maps for specular workflow could be easily generated from Metalic textures just with some simple channel shuffling, one invert and couple multiplys. So it could be just one node that will convert channels from metallic to specular. I even think it could be made as nodegroup by yourself or somebody in community.
1 Like
The issue I would state, is a couple of things, consider a studio has a library set of made materials only utilizing Spec/Gloss method. As I was referencing in my initial post, keeping considerations open to allowing Spec/Gloss implementation without asking the user to do the extra conversion work would be appreciated. Rather than leaning a user to unproductively ask or require more time to do that work. My feedback is simple; I see youâve considered one approach to the production of texturing. Can we have the other considered as well? It would be appreciated!
Asking for the road less traveled approach as early as concepts are being discussed for this. Is in fact the best time to do so. I canât speak for everybody in this community. But I am confident Artists would appreciate having to do less mental gymnastics just to get to the finishline on their work. Therefore avoiding the need to manually having to convert and translate their existing library of work.
I do not know you personally. Please, take a break from the computer if you are reading too much into the wording. Because if this was a video/audio conference chat session. These words used wouldnât have been considered that way. Iâm deliberately putting an emphasis to things Iâd like Brecht to consider. After all, he is asking for our input on the subject, right?
I hope that the displacement baking between arbitrary objects will be part of this design module.
Oh absolutely, but given that Node Wrangler already automatically sets up connections based on file names, I would assume these steps could be automated quite easily. I do see value in selecting the most prevalent process internally and automatically converting based on layer names, donât you?
Glad to hear it wasnât the intent, but text is always prone to this, and yours sounds quite forceful and demanding. Brecht says âthere are some advantages to xâ and âI wonderâ, both leaving a lot of wiggleroom for discussion. You later suggest the statement could be simplified to âyeah⌠well itâs not what the community wantsâ, which is giving little credit to how open ended it really was.
Your reply opens with âwhy Blender has many of its current issuesâ and entirely ignoring the question: would a conversion (automatic or otherwise, it hasnât been stated) be a functional alternative to spending development time on whatâs currently the less-popular option?
I donât care to go into this a lot more, just hope to clarify why you come across to me the way you do, which makes the discussion harder.
Iâm in favour of a spec/gloss workflow being supported, I just also wonder if there would be downsides to an automatic conversion step
1 Like
Hi guys,
Please stay on topic and try to avoid personal dissidence, thanks.
2 Likes