[Bf-committers] Texture assignment workflow is confusing

Doug Ollivier doug at doug.org.nz
Fri Apr 30 03:52:36 CEST 2010


Awesome,  was curious how light-wave did it.

They are all seeming relatively similar with minor differences in approach.

Any wild cards out there from strange softwares etc?

On 30/04/2010 1:40 p.m., Daniel Salazar - 3Developer.com wrote:
> Ive suggested this type of texture managing in the past inspired on
> Lightwave where you can assign a texture or a texture stack to each
> value
>
> Material properties with a T icon to launch texture stack
>
> http://www.except.nl/lightwave/hdr/images/Surface_notgood_sm.png
>
> Texture Stack
>
> http://www.robinwood.com/Catalog/Technical/LightwaveTuts/LWPacks/StainedGlass/SGlassImages/SGlass19B-LayerStack.jpg
>
> nice...
>
> Daniel Salazar
> www.3developer.com
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 7:32 PM, Doug Ollivier<doug at doug.org.nz>  wrote:
>    
>> On 30/04/2010 3:49 a.m., Knapp wrote:
>>      
>>> I only use Blender but I was wondering if the other 3d packages have
>>> found a good way to handle this texture/materials problem? Could we
>>> incorporate some good ideas this way? Why reinvent the wheel? Does
>>> anyone have a favorite other system? How does it work?
>>>
>>> I am not putting down the other ideas given so far, just hoping to
>>> find all the options before we pick the best.
>>>
>>>        
>> For those who have just joined my concept is to move the texture
>> assignment to the point of control/use/influence when setting up a
>> material in order to create a semantic/logicial link between action and
>> affect : http://www.pasteall.org/pic/show.php?id=2989
>>
>> Note: I dislike submitting ideas and saying they were influenced by the
>> big boys, because I find it sometimes elicits a "we don't want to copy"
>> response, and forces us to reinvent the wheel due to the pride of being
>> independent and creative. However, pride aside, I agree that looking at
>> how others have solved a problem, and then improving on their solutions
>> is one of the best methods of development, its not revolutionary, but
>> nor were puffer-fish, they evolved from something way less exciting.
>>
>> I'll outline the two softwares that I have used that give any real
>> control over multiple textures, I am curious what great softwares others
>> have used that solve these issues. But to sum it up I found the easiest
>> to use ones use a socket type system.  The non-flexible ones with nice
>> results (cad rendering packages) give few if not no options so I just
>> won't mention them.
>>
>> *Photoshop 3D tools,*
>> They use a limited socket type system,  either a colour, or a single
>> image per value of influence.
>> I.e. you can choose an image for the reflection channel, colour channel,
>> spec channel....
>> Super easy, pretty limited, but limited in order to be compatible with
>> real-time 3D content in PDF's etc...
>> Since you are in photoshop you can edit the images, and this is where
>> you can add layers and overlay options etc... to get what you want in
>> terms of further control.
>>
>> *Maya (it's been a while, this is from memory)*
>> Uses something in-between what I am suggesting and the photoshop
>> approach.  Just like the Blender 2.5 materials panel; each material or
>> setting is broken up into a sub panel that can be turned on/off for any
>> one effect (incredibly close to the current Blender layout). However,
>> they use a socket type texture/node/material input to alter various
>> settings that cannot be controlled simply by a slider or colour picker.
>> I believe their implementation is even used to plug in 3rd party Plugins
>> like SSS, Ramp, and fresnel effects to the various channels etc... (not
>> just textures).  This linked approach also creates a hypergraph (nodes)
>> structure.  I had no idea how to use that then so ignored it.
>>
>> My biggest annoyance with the Maya system was getting lost once a
>> texture has been added, as it dropped you somewhere else in the
>> interface that you did not expect (a challenge we would need to
>> overcome, but one I think is possible).
>>
>> I am glad brecht suggested this or something similar, as he's pretty on
>> to it, especially when it comes to getting large numbers of fans.
>>
>> If this approach is preferred, and is backed up by a development goal
>> from the decision makers (If Ton sanctions exploring it it etc..), I
>> will be willing to work through interface issues with Matt, and William
>> (these are the two people focusing on interface correct?).
>>
>> The main interface issues to overcome as I can see it are.
>>
>> ** Materials - how to keep these tabs clean from fluff
>> ** Texture application settings - Where and how do you edit these
>> settings that are unique to each material (not to the texture)
>> ** Texture settings - the traditional 2.4x datablock, how do you get to
>> this and back again from a material, and a potential intermediate step
>> ** Adding and mixing - The current system lets you add and mix multiple
>> textures, how can this be easily and logically done? (nodes?, stacks?...)
>> ** extending into the future... Plugins Etc - I think some of this will
>> come for free if this is a natural step towards "nodes everywhere".
>>
>> I think there are no issues that cannot be overcome. and I think that
>> old textures can be loaded into a new interface with full compatibility.
>>
>> Someone let me know if this warrants further development and I will look
>> at creating a more detailed interface flow scenario.
>>
>> By trade i'm an Industrial Designer, so can look at usability and
>> interaction, I'm not a coder unfortunately so cannot help there.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> --
>> Doug Ollivier
>>
>> *C:*    +64 (0)27 412 0807
>> *P:*    +64 (0)3 980 7197
>> *E:*    doug at doug.org.nz
>> *W:*    http://doug.org.nz
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bf-committers mailing list
>> Bf-committers at blender.org
>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>>
>>      
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-committers mailing list
> Bf-committers at blender.org
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>    


-- 
Doug Ollivier

*C:* 	+64 (0)27 412 0807
*P:* 	+64 (0)3 980 7197
*E:* 	doug at doug.org.nz
*W:* 	http://doug.org.nz



More information about the Bf-committers mailing list