Tweet
Hello,
now that Autodesk has released its Blended Box map and Corona is about to release one too, it's became obvious that usability of the V-Ray's implementation is inferior to both of them due to the simple fact that scale control is implemented in super counter-intuitive manner.
Every single time i use VRayTriplanarTex, setting up texture scale is constant sequence of changing scale parameter, doing test render, realizing i got it wrong, returning to Triplanar map UI, re-wiring my though process to this counter-intuitive implementation, doing some math in my brain, and then proceeding to set up the scale. Every single time... this solution simply never saves into the muscle memory.
This is further amplified to default being 0.01, which adds great deal to the confusion. If it was at least 1.0, then it would feel easier knowing I have to set it to 0.5 if I want the texture to be twice as large, instead of 0.005. Average person rarely associates making something bigger by inputting tiny fraction values such as 0.0001.
So, I propose two solutions:
1, Simply invert scale parameter. Larger scale means larger texture and vice versa. That's the logical way... if someone tells you something has larger scale, you immediately assume it's larger. Yet if you increase scale in Triplanar map, texture scale becomes smaller.
2, Even better, abandon potato value all together, and replace it with world units value, that defines size of larger edge of the texture (square bounding box). So therefore if there's 100cm, I know my texture will have 100cm in the scene. If Local Object coordinates are used, then scale of the local object is used as a multiplier, for example Triplanar map in object mode with scale set to 100cm would make one tile of the texture 200cm if applied on object with XYZ scale at 200.
Other than that, Triplanar map is awesome and I've been using it extensively in most of my scenes. But every time I drop it in the material editor, I always get that nagging feeling I will have to deal with that counter-intuitive scale mechanism.
now that Autodesk has released its Blended Box map and Corona is about to release one too, it's became obvious that usability of the V-Ray's implementation is inferior to both of them due to the simple fact that scale control is implemented in super counter-intuitive manner.
Every single time i use VRayTriplanarTex, setting up texture scale is constant sequence of changing scale parameter, doing test render, realizing i got it wrong, returning to Triplanar map UI, re-wiring my though process to this counter-intuitive implementation, doing some math in my brain, and then proceeding to set up the scale. Every single time... this solution simply never saves into the muscle memory.
This is further amplified to default being 0.01, which adds great deal to the confusion. If it was at least 1.0, then it would feel easier knowing I have to set it to 0.5 if I want the texture to be twice as large, instead of 0.005. Average person rarely associates making something bigger by inputting tiny fraction values such as 0.0001.
So, I propose two solutions:
1, Simply invert scale parameter. Larger scale means larger texture and vice versa. That's the logical way... if someone tells you something has larger scale, you immediately assume it's larger. Yet if you increase scale in Triplanar map, texture scale becomes smaller.
2, Even better, abandon potato value all together, and replace it with world units value, that defines size of larger edge of the texture (square bounding box). So therefore if there's 100cm, I know my texture will have 100cm in the scene. If Local Object coordinates are used, then scale of the local object is used as a multiplier, for example Triplanar map in object mode with scale set to 100cm would make one tile of the texture 200cm if applied on object with XYZ scale at 200.
Other than that, Triplanar map is awesome and I've been using it extensively in most of my scenes. But every time I drop it in the material editor, I always get that nagging feeling I will have to deal with that counter-intuitive scale mechanism.
Comment