Thinking about making a video comparing procedural materials to texture-based materials. Would you be interested in watching that? Or are there any other topics you'd like me to cover?
I think I'll still prefer to make them myself each time for now instead of making node groups, because there are different ways of making these functions that have different effects on the gradient values (e.g., multiply vs minimum vs smooth minimum for an AND gate). But using logic gates to frame the idea is still a great way to break down the problem
Very valid! Originally, this video had sections discussing the different ways to create all of the logic gates, but I ended up cutting them out because I thought it would be simpler to show only a single way to create them. I used the min/max nodes for this because, while they might not be the fastest computationally, they're the simplest, and you don't need to worry about any edge cases like you would with multiply/add nodes. I'm very curious, though; I've never heard of anyone using Smooth Minimum for an AND Gate. Is that just for the extra blending? Or is there another reason to use it?
@@LightRayCreativeDigital Yeah it's just for the blending, though a multiply can get you blending for much cheaper, so only when you want to have control over it. It's useful less for masking, and more for working with coordinates for displacement, like in a brick texture. It may also be useful in the compositor (tho I haven't tried), because of how differently masks are used (could be a cheaper way to blend masks than using a blur node), and because more options are always better when dealing with anti-ailiasing Also yeah, I think having multiple ways of making each gate may be an information overload for someone new to masks. Tho that depends on what kind of user the video's for
hello bro, it would be good to have some of the nodes present in substance designer like the most known tile sampler, flood fill, blur, sharpen, etc.. for the tile sampler i sees that simon thommes made it some years ago but it was really heavy even for cycle and it needed also some more quality of life to be more user friendly and efficient.
More intuitive to programmers and mathematicians? Problem is still none of this is intuitive to those who are visual, hand tool users effectively, rather than all this logic stuff. If I watched this many times I might get some understanding, but long before that I will look for or make a proper photographic based texture.
Abstraction makes complex topics more intuitive for everyone. I'm not comparing procedural shaders to textures in this video; both are perfectly valid, have their own pros and cons, and are better for different situations. (Now you've got me thinking about making a video comparing the two and what situations they're best in 🤔. Would you be interested in watching that?) Your point is the same one I'm making. For most people, all this "logic stuff" as you put it, is difficult and very much not intuitive. It's not intuitive that plugging two masks into a clamped minimum node will give you a new mask made of only the areas where they overlap. It's more intuitive that plugging two masks into a node labelled "And" will give you a new mask where both masks, 1 and 2, are true. All I'm advocating for is that if you're working on materials, once you figure out a chunk of logic, make things easier on yourself by abstracting that chunk into a node group so that you can focus on what it does rather than how it does it.
I think this is a great opportunity, actually. As someone who, I'm assuming, thinks of themselves as a "visual hand tool user," what would intuitive procedural material creation look like to you? If there was a workflow that was easy enough to become second nature, what would it be? Layers? 3D Gizmos? Something else entirely?
@@LightRayCreativeDigital I agree there is a good opportunity to make explanations that suit those of us that do not find the programming way natural. Mainly why I tried your video here. Doubtless there are many for whom it works. I wish I could explain to enable someone like yourself to do it! Some of it may be the maths type language, but mostly I think it is the need to see on an object the differing results of every node addition or change to link change/addition to visual outcome. I add a noise texture I get it. I stretch the dots to streaks by scaling it in one direction I get it. A layers approach may work. In the modelling and basic colouring every action like move a vert has a visible result towards a new shape. Add an image texture there is a result, overlay a dirt image or mix one over through a mix node we see it work. A mass of procedural nodes only seems to work at the end of a long abstraction in a 'foreign' language.
Thinking about making a video comparing procedural materials to texture-based materials. Would you be interested in watching that? Or are there any other topics you'd like me to cover?
Handy nodes, thank you!
I've never used blender, but enjoyed this video and I like your $1 file idea! Keep up the good work.
Thanks, will do!
Very helpful and great quality and animation in the video
Thanks!
Thank you so much, excellent explanation!
You're very welcome!
I think I'll still prefer to make them myself each time for now instead of making node groups, because there are different ways of making these functions that have different effects on the gradient values (e.g., multiply vs minimum vs smooth minimum for an AND gate). But using logic gates to frame the idea is still a great way to break down the problem
Very valid!
Originally, this video had sections discussing the different ways to create all of the logic gates, but I ended up cutting them out because I thought it would be simpler to show only a single way to create them. I used the min/max nodes for this because, while they might not be the fastest computationally, they're the simplest, and you don't need to worry about any edge cases like you would with multiply/add nodes.
I'm very curious, though; I've never heard of anyone using Smooth Minimum for an AND Gate. Is that just for the extra blending? Or is there another reason to use it?
@@LightRayCreativeDigital Yeah it's just for the blending, though a multiply can get you blending for much cheaper, so only when you want to have control over it. It's useful less for masking, and more for working with coordinates for displacement, like in a brick texture. It may also be useful in the compositor (tho I haven't tried), because of how differently masks are used (could be a cheaper way to blend masks than using a blur node), and because more options are always better when dealing with anti-ailiasing
Also yeah, I think having multiple ways of making each gate may be an information overload for someone new to masks. Tho that depends on what kind of user the video's for
hello bro, it would be good to have some of the nodes present in substance designer like the most known tile sampler, flood fill, blur, sharpen, etc.. for the tile sampler i sees that simon thommes made it some years ago but it was really heavy even for cycle and it needed also some more quality of life to be more user friendly and efficient.
I can't make any guarantees because I haven't looked into it yet, but I'll see what I can do!
More intuitive to programmers and mathematicians? Problem is still none of this is intuitive to those who are visual, hand tool users effectively, rather than all this logic stuff. If I watched this many times I might get some understanding, but long before that I will look for or make a proper photographic based texture.
Abstraction makes complex topics more intuitive for everyone. I'm not comparing procedural shaders to textures in this video; both are perfectly valid, have their own pros and cons, and are better for different situations.
(Now you've got me thinking about making a video comparing the two and what situations they're best in 🤔. Would you be interested in watching that?)
Your point is the same one I'm making. For most people, all this "logic stuff" as you put it, is difficult and very much not intuitive.
It's not intuitive that plugging two masks into a clamped minimum node will give you a new mask made of only the areas where they overlap.
It's more intuitive that plugging two masks into a node labelled "And" will give you a new mask where both masks, 1 and 2, are true.
All I'm advocating for is that if you're working on materials, once you figure out a chunk of logic, make things easier on yourself by abstracting that chunk into a node group so that you can focus on what it does rather than how it does it.
I think this is a great opportunity, actually.
As someone who, I'm assuming, thinks of themselves as a "visual hand tool user," what would intuitive procedural material creation look like to you?
If there was a workflow that was easy enough to become second nature, what would it be?
Layers?
3D Gizmos?
Something else entirely?
@@LightRayCreativeDigital I agree there is a good opportunity to make explanations that suit those of us that do not find the programming way natural. Mainly why I tried your video here. Doubtless there are many for whom it works.
I wish I could explain to enable someone like yourself to do it! Some of it may be the maths type language, but mostly I think it is the need to see on an object the differing results of every node addition or change to link change/addition to visual outcome.
I add a noise texture I get it. I stretch the dots to streaks by scaling it in one direction I get it.
A layers approach may work. In the modelling and basic colouring every action like move a vert has a visible result towards a new shape. Add an image texture there is a result, overlay a dirt image or mix one over through a mix node we see it work. A mass of procedural nodes only seems to work at the end of a long abstraction in a 'foreign' language.