Hi,
Was curious if anyone would want to lobby for a materials sticky? And then also if anyone would want to help fill said sticky?
Other render soft and 3D soft in general have collections of materials created by users. But we still don't have very much at all in this vain. A thread where we all make something and post it like this:
[attach=1]
Maybe we can find and object and all use it to present the materials, like so:
[attach=3]
So metals, and skin, and kinds of stone, all procedural! I was thinking the shaders could be put into a null shader before posting so that it could all be real neat and tidy.
We have a good amount of clips for various things that are important to TG now. But I was thinking some nice collections of materials would really add some more value for us all.
There are already a few in the forums. DandelO even made a procedural wood floor!.. Somewhere. So like that but all in one place and put into a null for drop in easy use for all... Or something.
Wanted this for a long time. Anyone wanta try it, see how much we can collect?
???
Why not? ;D
Good idea. That metal thing is a nice start!
Hear hear, memories of Imagine where we had tons of preset procedurals that came with it, and the ability to save attributes as an .iob(Imagine's .tgo)was also handy. Be nice to have, and be building a library like this. Great Idea Michael.
Like the idea.
Count me in.
GREAT! :)
So lets figure out how we should do this. I always see those funny objects like in the OP, that other software users employ to present the materials. Is this something we can do? Is it beneficial, or just pure presentation? Sure makes things look quality! But what would be the best way to show the collection for TG? I think we should all do the same thing for cohesion and order, so to speak. Sorta visually consistent.
And if you think so too, then what object can/should we use? Again, if that is practical for TG I don't know.
Quote from: TheBadger on March 31, 2015, 02:44:32 PM
GREAT! :)
So lets figure out how we should do this. I always see those funny objects like in the OP, that other software users employ to present the materials. Is this something we can do? Is it beneficial, or just pure presentation? Sure makes things look quality! But what would be the best way to show the collection for TG? I think we should all do the same thing for cohesion and order, so to speak. Sorta visually consistent.
And if you think so too, then what object can/should we use? Again, if that is practical for TG I don't know.
could we maybe use a teapot? that'd be funny and cool.
Back in the Imagine days I had an object composed of 4 sub groups, sphere, cube, cone and they sat on a plane....displays well if I recall correctly
Did a little looking. I cant find an object that people use for this. I guess it really does not mater. I just thought it be nice to find one and put it in the top of the sticky for everyone. But It does not mater since you can use just about anything. Do you have tea pot, Bobby?
will do this Oshyan?
You're asking if we'll make it a sticky post? Sure, we can give it a shot. If it doesn't get traction we'll want to unsticky it of course. And hopefully it goes without saying (though I'm saying it anyway :D ) that it should be a new post in the File Sharing area and not a continuation of this thread.
- Oshyan
iI knew I had one somewhere, The Utah Teapot
Apparently you have to have permission to use this commercially so we'd be borderline legal sharing textures on it...I suggest a poll; if you have a model you think would be good then, upload a pic and when the uploads stop we could , uh, vote?
How about using TG's sphere or cube?
We all have it.
Yes, no distraction from strange shapes.
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 ?
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.
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.
How about a 'Dune Book of Variable Grass Clumps'?
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
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.
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
Maybe something like this ? two spheres and a flat cube and a base
Need settle on standard camera parameters position/ distance etc.
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
@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.
Drop the height of your base to about a quarter of what it is now............. ;D
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.
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.
that's a good one as well.
Fleetwood,
I like the last one......... ;D
I like the last one too. How a bout three tgd's, each with a standard setup, and each based on a certain size: very small, say up to 0.5m, medium, like Fleetwood's sample, and large, same but with a ~10-100m scale. So if you want to show a tgc, pick the best suitable, and work it out.
Ditto! we're all agreed - lets get it set up now.
Don't we already have something very like this in the Library? I don't use it as much as I should but did last night and all the Preset .tgc entries had descriptive thumbs. How do we get our .tgcs to do that as the older ones and ones I've made don't?
One TGD with 3 objects. where two of them are hidden by default. And with 3 cameras. The default camera being the close up one. ???
Yep.
This is what I have at the moment.
I thought about having three render nodes, each with a different camera, but I came to the conclusion that hiding and unhiding things or enabling and disabling objects would make this too messy to use. IMO it is better to have separate. Besides that, members will most likely be adding other TGDs for special purposes like planetary scale textures and glass, etc.
The large scale version main ball is 100 meters in diameter.
The medium scale version main ball is 2 meters in diameter.
The small scale version main ball is 0.5 meters in diameter.
The example material is the red brick or lava-like stuff I think of as "hamburger".
What's the dark blue 'shiny' stuff in the first render? Perhaps same as I encountered in my snow landscape... displ intersection error? Is it less if rendered at lower quality?
Re: setup: looks good.
I think the shiny speckles, are probably due to driving the roughness and reflection settings with power fractals. I was wanting highlights when I made this material, really trying for a ground meat look.
I think what you're seeing in that image might actually be the material displacing negatively *under* the white surface, and then being in shadow from the parts that are positively displaced. Different thing than what you encountered I think Ulco.
- Oshyan
Made this, have to map it yet.
The part that gets the materials should be dense enough for good displacement in TG.
[attach=1]
I think that since things like glass and metals would be added to a non-TG object, that we should have a non-TG object to test and display with. I may be wrong now, but my understanding is that a TG object is not going to be the same as most non-TG objects. If that even maters I don't know. Anyway I enjoyed making it for some reason.
Quote from: TheBadger on April 04, 2015, 10:49:58 PM
Made this, have to map it yet.
The part that gets the materials should be dense enough for good displacement in TG.
[attach=1]
I think that since things like glass and metals would be added to a non-TG object, that we should have a non-TG object to test and display with. I may be wrong now, but my understanding is that a TG object is not going to be the same as most non-TG objects. If that even maters I don't know. Anyway I enjoyed making it for some reason.
There's merit in this observation. 8)
Quote....I may be wrong now, but my understanding is that a TG object is not going to be the same as most non-TG objects. If that even maters I don't know....
You are right.And moreover there is a difference between UV mapped and non-UV-mapped
models too.(world space)
So,now we have at least three tgds for procedural objects (landscape size is still missing),
two or more for imported models (e.g. for exceptional cases).
Simple and idiot prove indeed. ;)
I still want to know how to make thumbs like the preset .tgc files come with. Then we could simply use the already there Library....I use it for the presets but it's just as fast to go to my clip files dir for any that aren't. If I knew how, I'd do all I have that way...simplicity itself.
Or is this topic about use in this forum in File Sharing?
little poem
That being so
I'd still like to know
How to package the .tgcs.....
QuoteSo,now we have at least three tgds for procedural objects (landscape size is still missing),
two or more for imported models (e.g. for exceptional cases).
Simple and idiot prove indeed. ;)
lol. I think once we get going on it, it will work out fine. I doubt noobies are going to be doing this much. So I also doubt that you and the others in this thread are going to get confused about anything.
As long as we keep things kinda orderly and follow mostly the same way of doing things it will make for a nice resource over time for all of us.
Besides, all of this so far is just about presentation isn't it? I mean, other than the images that all of this will create, the only thing people will download is a clip file... I thought... Or a collection of clip files in one go, at some point.
ITs a holiday. but lets get this going this week then. Fleetwood already made some stuff for the first page! :)
You are a true TerraPoet, Bobby ;) I think you just post the tgc as usual, with an accompanying image, made by using the tgd's, so it's all a bit consistent. Just like we're used to post.
Quote from: Dune on April 06, 2015, 03:14:19 AM
You are a true TerraPoet, Bobby ;) I think you just post the tgc as usual, with an accompanying image, made by using the tgd's, so it's all a bit consistent. Just like we're used to post.
I hadn't tried saving an image to the Library...but as I suspected it will take a render per .tgc...a project for the uninspired moment it seems, and as I thought it would be.
I suspect there is another path as a whole lot of the .tgc's I have came with a thumb and when I loaded up my library they didn't turn up, only the thumbs for the presets.
;D Umh,errh,well...yup may be so.
And if there will be noobies we scare them away as usual. ;) <-- Joke,haha.
Quote from: bobbystahr on April 05, 2015, 02:14:36 PM
Or is this topic about use in this forum in File Sharing?
That's at least the way I treat it. ;)
Can't help with the library,don't use it,sorry.
Neither do I.
Me neither.
Guess it's time to summon the Head Librarian Oshyan for input.....
Here is the mapped object.
May want to redo the UV maps? someone want to test this?
Been busy, so thats why it took so long.
Thanks.
As you have it now it can only be textured as one piece,but you can't put an
image on it and have it displayed as one coherent texture.Put a checkerboard
pattern on it and you'll see what I mean.
With procedurals it's similar you either see seams or you have to put it into
world space (transform shader).
Don't know,if you want the whole object as display or just the inner sphere,
like a TV screen,but I would split it into parts.
Attached are a no-uv- and a uv-version.
Don't mind the default shader material,still can't get rid of that dang thing.
Thought about this again in the last weeks and came to the conclusion that it is
actually not a good idea to display the shaders/materials on one specific object
like that tester thing.
More than once I've noticed that a shader/material looks good on the object it
was made for - and under certain lighting conditions also - and as soon as you
apply it to something else - or change the lighting - it looks crappy and needs
tuning.Sometimes serious changes.
So it might be better to show a shader/material on the object it was made for.
Or a part of the terrain it was made for.
Often one will have to add some explanations to help others to get the desired
result or what parameters to change etc,etc.
Just some thoughts.
Quote from: j meyer on May 28, 2015, 12:25:38 PM
Thought about this again in the last weeks and came to the conclusion that it is
actually not a good idea to display the shaders/materials on one specific object
like that tester thing.
More than once I've noticed that a shader/material looks good on the object it
was made for - and under certain lighting conditions also - and as soon as you
apply it to something else - or change the lighting - it looks crappy and needs
tuning.Sometimes serious changes.
So it might be better to show a shader/material on the object it was made for.
Or a part of the terrain it was made for.
Often one will have to add some explanations to help others to get the desired
result or what parameters to change etc,etc.
Just some thoughts.
exactly my thoughts and there is a note function for explanations of use.
Yeah, TG is not exactly like traditional 3D.
Still, a materials shader library for TG like we have been talking about is something we don't have, but really really should.
Anyway, once it gets figured out and started, I am sure over time we would end up with a nice library.
lol, no not yet.
We have file sharing and the stickies there, but that is not really what we were after in this thread.
we are still trying to figure out how to organize this and present it in a good way.
But at some point we may need to just make a new sticky and start dumping clips there :-\ But I think at least everyone here agrees that is not an ideal way of doing things?
Like the cloud library, I agree. I also agree about dropping the idea of a dedicated object. I don't expect users will spend too much time getting it set up other than they found out their texture wonder, so if we want anything coming off ground, I think we should keep it simple; just a child thread 'texture shaders' or something. There's already a mass of tgc's out there, so if anybody is bored and wants to organize those ;D
lol
Yeah.
Well, improvement was a dream. 60 Pages of unorganized resources is something we are used to here. ;D
@Allen1: I kind of joked about the old tgc's, but if you're really willing to have a look and get the best of them organized and put in the new library I think you'll get a lot of gratitude. I personally wouldn't really need them, but they'd be welcomed by a lot of users, no doubt.
Agree with Dune, most folks add an image of the tgc in any case and that seems adequate.
Good show, Allen.
Nice start.
Nice iron, I see the pic, didja ferget the .tgc?
I think it doesn't necessarily be one object, as long as the effect is clear. It's up to Oshyan to open a sticky child, I guess.
^^ I agree. Its not necessary for sure. But it really helps for some reason, when things are presented in an orderly and nice way, to increase productivity and even creativity... I feel
Maybe all we need is a mod to keep the thread in order. Moving the posted files up into the first post spot so everything is easy to find, and the rest of the thread can just be used for trouble shooting?
I kinda thought the TG library is what this is for, but that is why I pushed for the object. I thought the object would ultimately make the library more useful for these kinds of shader clips. Probably we could use 1 or 2 volunteer mods anyway. The only prob wit dat, is that on the rest of the net, mods tend to become post Nazis. ;D :-\
Yeah, we don't want uninteresting clutter and rubbish, but who'd like to play the nazi mod? Not me, anyway.
Awesome Idea here!
khmmm...what is "nazi mod" :o
Referring to the Nazi-like moderators Michael mentioned ;)
I see...
Thx .
lol ;D funny.
QuoteMaybe i am over thinking this
Yeah me too. But not really. We just want to make things a bit better is all. No harm in it!
Besides, we never know who may come up with a great idea when we have threads like this.
Still, it would help if Matt and Oshyan would chime in. There is not much we can do without them, for example, a volunteer to collect forum resources into one or two places (there are hundreds of awesome things here that don't get the exposure they deserve). And also, how about how the TG library and the subjects in this thread could be made to work together better? I mean the TG library is kinda gota be a part of this. no?
About the mod, besides what we already talked about. He/she could also keep me from my "woke up at 4 am, and want to fight with people" posts. That may be well received here ;) ;D. If I am the only one calling him or her a post nazi... sticks and stones, right ;D :P
I assumed it would just be handled the same way the existing threads have been managed all this time (which is to say, fairly loosely). So one of you can start a thread and we'll Sticky it, or if you prefer, we can start the thread and introduce it briefly (e.g. "This thread is for posting of Terragen texture networks in TGC or TGD format" etc.).
As far as what object(s) to use, I personally like the idea of a standard object or set of objects (at different scales), but I do see it may be too complicated or not adhered to by everyone. The nice thing about shared resources, of course, is that anyone could download it and then submit a preview on the appropriate object.
Ultimately forum threads are not the truly ideal place to share and *organize* this stuff, but it's a good place to start. Long-term perhaps a new section of the Wiki (files can be uploaded), or a specific file sharing system can be used.
- Oshyan