, Magnetite etc.) and crystalline objects
(gem stones etc.) cannot be rendered accurately as they require
a reflectivity of between 4-18%.</li>
<li>It's much easier to use incorrect values within the metalness
mask when less experienced artists author content, which can
break the workflow.<br>
</li>
</ul>
<p>As such I wouldn't recommend removing the specular workflow from
Blender as it would be severely limiting the usefulness of the
viewport for artists that do not use the metallic workflow. <br>
</p>
<p>Cheers,</p>
<p>-Andy<br>
</p>
</div>
<br></div></div>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Bf-viewport mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Bf-viewport@blender.org" target="_blank">Bf-viewport@blender.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-viewport" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.blender.org/mail<wbr>man/listinfo/bf-viewport</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Bf-viewport mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Bf-viewport@blender.org">Bf-viewport@blender.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-viewport" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.blender.org/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/bf-viewport</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>