TG materials sticky request

Started by TheBadger, March 31, 2015, 12:03:15 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

fleetwood

The usual materials display object is a modified sphere on a base of some sort. Since we already have displace-able spheres and cubes why not make the display object be made of those two standard Terragen items. There can be an agreed standard displacement quite easily and a Terragen logo displaced into the cube.

Quick example of two materials - this appears like a complicated object but is only a 1 meter radius sphere displaced cylindrically by a very simple gradient image.

Not sure if the clear stretching of the textures with this heavily displaced approach is acceptable ?

j meyer

Where is the benefit of those displaced things?
The stretching might be due to not using world space.

A standard sphere is sufficient enough.And in case the material has some displacement
it would display less confusing on a standard sphere.
Another thing would be the lighting,we should have an agreement for that,too.
Also size can be of importance.Skin or a pebble material needs a smaller object
than a landscape material for example.
So maybe a sphere for small scale stuff and a plane for large scale or so.
Should we take special cases into account? Like don't use distort by normal and/or
the built in warp of the Power fractal on imported models.
Just some thoughts.
Anyway,let's keep it simple and as idiot-proof as possible.

fleetwood


The benefit of at least some standard displacement is to show smaller areas of light and shade. A plain sphere doesn't reveal enough in my opinion although my example has way too much.
Most of the material display objects I've seen seem to attempt to combine showing enough area of smooth surface to suggest how it will look on a plane and also some area of convolution to show how it will look on complex shapes.

This is the materials display form used by Maxwell Render.

choronr

How about a 'Dune Book of Variable Grass Clumps'?

TheBadger

Yes I thought the point of the strange objects was that they showed the material properties better.
Curious about the UV mapping of it anyway. There is no apparent stretching in any of the examples from the other renderers.

I thought it was funny that I could not find the object on google. I am pretty sure I saw it on one of the object sharing sites a long time ago, but can't be sure now. all I could find this time was images of it. They all look like a broken baseball on a stand  ;D "The elusive magical broken baseball asset"

@ choronr
;D ;D
It has been eaten.

TheBadger

QuoteA standard sphere is sufficient enough.And in case the material has some displacement
it would display less confusing on a standard sphere.
Another thing would be the lighting,we should have an agreement for that,too.
Also size can be of importance.Skin or a pebble material needs a smaller object
than a landscape material for example.
So maybe a sphere for small scale stuff and a plane for large scale or so.
Should we take special cases into account? Like don't use distort by normal and/or
the built in warp of the Power fractal on imported models.
Just some thoughts.
Anyway,let's keep it simple and as idiot-proof as possible.

I guess those other examples from other renders all have common lighting set ups too? Well I knew this would not be as simple as just starting a sticky and posting nodes. But it is good to figure this all out. The better we do it it the nicer it will be for us all in the end.

QuoteAnyway,let's keep it simple and as idiot-proof as possible.
Agreed!  ;D It would be a funny thing to have a stroke over  :o But by your own post it is much more complex than I first thought, I thought just finding a good object to showcase the materials would be the hardest part  :D There really is nothing in 3D that is easy.
It has been eaten.

Oshyan

Ideally the materials thread would start with a post that includes the materials sample scene to render all materials in. It would include lighting set correctly, and the test object(s), e.g. built-in sphere. I would suggest either having several different scenes for different scales, or including multiple scales in a single scene, each with its own camera and renderer, so that you can easily render out views of the material at each scale. You could even use a null to (I think) let you connect the output of your material shader(s) to the multiple spheres at different scales very easily, without having to connect each one.

I think it should be considered that a single material sample might not work for all needs. Scale is one clear indication of that, the sheer range of scales in TG is much broader than most applications (e.g. 100 meter rock cracks will not be usefully shown on a 1m sphere). Being able to show displaced and non-displaced samples would also be nice. So it may be best to settle on a standard "swatch" of multiple renders to show each material, e.g. with and without displacement, different scales of sphere. Not too many variations! Just a few, maybe 3-5.

It's also an interesting question to me whether we are talking here about basic "material" types (e.g. metals, simple rock types, etc.) or more complex effect type stuff, e.g. the aforementioned "100 meter rock cracks". There are already threads that share some of the latter type stuff, you know? So... interesting consideration.

- Oshyan

fleetwood

Maybe something like this ?  two spheres and a flat cube and a base

Need settle on standard camera parameters position/ distance etc.

Oshyan

Not bad. The base is a bit pointless though, isn't it? It takes up about 1/4 of the vertical space of the image, but doesn't help show the material at all really. Maybe if it was just a white square on the ground (to show GI effects and contrast or whatever).

- Oshyan

TheBadger

@fleetwood
NICE! That is what I am talking about! Just a single material presented in a really clear way.
That looks like volcanic rock, and even just that is pretty inspirational. Just by looking at that I get a lot of ideas how I could use it.

And you are right, the simple object does well enough. But still, I think that the more complex object like in the OP would show your surface material more dynamically and give more inspiration. Shadows and edges would give a more complete look at the material as someone said before.

It has been eaten.

yossam

Drop the height of your base to about a quarter of what it is now............. ;D

bobbystahr

This sample uses a plane and there is a procedural to do the checks but I couldn't find it so I used a map but that can be replaced. The objects all use a .tgc named, inkys_marblesque_01_tg3 availablr here I believe. I've added the map
It's good to see a texture on multiple shapes in a preview I've found, and these are all TG3 objects.
something borrowed,
something Blue.
Ring out the Old.
Bring in the New
Bobby Stahr, Paracosmologist

fleetwood

Base serves a dual purpose identifying the Terragen units scale as well as being a color reference.

The material nodes can be applied to the surface of all the three different shapes by connecting to one null shader. Very simple to pipe it that way.

A Fake stones example

Ancient corrosion example


This is the TGD I am using including the corrosion material and the grid image that is going onto the four meter base object.

bobbystahr

something borrowed,
something Blue.
Ring out the Old.
Bring in the New
Bobby Stahr, Paracosmologist

yossam

Fleetwood,


I like the last one......... ;D