Triplanar as a modifier?

V-Ray V-Ray for 3ds Max Requests
1

(V high chance that I’m missing the obvious or using the setup incorrectly here)

Feels like it would be useful if triplanar mapping was also a modifier with similar functionality to the existing UVW map? That way you can easily visualize and modify scale using a gizmo and drop different materials onto an object without having to edit each material. At the moment, although triplanar is super useful and gives great results it feels like a step back usability wise from the box map method.

2

There is a version of this that Neil Blevin did, you can see it,

here: http://www.neilblevins.com/cg\_education/blended\_box\_mapping/blended\_box\_mapping.htm

He was the one that got Vlado to incorporate it as a triplanar texture map instead.

See here: http://forums.chaosgroup.com/showthread.php?84615-Stochastic-flakes-plugin-take-2&highlight=Stochastic+flakes

Hope this helps.

Cheers.

3

Thanks, but as far as I can tell these methods are also fairly complex to use - simpler and easier than a proper unwrap but not as easy as adding box mapping and scaling the single gizmo to a size that fits, especially when using an existing material that uses a number of maps. At the moment if you want to use triplanar mapping you have to make a guess at scale (because there is no visual feedback) and then test the render, followed by editing the scale of each map in the material until it looks ok; it’s a fiddly process.

Not that it ought to be either or, there are of course lots of areas where it works best from within the material. I guess this is really something that Max ought to implement, but not sure how likely that ever is.

4

Dont know if you already know but in the current nightlys and I guess also in the next stable, the blend and scale parameters are animatable so you can control them with animation controller nodes which makes the work with them alot faster imo.

Triplanar.PNG
Triplanar.PNG753×664 84 KB

5

You can link the scale to a dummy, and use that to scale up and down the mapping. But I agree, it’s a bit fiddly at the moment.

I also find the scale parameter doesnt go low enough. Im often having to use 0.001 to get a decent mapping. Not sure what the scale is based on?

6

Same - I had to use a dummy in a few cases to get numbers flexible enough.

7

All I’ll say is… watch this space…

8

Ah, didn’t know this, helps a lot! The scale itself is still a bit confusing - is it a unit with a real size or…?

9

I’ve my spinner precision set to 4 decimals since ages. I think the noise threshold was the initial reason. :wink: But I need it surprisingly often in the whole application. Too bad many of the formular fields are too short to show more than 4 digits especially in materials…

Edit:[quote=“3LP, post:8, topic:52825, username:3LP”]
Ah, didn’t know this, helps a lot! The scale itself is still a bit confusing - is it a unit with a real size or…?
[/quote]

This also opens the opportunity to use custom made MCG controllers. Which can be really helpfull.