Can it make a sort of stripey, greeny, marbly sort of thing. With splodges. And maybe a couple of holes, with a client breathing down your neck who can change his mind on a sixpence and thinks green is too blue?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM [mailto:owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM] On
> Behalf Of Thomas Helzle
> Sent: 28 June 2006 23:14
> To: XSI(at)Softimage.COM
> Subject: Re: Replacing the shadertree? Possible?
>
> The solution is in reach:
> If anyone missed this amazing new material
> http://www.tek2shoot.com/content/view/29/27/
> Please have a look.
> It combines a lot of what we are talking about here into one shader.
>
> - Instead of separate shaders for each highlight-flavor you have a
> dropdown to select the one you need.
> - Instead of those cheap archaic highlight solutions (phong, blinn)
> only, it has Lafortune built in that really looks like light
> reflections instead of painting just dots.
> - It combines physical accurate surface simulation with all the older
> models.
>
> For me, it will replace about 20 or more of XSIs nodes in my everyday
> work.
>
> And it is very fast too.
>
> It reflects perfectly what I need everyday: On one hand, I need "Steel,
> Gold, Glass, Paint" - I don't want to spend half an hour with basic
> archaic nodes to get it right, but just slap a shader on it and be
> done. There are many materials like these that are very well defined
> anyway.
> Then I have more special needs where I need to tweak a lot. Again, with
> this node I see all the possibilities to mix and connect like I want
> to.
>
> My first test after playing with the shader for 20 minutes:
> www.screendream.de/stuff/T2S_illumination_Glass_v0001.jpg
>
> Wow, this tool is hot.
>
> Now I just have to find out how I can make this the default material :-
> )
>
> I am deeply impressed by this shader. Thanks a ton for this fantastic
> plugin to the people at Tek2Shot!
>
> Thanks, Thanks, Thanks, Thanks....
> ... ok I'll stop now ;-)
>
> Thomas Helzle
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 22:36:47 +0200, Andy Jones <andy(at)thefront.com>
> wrote:
>
> > It sounds like what you're talking about is a sort of "shader wizard"
> > that just helps you design a shader. This is something we've talked
> > about for quite a while, as a way to get more people shading despite
> > the additional complexity of our custom multi-pass shader trees that
> > tend to change per job. In lieu of actually doing that, we
> eventually
> > just implemented a system for translating standard shaders into valid
> > shader for the current job by creating a library of metadata about
> how
> > all the inputs of shaders should be interpreted, even if they have
> > different names. The problem is that artists still do weird things
> > with the base shaders that don't really translate into something
> > reasonable and organized. And sometimes we get things dialed by eye
> > that are just downright wrong.
> >
> > Ultimately, what has benefited us far more is to find ways to reduce
> > the building blocks of the shaders to a smaller set which we can then
> > change dynamically and have the changes propagate through the job.
> By
> > doing this, we reduced the amount of work required to do shading for
> a
> > job and were able to leverage more talent and technical prowess per
> > shader than we could before. Basically, what I'm saying is that
> there
> > would be tremendous benefit on even just medium scale productions to
> > having some sort of macro engine so that the work done by technical
> > types could be used in an intuitive way by artists within the context
> > of a particular show. Sort of like if there were an easy interface
> > for creating shader phenomena (which maybe there will be very soon).
> >
> > Wizard-like tools would still be very useful for people I'm sure.
> > These aren't mutually exclusive concepts at all.
> >
> > -Andy
> >
> > Luc-Eric Rousseau wrote:
> >
> >> I did not argue for a layer-based approach instead of a tree-based
> approach, I argued for new tools where the material is described by
> combining elemental, artistic properties together instead of
> programming functions. Some of these functions may be complex and a
> single conceptual connection between two could mean dozens of
> connections at the low implementation level. For fudging the results,
> artist might use tools like paint the shadows and highlights in 3D, or
> position a gradient with a manipulator in the 3D viewport. It just
> means that the problems are addressed in different ways, not so much
> based on how it has to be implemented. The tech people always get a
> sense of panic that power will be taken from them any time these
> discussions occur, but they generally end up benifiting from
> additionnal tools to play with, and more time to as the mundane stuff
> begins to work out-of-the-box. btw I don't know the plans in XSI, but
> it should be interesting to see how mental r!
> ay!
> > '!
> >> s metaSL will impact the more technical needs.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Tim Leydecker
> >>>
> >>> Hi Luc,
> >>>
> >>> itÂs true, everything that can be laid out flat and painted easily
> >>> across meshborders without any seams is an artists dream.
> >>>
> >>> But nodes for condition state of an object/selection are as well,
> >>> the angle two objects have, the distance in a relation to something
> >>> else, the lightintensity at a certain point, the viewingangle all
> >>> those bits also help in getting the best out of that perfect pink
> >>> nailgloss painted on previously. ItÂs also great if you donÂt have
> >>> to repeatedly refresh it whenever you add a layer, e.g. you share a
> >>> common texture support or UV set, picked one, new color done.
> >>>
> >>> IÂd therefor really wouldnÂt want to limit things to a layer
> approach.
> >>> Actually, I hardly ever layer textures in Maya on a specific
> channel
> >>> but do often layer entire materials, or misuse a material to get
> the
> >>> illuminated areas (including the parts partly occluded by shadow)
> as
> >>> a way to select areas and do another operation on those.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> ---
> >> Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in
> body:
> >> unsubscribe xsi
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ---
> > Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in
> body:
> > unsubscribe xsi
> >
>
>
>
> ---
> Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in
> body:
> unsubscribe xsi
>
---
Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in body:
unsubscribe xsi
