Yes you can tint the specular.If you use the coat layer as well,you could as sayed before color the absorption of the clearcoat layer but keep the white reflections.
Additional if reflections on the surface underneath the clearcoat is appearing to white and you want to fit the specular to the absorptive coating layer,then the specular tint could make sence.
I guess most artist would use a clearcoat with white reflection,and i think the idea was to use the tint as absorption color.
Btw you can mask which specular tint you want and where,like in this simple example.
In the most recent build, Transmission was moved from the “entry level” inputs to a Transmission subpanel. While I can imagine this was done for other future options to be put under a transmission “umbrella”, I think it’s such a common material property that it was good to have it visible in the top main properties, rather than in a subpanel where now it’s the only input.
I guess there soon will be additional transmission features like “Nested Dielectrics”, “Thin Walled”, “Fake Shadows” or “Dispersion” (just wild guesses) added and they might land there.
Yeah I guessed the same. Maybe, as the Specular subpanel has more technical options but roughness is exposed on top, could be the same with transmission.
I agree, and I would bring it even further, as it would be a great opportunity to take care of the SSS Radius UI.
As far as I know, it’s the only vector in the whole Blender that you need to access with a drop-down. Besides not being aestetically pleasing and quite clunky to work with, now that we have subpanels we could just expose it as any vector.
Fully agree with this! I’ve never liked not being able to readily see what my subsurf’s radius settings are. I’d rather a longer node than one where I can’t readily see something.
I still really feel the text needs to be aligned flush left. Without this alignment, some entries feel unrelated to the grouping they belong to. In my example, ‘Tint’ and ‘Normal’ give the appearance that they are unrelated to ‘Coat’ even though they reside in the darkened Coat grouping.
Sometimes it’s easy for us complaining about the devs not listening, but what about devs listening to us, implementing on the same day, and not even saying it?! Great job guys!!!
Totally. I wasn’t referring to this particular thread, or to most of threads or users here on devtalk, I guess when I wrote it I was thinking about a general, feceless tendency. Or, maybe I just want to pick a fight with invisible enemies XD
Being now in bcon3, I don’t think this can be considered for 4.0, but now that we have panels it would be good to use their arrows and differentiate them from the connected nodes’ arrows in the properties.
@Christopher_Tyler I agree with you that the alignment of texts and panels’ text should be improved, but I fear that it’s an issue much bigger than this thread. It includes not only the principled material node, but the entirity of nodes of every node editor in Blender, as the right issue that you bring entail every use of panels, subpanels and texts in shader editor, geometry nodes editor and probably compositor in the future. If you already didn’t, making a proposal on RCS could already bring this issue to the eyes of more UI devs that are not following this thread.
Is there any way to add other sheen algorithm on princpled BSDF for backward compatibility because sometimes old sheen is used artistically in older files with princpled BSDF and its hard to recreate same look? Is there any chance to add also a model enum for sheen section,
Another thing is that, is there any chance to add option in N-properties for principled BSDF like a checkbox to disable collapsing menus because each menu add 1 more row to principled BSDF and when using all the layers for a artistic and complex or SCIFI material with all collapsable layers on, it make things too long?
Also I think its more logical to make the subsurface scattering radius into a rbg input because it can both save space like 2 row horizontal space saving and its easier to control it with less thinking and without adding a color node to it each time. It can still be called as subsurface radius but it can input a color so confusion with old subsurface color input will not be a issues, (instead of putting RGB text next so subsurface radius, i think I still vote for making it a color input, )
I also think specular collapsable layer location can be replaced with subsurface section location because specular doesnt work when u activate subsurface so its more logical to put specular section before subsurface. If someonething override the effect of other thing, it should be higher in hieararcy which will make ease of use.
I think it would be good at add transluceny section above transmission section so translucent materials can also be used as a base. or maybe translucency can also be added before ALPHA for ease of use if someone want to make a leaf material with a translucent base instead of a diffuse base,
Is there still any possibility to have legacy princpled V1 node for 4.0 for backward compatibility because I still think that sometimes getting the same result is more important than new accuracy of princpled v2. Most softwares keep the old main BSDF when its improved. So I wished old Princpled BSDF to be available as well for people who wanna get same results (multiscatter ggx can use the new system still for being more efficient even if its princpled v1)
