- This topic has 32 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 1 month ago by Jeremy Hill.
October 10, 2019 at 4:24 am #2355Eric
I like the seperate inputs approach in this case, but mix/multi node is great in general, I hope that is also possible in the GUI.
If a ‘fuzziness’ input is used it would be nice to have falloff options or a curve to fiddle with.
Overall the material system is more fragmented than the uberbsdf approach, It may prove to be less flexible.
It all sounds so techy right now, and all were talking about is diffuse + spec… well there’s more than that, but you get my point, we need an artist friendly tool with as much of the jargon hidden as possible.October 10, 2019 at 5:32 am #2356Jeremy Hill
It will indeed be possible to use any such nodes from the the gui. As for specific attributes and behaviors for them, that’s just a matter of designing the node and deciding what it should be capable of doing.
Whether we disagree about the core types being fragmented, over time it will become less and less necessary to use them directly. Even now, in working on file import for the gui, I am actually not directly using conductor/dielectric/layer at all, since for example, the plastic material’s color, roughness, and specularity attributes give me enough control.
An early request was something like arnold’s standard surface, and that is something we can (and intend to) build. But as I think I have described before, that is not a more flexible material, it is one that hides flexibility, doing internally, what you would otherwise have to do explicitly.
Before that, though, we are working on a PBR-type material, which is intended to allow making use of commonly-available texture sets with a minimum of setup.October 10, 2019 at 2:21 pm #2357Eric
Plastic is not a material type, as a substance it can have huge visual variety.
The idea of using ever more specific material types to try and describe the infinite variety of reality…
I am not familiar with arnold’s approach.
We do not want presets/templates, we want a universal tool with an underlying logic that relates to our understanding of the real-world.
Re. PBR, it is now a common standard, so makes sense to offer support. Personally I have no problem loading pbr stuff into maxwell, but many users couldn’t work it out.October 10, 2019 at 3:45 pm #2358Jeremy Hill
You mentioned uberbsdf, and I took that to mean something along the lines of arnold’s standard surface:
If you would care to be more specific, we can consider how some other type of concept might be dealt with.October 10, 2019 at 4:17 pm #2359Eric
Sorry, by uberbsdf I meant maxwells bsdf which is a unified ‘do it all’ component.October 10, 2019 at 4:34 pm #2360Eric
Thanks for the links. At a glance, the arnold standard surface looks like maxwell’s bsdf, but less flexible, less organised.
I think it’s worth saying, that for the majority of solid materials there is no need to worry about technical terminology. The way the user builds those materials is merely visual, by layering some spec above a diffuse base or blend of diffuse bases.
For dielectrics and IOR metals the technical terminology is appropriate.
Earlier I mentioned polished stone, You said we are limited to one layer per substrate (physically correct), but using multiple spec components is typical of most materials. So Bella’s material system is incompatible with the way everybody builds materials.. I don’t understand the usefulness of the layer system. I assume I can stack additive conductors to build up spec, but where is the fresnel/ND control?October 10, 2019 at 5:01 pm #2361Jeremy Hill
Well, here we hit a point where I am a little hesitant to go into things, because I don’t want to be seen to be building hype based on not-yet-existing functionality, but the fact is that the design has always had multiple layers over the substrate; however the implementation is not quite there to support more than one, so one is all that has been exposed at this point.
Regarding arbitrary IOR, I will defer to Albert to comment on that.October 10, 2019 at 5:39 pm #2362Eric
Ok, thats good to hear. Thanks.
So I guess stacking and blending should apply to substrates only?
Hard to imagine much user freedom / flexibility right now, so little to go on really, I’m too far away.., but I trust you guys can make it work.October 10, 2019 at 6:14 pm #2363Jeremy Hill
The stack/blend materials use the final evaluated result of each material as a whole, so they do not apply specifically to substrates.October 10, 2019 at 6:14 pm #2364Albert Martinez
About your question about IOR, we don’t have at this time such control in conductors, but you can set up with frontal reflectance and it will be automatically generating the IOR. We have been considering to allow a direct control over that, but we always start by exposing fewer parameters, and adding more only if needed.
Also, I want to mention we don’t have additive control. That’s one of the purposes of having layer system, for example to create a plastic you have a pick a diffuse conductor substrate, and you can add a glossy or specular layer above it with IOR 1.2 for example. So you don’t need to deal with additives that can end having exceeding energy problems, and this layered system have not.
At same time we will add more layers, to allow for example “clearcoat”. In the meantime you can use blending material to mix multiple materials.October 10, 2019 at 6:19 pm #2365Thomas An.
A lot of deliberation here.
In my view, too much choice makes people unhappy. We end up playing with the knobs instead focusing on the visual art.
Maxwell alpha was my favorite (a metal, a dialectric, and a plastic). Done.October 10, 2019 at 6:23 pm #2366Jeremy Hill
It’s quite a trick to make both (or all) types of people happy .. but hopefully we are gonna succeed at it. 🙂October 10, 2019 at 9:08 pm #2367Eric
Less is best, leave the knob fiddlers in the cold.
@Albert with user freedom and ingenuity I have overcome tricky material situations, Blood splattered snow was a tricky one.. anyway my point is that you can’t predict what the user wants to make, so the basic building blocks should be as generic as possible. Correct metals, correct topcoat without additive, is great but there are infinite materials that do not fit neatly into any categories.
We need substrates which that have all the controls exposed.
Found it.. Although maybe your layer system would have made this material a lot easier, so could be a bad example.
October 11, 2019 at 11:26 am #2368Albert Martinez
Sure you also can blend materials using opacity, so you can do that blood example too. Layered is a way to build a more complex material block, while you can keep combining these with others as you wish.October 11, 2019 at 12:18 pm #2369Eric
I would like to blend/stack substrates independently of layers, and blend/stack layers independent of substrates, otherwise I have to duplicate identical substrates which is so wasteful.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.