Node Editors

[jaf]

Kind of an interesting thread over at the Lightwave forum concerning the LW Node Editor.  I couldn't help but think of Terragen and World Machine as I read it.

     http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?t=127919

[jo]

Hi,

It does illustrate the two different ways of looking at things. In that thread RebelHill has the right take on the node network - it's a toolbox which lets people do things we haven't envisaged. We provide the tools, you make stuff with them. A big part of CG has always been making custom shaders and such. Without a node network you need to write these yourself in code of some sort, RenderMan shading language for example. The node network lets you do the same sort thing but graphically. It's a graphical programming environment.

Not everyone will get to grips with that. Part of the issue here is that TG2 pretty much went straight to the high end. We had planned for a mid range product where the node network would have been much less visible.

The node network can be intimidating. The thing is that you can do a lot without needing to touch it. For example you can operate on a kind of TG Classic level without needing to use the node network and still make great scenes, including objects and such. An awful lot carries over from TG Classic, even though it might not immediately be obvious.

There are more things we can do to make the node network easier to use. Better previewing of nodes would be a big help for example. However whatever we do I don't think it's going to be something the "artistic" user is going to appreciate as much as the "technical" user. That's not a problem as I see it. We do need to make sure that "artistic" users are well catered for though. A lot of that probably comes down to tools and interaction with the nodes themselves, not issues with the node network and the graphical programming approach itself. We also need to make sure that assets created by more technically oriented users are easy for artistic users to make use of. As a first step towards this we're working on making clip files easier to use.

Regards,

Jo

[rcallicotte]

I love node networks.  Nodes are the future.  Look at ICE in SoftImage.

[timj]

The best node editor I've seen and used is Grasshopper (for Rhino3D). It has nodes for external scripts (VBScript and C#) which allow you to add anything that Grasshopper doesn't already have. I'd love to see that functionality built-in to TG2.

[jaf]

As mentioned, nodes really give one the power that would be impossible to do with menus.  Sometimes the (node) flow seems rather vague though.  I have always approached learning logically and node networks seem a perfect fit.   With World Machine, I can work a classic left to right and wind up with everything linked to an end output(s).

A new user of TG2 is likely to get confused, especially if he/she is the type who wants to know why things work like they do.  For example, I look at the default TG2 scene and see Terrain connected to the Shaders connected to Objects (Planet 01).  That makes sense.  Then the Atmosphere connects to Planet 01.  Okay, I'll add a lake.  Wait, the Water group has the Water shader 01 and the Lake 01, and Lake 01 has an output, but it's not connected to anything.  But its there when I render.

So suddenly I have doubts I understand the way the TG2 node network works and I can't approach it "logically" (or at least my logic.)  Is there a default connection to all devices that have outputs (that gets used if it's not connected?)  No, because some when disconnected work like they do when disabled.

For me, if there was a final group called "Scene" with all the other nodes connecting to it, it would make everything "clearer".  But maybe that's just me.

Please don't take this as a complaint about TG2.  I'm just throwing out my thoughts on the subject of node networks. 

[jo]

Hi jaf,

I do see what you mean. The way I look at it is that objects don't need to be connected to the planet because their position associates them with a specific planet. They render independently of the planet anyway. The Lake node is also an object (you create it with "Add Water Object"). In fact the Lake is basically a disc object with some special attributes. It does have a connection to a planet but that's kind of a loose association - it's mainly required so it can position itself relative to the planet. It would also be tricky to connect Lakes to planets because you can have more than one lake. We have talked about an Ocean node which would create a global ocean and that would make more sense as something connected to the planet.

Lighting is another one which doesn't connect to the planet. I think the reason for that is that the nature of a light - it can only light up things it reaches. A "big" light like Sunlight can light multiple planets. Smaller lights are only going to light up the planet they're close to. They're independent of planets.

Regards,

Jo

[jaf]

Thanks Jo,

That makes sense, though multiple lakes could go to "tie points." But that brings up more confusion too so it's not worth changing anything. 

[goldfarb]

wow...12 pages of posts and only one mention of Houdini...

[jo]

Hi,

wow...12 pages of posts and only one mention of Houdini...

Don't worry, I hear about it all the time ;-). Matt has used Houdini a lot, there is a fair amount in the node network inspired by that.

Regards,

Jo

[Matt]

I used Houdini for a short time many years ago. I haven't used it a lot, but I cite it as an example that solves many problems that are similar to ones we have.