Quick Holdout button

[AC5L4T3R]

Ah, i guess it may be made better, perhaps.
The move of Max to QT has made perfectly fine code behave oddily, at times.

I don't see why the script shouldn't work for GPU, they use the same exact object/V-Ray properties.
Do let me know should you find issues with it, though.

Ah then I'll retract my tweet expressing my disdain towards Autodesk then Thanks

[^Lele^]

well, one thing that clearly changed between versions, and implicitly so, is the way alignment of UI elements is treated.
I guess some of the implicit options ( align:#left, for example) are now borked, and code will have to explicitly specify a position and size, and so on.
So, it wasn't broken before, as done by the book.
It's the book that changed... :P

[stevejjd]

Here.
As the toolbar icon(s?) are done it'll be transferred there.

For now, select as you please (the script filters the selection for you), and click either "make ShadowCatcher" or "Return to Normal".
Running the same code twice on objects has no adverse effect.

As usual, please report any bugs.
[ATTACH]34571[/ATTACH]

Thanks so much - I love it when a suggestion I make is made real Im so happy people want this, not just me and that your implementing it.

This is the first time I have had a shadow catcher work! Just remember to have the back plate in the environment slot.

[AC5L4T3R]

Lele - I've fully tested the script and it works perfectly throughout RT GPU/CPU and Adv. Thanks again

[^Lele^]

There are a metric ton of little scripts like this that could be fashioned in little to no time.
It's what i did for the best part of a decade for a few companies, and they all revolved around "one-click" solutions to get repetitive tasks done quickly, and consistently (right or wrong, at least they'd be consistent! :P).
What's stopping me right now from spitting those out is that the needs and circumstances in which those will have to be used vary so much by the user.
In other words, not knowing which pipeline goals to hit, it's somewhat difficult for me to "propose" a workflow through tools.

For example, there are easy ways to add render elements for LWF compositing, and ways to turn a "beauty" scene into a "data" scene to render one's data render elements.
Problem is, if i scripted the tool with standard names, would it be ok?
Wouldn't people ask for a specific naming, and not be able to edit the script to suit their needs?

In the same vein, i like to prefix my nodes with the class they belong to (LT_ for light, GEO_ for geometry, PRT_ for particle systems, and so on), and when making a personal script to create, for example, lights from my point of view, i have to choose a name for the newly created lights.
Should i leave the light name to its default, or propose the approach naming the lights LT_ and whatever the new name is?
Should i add an edit box for people to choose their name? Would it not make the one-click solution cumbersome, then?

So, you see my conundrums, and you now know why i am throwing fewer tools than I myself expected to be able to at you guys.
I'd be all ears for ideas and potential solutions to these, so that i'd be more free to develop, and LEAVE the tools with the community, rather than having to support them for each individual case throughout their lifetime.

[AC5L4T3R]

I have loads of things that I do regularly that would be so much faster if I had the scripts for it.. or the knowledge of scripting but finding the time to learn it is difficult these days. I already modified the script you gave me so the buttons simply said On and Off (Watch out Mr. Robot, here I come).

I think if you were to script the tools then it'd be best to use standard names and then in the script have some pointers to where people should chance things to adapt to their naming conventions etc.

[^Lele^]

I have loads of things that I do regularly that would be so much faster if I had the scripts for it.. or the knowledge of scripting but finding the time to learn it is difficult these days. I already modified the script you gave me so the buttons simply said On and Off (Watch out Mr. Robot, here I come).

Ahah, that is PRECISELY how it starts!
I'm rooting for ya!

I think if you were to script the tools then it'd be best to use standard names and then in the script have some pointers to where people should chance things to adapt to their naming conventions etc.

Yeah, provided i could then just FORGET about each script, pretty much, that'd make quite a lot of sense!

[stevejjd]

Lele,

My advice is to release them formatted to your personal specifications.

People pay you directly to make them custom scripts which makes scene.

You should just release them with your naming conventions and people who use them can just accept it as they are not paying you directly for customization. People will understand.

[^Lele^]

That's how i used to do it in the past, as user.
Now that i work directly for Chaos Group, my tools also have to have a minimum degree of quality and support, which is a LOT higher than the one i used when i was a free agent (i can't for the life of me reread the code of my very old toolset. it was criminally insane of me to release that stuff.).
Perhaps i could make a forum thread, and stuff all the "unsupported bonus tools" in there.
Thoughts, especially on the name and meaning of the thread? :P

[stevejjd]

Yes, if you make a section that has a clear word of warning then its up to the user to decide if they want to add these unsupported features.