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 <d...@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:* d...@doug.org.nz > *W:* http://doug.org.nz > > _______________________________________________ > Bf-committers mailing list > Bf-committers@blender.org > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers > _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers