Started by Matt, January 01, 2022, 09:21:27 AM
Quote from: digitalguru on January 01, 2022, 07:24:17 PMBut for my money, a new shader under the Surface Shader category called "Flat" would get my vote.
Quote from: Dune on January 02, 2022, 03:12:34 AMFor my work at least a 'mask shader' isn't necessary. I would probably not use it, as it's easy enough to use a surface shader (with its extra possibilities to use breakup and all other parameters).If you really need the 'new default shader', why not call it 'pure color shader' (you already mentioned it, Matt).
Quote from: Hannes on January 02, 2022, 03:27:15 AMHappy new year, Matt!!!Actually I have to say, that I never thought, that I need a special shader for luminosity. It didn't feel uncomfortable for me to check, if there's reflectivity, since I do that automatically. But that's only my opinion.
Quote from: WAS on January 02, 2022, 03:21:00 AMBreakup only works for clamped coverage input, and breaks scalar data. You also can't "breakup" child input, so you're just using the mask input redundantly on white colour to achieve breakup which also breaks simple PF input. You can use functions for the same effect while preserving data, in one node. These sort of easy to the point shaders are pretty important in getting to the point of a scene quickly. Having to set up a surface layer just to mask scalar data which is so common for me is annoying. I can see how it's now so annoying for you because of the simple nature of your scenes with reds.
Quote from: Dune on January 01, 2022, 10:37:43 AMMy first answer would be that, as long as we can turn off any reflectivity, no new shader is needed. Of course I have to remind myself to do so if I add a new default shader and don't want any reflectivity, but the more shaders, the more complexity, I'd say.But I might miss something others may use more frequently than I do.