Functions...Arrrrgh

[DeathTwister]

Hi guys,

  Wow Jo did a bank up job even if I do not agree with all he said he did say it well.  And for the most part I have to agree with many of what he is saying.  But one thing I am finding about shaders and like most it gets over my head quickly but I have a programmer to pick his head and it helps.  But the old saying a shader is a shader while in it's truest sense it is true, Oh no way when it comes from going to one app to another.  Every company seems top like to use there own dang system so it changes everything and if we the artists do not have at least a dummy guide on certain areas then we as artists are screwed mostly.

  I think Bobby has a very good idea and as far as I know, all serious Programs and company's all Have Books on just for there end users so we can have a book for dummies.  Not other books that cost 90.00 bucks and you get 2-3 chapters out of it, but something that is all TG2.  I for one would spend 100 bucks on it if you would make one.  Most people I have known that started using TG2 have left as they say it is to hard to work with.  Maybe listen to them? A book would be I would think a no brainer to release when you release the final version. 

  What you do is all the programmers take there notes that they do when they are working and document those first, then work outwards from there.  3D Max uses a company by "Elliott & Miller" in there inside 3D Max books they put out each new build, so come on guys it ain't that hard, just have to remember to document well while your working is all.  At least that is what my programmer is telling me about all this.

  I would love to see a either inside Terragen or Terragen for dummies when you release the final version, and at the rate you guys are working on it, looks like the book company could beat you to publishing hahahahahaha.

  I personally love this program and will stay until it either makes it or PS goes belly up, but other then a few nice pictures here and there it is not floating my boat these days.  I would really love to see this project finished and have you all working on the next stage:
GETTING IT SO WE CAN BRING IN ANY MODEL WE DARN WELL PLEASE AND HAVE OUR TEXTURE AND MESH ISSUES FIXED FOR GOOD.  EVEN WHEN YOU BREAK UP A MODEL AND BRING THEM IN, IT SEEMS TO HAVE A 32 MESH/TEXTURE LIMIT AND THAT IS JUST LAME NO MATTER HOW YOU LOOK AT IT.  ALSO PLEASE FIX THE MESH/TEXTURE EDITOR AS IT IS AND THAT WOULD SURE HELP MANY OF US TONS IN HAVING OUR ARTIST NEEDS MET WHILE WE WAIT FOR YOU TO GET TO US.

This is a wonderful program and I think if issues like documentation would get better many of the people that left would come back.  But what do I know, I am just a lowly artist who has his own little company is all, trying to make it just like you guys so I really do understand more then you might think.

  Anyway Jo thanks so much for that long post and it is the best post I have seen by any of the staff other then Oshyan on this website and I for one really enjoyed reading it.

   Now go find a way to share with us the differences in all this shader stuff please and explain why when a shader is a shader then why do you all have different ways of doing it, to the point where a shader is not a shader anymore  from app to app.  That one has me bugged more then learning shaders since I work in video game tech, I have been pulling my hair out over that little fact, so a dummies book I think should be on the front burner with you guys.  But that is just me, and I watch these posts to learn how to make my Company better and not make the same mistakes that other Companies do, I hope /winks.......

Thanks so very much Jo, you the man /hugs

DT

[Mr_Lamppost]

For anyone having problems with the math underlying the functions this page looks like it may be useful. 

http://www.themathpage.com/atrig/trigonometry.htm

There are other lessons from basic arithmetic to calculus, there is also a general introduction to functions:

http://www.themathpage.com/aPreCalc/functions.htm

[PG]

Devil post Mr_L Thanks for the links, I have a paper written by a friend of mine on atmospheric rendering, the concepts aren't that hard but all the mathematical calculations do my noggin in.

[DeathTwister]

Ha ha most of us are artists not programmers who work in TG2.  Two different kinds of beasts. LOLOlolol. And yes it gives me headaches every day trying to riddle it all out myself.  Yep I will take a look at them myself. haha INC headaches.

DT

[Oshyan]

The point that still seems to be being missed is that function nodes are available as a more in-depth way of building things in TG2, but they are not fundamental or vital to working in TG2, and in fact the vast majority of TG2 users never use them. So don't assume they are necessarily important to your own work, and don't worry too much about not understanding them. Jo is absolutely correct - if you want to use functions, you will need to learn the general language and mindset of working with these kinds of operators. This is something that has been covered many times before, and far better than we could ever do, so I encourage anyone interested in functions to look into the resources Jo and others have referenced.

As for documentation, we will definitely be providing a complete set of information about TG2's major areas and capabilities, as well as an outline of each node. Books like "Inside This Software Program" are almost invariably written by 3rd parties, not the developers. It's simply not the strength of a software developer to write books, especially at the level of the layman. I would very much encourage the writing of such a book for TG2, but I think it's unfair to say it is our responsibility, or even necessarily a good idea for us to do (especially given all the other things we have to work on ).

- Oshyan

[Blonderator]

I think a "Functions for Dummies" book would be very helpful to everyone, but it will never be made. There is really no need for a book such as this; most users are either scared off by the network view before ever getting in-depth with it or simply lack the knowledge to ever use TG2 to its full potential.

For instance:

Any wonder i stopped using this application. Good concepts for terrains but poor execution of functionality and terminology.   

This seems ignorant. The main problem with Terragen remains its user; if things seem to complicated, it's labeled as a bad program. Terragen has more than good concepts for terrains, it offers control over every aspect of their creation, and the node network only simplifies this and gives more options for creation. Just because a program overwhelms you doesn't mean you should immediately think it's over your head and quit.

Part of the fun of using Terragen is learning about the node network; the best way to learn how nodes work and interact with each other is to test them and view the results real time. You have to have an idea of what you are trying to create, and then use the node network to achieve that goal.



My point is, you don't have to know what every term means or what every node does to be able to use this program well. Instead you can use simple reasoning and a few tests to find out how to do what you are trying to do. You don't need a book to tell you what everything is - most of the function nodes will rarely be used in a scene. Most all scenes in Terragen will never require a user to go out and learn what each mathematical function means. If you are such an experienced user that you are developing a need to use these functions, then you probably already have the initiative to go out and learn what they mean on your own accord.


Just my thoughts.

[rcallicotte]

Just my thoughts - There is good enough reason for this program to be used by more than a handful of dweebs (interpreted brainiacs), so I'm guessing it's in Planetside's best interests to make things as clear as possible.  One of the problems I've had from the beginning has been that this dweeb has not always understood Planetside's wording or the Planetside terminology definitions conflict with other industry defiinitions.  This makes learning hard and counterproductive for most people.

I think, for the most part, that this program is written at such a highly technical level that it's quite a stoop to touch the average person.  Anyway, it isn't worth arguing about.  TG2 needs some books written to make this stuff easier to understand and, of course, to enable much better work than we've seen so far.

So...I think Christopher is probably the tip of the iceberg in terms of the potentially failed marketplace for Planetside.  That might change, if the right people published something worthwhile.  This has happened before with other software.

For instance:

Any wonder i stopped using this application. Good concepts for terrains but poor execution of functionality and terminology.   

This seems ignorant.

[Blonderator]

Regardless, this forum has, at least for me, served well as a virtual guide for dummies. I've been trolling here for many months and learned nearly everything I know about the program from these forums. I think a more plausible future solution would be a user made wiki explaining all the terminology. As there seems to be a relatively large user base here, if we all teamed up to help each other, it would be a much less daunting task.

[rcallicotte]

Blonderator - such a thing has crossed my mind, though I like the idea of writing a book.   

[PG]

The wiki idea is probably the easiest. I made this really quickly. Usually this stuff never catches on, at least not for very long but it's there if anyone wants to add what they know to it. I'll certainly be adding what I know if people are interested.

http://terragen.wikispaces.com/

[rcallicotte]

Would we be able to put one on Wikipedia?

[PG]

Even discussions about seperate pages for Terragen 2 have been dismissed. I put the wikispaces one up to see if it gains popularity. If it does then I'll create a full wiki on my server but there's no point doing it before then if no one uses it.

[jo]

Hi,

Would we be able to put one on Wikipedia?

The documentation area is a Wiki. As far as I'm aware anyone can make use of it. You can change my function node documentation if you like, for example.

Regards,

Jo

[rcallicotte]

Hell no, Jo.  I love your documentation.  I wasn't the one complaining about that.   

What I was wondering is if we put together all of our grouped tutorials, etc., if we couldn't put that on Wikipedia.  I don't think Wikipedia allows that, though, does it?  Anyway, I have been keeping a document (messy document) folder with multiple tutorials, etc. and something like that could be copied somewhere.  Then, it could be organized.  I'm not volunteering.   

Hi,

Would we be able to put one on Wikipedia?

The documentation area is a Wiki. As far as I'm aware anyone can make use of it. You can change my function node documentation if you like, for example.

Regards,

Jo

[jo]

Hi Calico,

Hell no, Jo.  I love your documentation.  I wasn't the one complaining about that.   

What I was wondering is if we put together all of our grouped tutorials, etc., if we couldn't put that on Wikipedia.  I don't think Wikipedia allows that, though, does it?  Anyway, I have been keeping a document (messy document) folder with multiple tutorials, etc. and something like that could be copied somewhere.  Then, it could be organized.  I'm not volunteering.   

You didn't understand me :-) - the documentation area is a Wiki, just like Wikipedia. Anyone can add stuff or make changes in a collaborative environment and all that jazz. If someone wanted to start a "Functions for Dummies" section in the documentation part of the forums, they can. Someone could add a skeleton, others could add content, others could add examples, make corrections etc. etc.

I was just giving my documentation as an example. If you wanted to add an example of how to use a particular function to what I've written, you could do it, I don't mind ( unless it's a really bad example ;-). For example, in the Node Reference the Group node documentation was originally written by Frank and then I went in and tidied it up a bit. This is exactly like Wikipedia, it uses the same technology ( Wiki ) that Wikipedia does.

I don't think we have any user limits for adding content in the documentation area, you just have to be registered for the forums. Oshyan would know for sure.

Regards,

Jo