Tutorial pool idea.

[TheBadger]

Hello,

Had this idea where we who are interested, each give Oshyan something between 5-20 dollars to keep in trust to pay some of the gurus to write step by step tutorials on some of their best work.

So imagine a bunch of us, say 20-50-100 or more, deposited 5-20 dollars each into a cash pool. Then we select some images from the portfolios of some of the TG2 users websites, or even this forum, and vote for some that we can all agree would be great to see broken down into a step by step. Then whoever is chosen by popular vote, gets paid out of the pool to write a comprehensive tut for that image (And I mean very detailed!)

The payment should be significant, to be fair to the writer, and to inspire more involvement by more gurus. Also the images selected should be of obvious high caliber. And the tut should be as nice as the image.

Planetside could take a cut for hosting, to cover any expenses involved. And there by make the process trust worthy.
the tuts could be sent to participants the same way the Software license numbers are. I'm sure there are even simpler ways. But really I don't care if people who don't pay in see them. As long as I get to, I'll still pay in. In fact, if even after the writer got payed from the pool, was able to make more cash from his own site, or a tut site, I'd be happy for him. I just want to see some tuts of some of the work I have looked at. Nodes are nice, but tuts are best!

There are tons of people who would pay in! you all know there is. I will. I'll give my credit card number to planetside's billing service right now!!! $20 dollars from me guaranteed. The best part is, that the tut will be well received because it was asked for.

The details would be pretty easy to work out, we just need to do it.

We could vote by a thread poll. Or by naming the artist and work in the submission form for the billing service. Only those who pay in should get a vote though.

We can peer pressure the artist to do it But who doesn't want some extra cash right now? And if taking money for the tut seems strange to anyone, just think of it as a prize for being talented!

This will work if we want it to. Can any of you guys support this idea?

Think on it.

[neon22]

How about a kickstarter campaign...?
Just suggesting this as a mechanism whereby the monetisation of this idea might be easily realised.

[Dune]

I guess and I'm afraid, judging the immense response to your in itself interesting idea, Badger, that the idea dies without having been born.....

[TheBadger]

Neon22,
How does it work?

Dune,
I am now more against the death of unborn ideas than I was before 

[neon22]

Check it out here. You've a bit of reading to do and exploring...
http://www.kickstarter.com/help/school/defining_your_project

[cyphyr]

I think it's a great idea but there's a huge "BUT".
Writing tutorials is hard, very hard.
If it was easy there would be plenty out there already.
It requires that everyone is at the same starting point, has the same base understanding and is able to follow the same set of instructions. Look at the wildly differing results from the (apologies if the title is wrong)  "Golden forest at Dawn" tutorial. One especially difficult part of writing any tutorial for terragen is the "Random Seed" that is such an integrated part of so many nodes. By introducing that element to the learning process (ok you could just type in the number suggested by the tutorial author) makes following a linear process very difficult. The random seed will have thrown in a bunch of new data that will throw the rest of the process off kilter.
It also requires  that the author has a good writing (or speaking) style, and doesn't go rambling off in obscure directions (did I mention my travels in Argentina ...).
Possibly some VERY simple tutorials could be made but they would be little more that an introduction (a function that this forum and others like it, do very well already).
This is why I was asking earlier about a meta understanding of Terragen LINK. We are still working towards this and as is evident in the recent "Andromeda setting over Umar" thread, there's applications and methodologies that even the program authors are unaware off. Effectively Terragen can be looked at as a language, it has some basic grammar, but the final output is down to the individual and their personal understanding.
Richard

[Matt]

We are still working towards this and as is evident in the recent "Andromeda setting over Umar" thread, there's applications and methodologies that even the program authors are unaware off.

I was unaware? Haha, no. You need to try harder

Matt

[Simius Strabus]

I think tutorials should be written in way that someone with zero experience could work with it.
I know its very hard to do this (wrote some equipment doc's for no-brainers) and the tutorials would be long and for some of us boring,
but it would make the lives of many a novice a lot easier.
And you need to test these tutorials, too.

[cyphyr]

I was unaware? Haha, no. You need to try harder

Hehe, so you knew along and were just holding back! Making us work for it eh?
I think my point about grammar has some weight though.

Cheers

Ricchard

[Matt]

Hehe, so you knew along and were just holding back! Making us work for it eh?
I think my point about grammar has some weight though.

Yes, it has a lot of weight. And that is the answer to your question

Matt

[neon22]

IMHO this is why the need for tutorials of an undefined nature keeps coming up:

• TG2 is composed of building blocks with a simple grammer. In this way its similar to a language.
• But TG2 is not so much a language but more of a map of Matt's brain.
• As such TG2 is hard for some of us to understand.   

I'd draw the analogy (but its only that) to an aspect of the difference between Python and Perl (not to start a religous war). It could be said that Perl is a map of Larry Wall's brain rather than a language.
The difference might be expressed as useful idiosyncratic differences, shortcuts, bundled aspects for common use. Perhaps this is less true of later versions of Perl.

What I mean by this is that we have the red nodes - which make up building blocks, and the Blue nodes - which could be said to be more foundational but incomplete (in that you cannot construct all Red nodes from Blue nodes), and special purpose, or supporting, nodes.

These nodes can be used to construct a huge variety of useful terrain renderings whilst also minimising the number of useless renderings. But because they are incomplete, in the manner mentioned, we can't really call them a language. (I do not mean to say that TG2 presents itself as a language.)
But I would propose that this aspect of not being a language is what makes the deep understanding and mastery of the tools difficult.

For example some nodes will give you consistent results all over a planet, whilst others will have their effect relevant around the zero origin. There being no specific node to reproject the behaviour between these two.
There is also a perfectly understandable bias towards Y direction, which makes it conceptually difficult to realise overhangs and such.

IMHO this is why the need for tutorials of an undefined nature keeps coming up.

As well as the basics of how to use the general system, the approach of a Cookbook with many useful recipes, seems to be the best way to show more advanced uses of node structures.
But even this will always hint at the internal structure which is never truly revealed as a side effect of how the nodes are presented.

Please note I am not suggesting anything should be different about TG2. This approach is quite valid IMHO. It means a lower barrier to entry at the initial stages but it does have the effect of a higher barrier to entry for 'advanced' uses. As time goes on we have seen the addition of many blue nodes and the addition and enhancement of many existing nodes to expose hidden aspects that advanced users desire to manipulate directly.

So perhaps in the spirit of offering solutions rather than problems, we could start a breakdown of a useful set of tutorials, define what should be in them, and lead onto a number of recipes for the cookbook showing how to do specific useful advanced aspects. Of these there would be several examples of achieving similar effects but in entirely different ways. The already covered basic aspects of system use could be regarded as done already and not included.

E.g. as a starter

Terrain detail

• Powerfractals and scale
  - how scale parameters relate to real world features
• rocks on rocks
  - using child nodes to add detail
  - more control using masks
• controlling feature visibility through hierarchy
• controlling feature visibility through surface layers
• etc...

There's probably an existing list in another thread and there is the Wiki.
But maybe we could discuss a framework with headings and what each part would attempt to explain through examples.
Thereby leap into the pool...

Then again The Badger's idea at the top of this thread of voting for a scene breakdown for selected works will work just as well.

[Oshyan]

Frankly I think the Wiki is *perfect* for an effort of this kind. It's basically built for exactly these situations, where you have a lot of people with different bits of knowledge, no one with the whole of it, and the need to work together to ultimately build the *knowledgebase* that's necessary. You could start easily, even with minimal knowledge, by defining (as Neon has) a general outline of things you think should be known, or that you want to know. You could even start it as a simple "documentation requests" area with each person making lists *in the wiki* of their particular desires. Then you could cross-reference them, find the commonalities, and hopefully narrow the list down to what seems most useful. Those with knowledge can contribute as time and energy allows, in the areas with which they are familiar. Almost everyone figures out something useful about TG while using it, so "those with knowledge" can encompass quite a lot. Even those who don't feel they have original knowledge to contribute can likely be of great use in editing, organizing, and structuring the content that others generate (frankly I think one of the most tedious aspects of documentation is organizing it).

This is not to take away from official documentation efforts, which are ongoing (take a look at the node reference today vs. a couple months ago). But I think a lot of what is being talked about may be beyond what can reasonably be considered the realm of official documentation, going into tutorials on specific techniques in particular. I think the best results will come from both aspects being strong, official docs, and community contributions. I really feel the wiki is an underutilized resource. I hope it doesn't stay that way.

- Oshyan

[TheBadger]

Hey guys.

Thanks for giving this thread some dignity

I agree that writing a tut is a time consuming task, and not an easy one. So I feel strongly that anyone who does it should be paid. One question I have though, is what is a fair price? I was thinking like 500 dollars. I don't know if thats high or low.

Just for conversations sake, lets try this out. I'll pick an image of high quality, and presumably a very (necessarily) complex node network.

For example.

http://www.planetside.co.uk/images/phocagallery/thumbs/phoca_thumb_l_hannes-another%20jungle%20flyover.jpg
By Hannes

I just picked it because its very good, and I presume, has a very complex node network. Also, I just checked the official gallery, and theres lots of new stuff there!

Okay, so what would Hannes need to do to write a tut?

Go back to his project and refresh his mind on it. And than start over, reconstructing every node and why he made his choices in written form. Hopefully with screen captures.
PDF it. Thats it.

If it has the detail that "A Get Started Terragen 2 Tutorial for the Terrified" Than everyone should be able to follow it. And like anything else in life. The more you already know about TG2, the more you'll get from the tut.

If its step by step, than just by following along, most people will increase their understanding of TG2's nature.

So all we need is to agree on say 10 images, than vote on the one that will give the most information in tut form. Wait for it to be written. Pay the artist. BAM! We are all better for it.

If there is enough cash in the pool we can vote for more images.

In addition to the cash, I would point out that anyone who goes through the process of writing a tut, should most likely, come out a stronger TG2 user. Teaching is a proven way to learn. Just throwing that out there.

Really all we need is enough in the pool, and to get the artists to do the tuts for the images. If we get one tut a month for a few months, I would be one happy camper!

@Hannes, if your reading this, sorry to put you on the spot but I had to do it to someone. Great image by the way! How come I never saw it before?

@Oshyan and everyone,

I have found something like 30 tuts in other places on the internet, we should probably try to get them added to the wikki! I can .rar them for you (oshyan) if you think you can back track them?

The problem with all of the tuts I have seen, and with Oshyan's very good suggestion, is that it is all puzzle pieces.
What I mean is that I have only seen one tut that takes a reader from nothing, to a completed, complex project in a step by step fashion. All of the puzzle pieces are GREAT! Don't get me wrong. But we really need to have at least a few start to finish, step by steps, for a project that is of a pro nature. To make all of the puzzle pieces fit together better.

I just started to make use of the wikki, I like it too. And I agree it should become a THE hub, for settled learning, leaving this forum for the "in progress" stuff. If the wikki can host this effort lets just do that!


*@Neon22
I agree with you. But if you write a tut, remember, that some of us are visual learners! We will need lots of images. I think that every effort should be made to make even the most complex ideas in TG2 accessible to everyone. So when you talk about advanced users sharing with advanced users, well thats half the problem. Its easy for you to have a conversation with someone like Oshyan or T-U and lots of others. But its hard for many more of us to follow.
So my question then is, why talk in public?

Don't get me wrong! I'm just saying I don't only want to be impressed with you guys, I want to participate as much as possible, for me. But I often feel shut out NOT because you guys are snobs, NO! But because there has been no path provided for me to advance to an advanced user.

I hope I am saying what I mean?

[Oshyan]

Badger, if you've found other tutorials that are useful, just link to them in the wiki. Make a list. We can't host other people's content without their consent, and if the tutorial already has a "home" on the Internet, a simple link works well.

The start-to-finish tutorials are one style, but the funny thing about them is I've heard as many people *lamenting* that approach as praising it. What I mean is many people explicitly object to simply reproducing someone else's work as a learning process. They prefer to be given lots of fundamental knowledge, then use their own experiments to build scenes out of those pieces. I personally find value in both approaches, and I think both resources should exist. So I'm not saying your idea is bad, just that you may not get as much weight behind it as you'd like as that style of learning is not for everyone.

Regarding the paid approach, I think it's great if funds can be raised and there are willing authors. We would love to see people in this community being able to earn income from their passion and knowledge. But finding the sweet spot for tutorial writer compensation vs. available community resources may be a challenge. So far few people have committed to any funding, so you're far short of even 1 tutorial at $500 (or even $100), unless you're willing to foot the bill nearly by yourself.

While the piecemeal approach does have its disadvantages, the great thing about it is it does *not* require some huge effort all at once and it's not something that someone necessarily needs to be paid to do. If everyone jumped over to the wiki whenever they had some new tidbit of info, technique, etc. to share, we would already have a growing library and sort of reference, above and beyond the baseline that the official docs are meant to provide, encompassing multiple approaches to similar problems, creative techniques, unusual solutions, etc.

- Oshyan

[TheBadger]

Badger, if you've found other tutorials that are useful, just link to them in the wiki. Make a list. We can't host other people's content without their consent, and if the tutorial already has a "home" on the Internet, a simple link works well.

Okay, I will do it! lol, I guess I already should have. I'll try to have it done by the weekend.

I agree with you that some wont want to pay in, that they wont like reproducing others work. But there is already a ton of stuff for them to use the way they like. Almost everything is in the fashion you described. There is almost nothing in the other direction.

Both would be best, if we had just a few more FULL tuts, it would be explosive!

If I could pay for it my self I would. I would hire a few of you to teach me what you know in person! But I cant, this is the best I could come up with.

I will pay in. To get to a hundred dollars we only need 4 other people! Just 4! 20 people is not impossible. We just have to try it!

@ everyone! After all the complaints about a lack of tuts, are you seriously not going to jump on this?! You spent how much on the software? But you won't spend $20 to master it? THATS CRAZY! What are you holding on to the money for anyway? Its not going to be worth the paper its printed on in 5 years anyway! LETS TG

Okay, thats the best motivational speech I can make. Hope it works.