Crevice by Carl

Crevice by Carl
http://www.filterforge.com/filters/4734.html

It's perfect.

you are more than welcome to share the slow version here on the forums

Hello there again Carl!

You've improved so much so quickly! Your past three textures are fantastic.

If I may, I'd love to make a few more suggestions just for simplicity's sake. This time it's not regarding the normal map but instead all of the other maps you have included. I'm guessing that this texture is supposed to be rock and not metallic based so in my opinion I would look at removing all of the following maps and seeing if there is any quantifiable difference in looks.

SpecStrength- this map defines how quantifiably shiny the surface is, it's as if you are telling the software: "here on the map where it is white the surface is shiny, where it is dark it's not reflective at all." Since we're talking about rock here its questionable whether there is that much need to specify the amount of shininess, perhaps just a global amount could accomplish the same task suitably.

SpecExponent- this map defines how sharp the reflection is, the darker the area the more spread out the reflection would be, the whiter the area, the tighter-together the reflection will be. Usually you see this map on very important things such as characters faces or bodies, a rock face usually wouldn't need or dictate that much control.

MetallicMap- I actually don't know what this is but it sounds like its something made specifically for metal, since rock =/= metal, I don't think it has a place.

Here is a good diagram to talk about the first two:



I'm not sure if the removal of these will make a difference at all regarding render time. Of course if there is no difference then I obviously have less of an argument.

Personally I would not use all of the maps if using the texture, and would actually feel less comfortable using the texture for fear that what I put in-game wouldn't match the look found here in FF. I won't be offended if you decide to keep them, I just hope that you at least learned something that you might not have known, perhaps in the future you can be deliberate with how you use these powerful additional maps.

KGtheway2B, i think you are assuming we have more control over these maps than we really do.

we (filter makers) really don't have specific control over what these maps look like, let alone whether or not they are used in a filter. the approach FF takes is one of a user friendly, intuitive interface which outputs complex maps automatically. for most users (including me) these maps don't mean a thing, but there are people who use them in 3D apps, but they naturally know what they do and how to make them work.

Excellent KG I'll have a look at those. they do effect the look but maybe it's a bit of fiddling to avoid using the other maps
Ps bullet holes still in progress had a few problem to Solve to got to work property

Quote
garbanzo wrote: we (filter makers) really don't have specific control over what these maps look like, let alone whether or not they are used in a filter

We do have total control over these maps, in the final result component what ever you feed into the inputs gives you the different maps such as Surface Colour = Diffuse Map , Height = Bump Map , Height = Normal Map , Reflectivity = Specular Strength Map , Reflection Blur = Specular Exponent Map , Metallic = Metallic Map . If you don't input into any these you simply won't get the corresponding map in the filter or library and by controlling these can drastically effect the appearance of the filter. I've been finding out about them to improve my filter to be what a 3d artist requires - wants and doesn't want - KG has been invaluable with his generous donation of time and wisdom

well it will change the result, but what I mean is that if you don't want a shiny look, simply don't use specualar maps ..

I have to agree with KGtheway2B on this one. I unplugged all but the bump and the render time was reduced by about a third. I could effectively replace the maps just by increasing the brightness inside the ball.

Quote
Sphinxmorpher wrote: By not using certain maps won't that change the appearance of the out come or is it that the Diffuse, Bump and Normal map are essential and the others are optional

They are often not enough. Here are just some of the maps used by Maya to shade an object - there are many more.

Transparency
Ambient color
Incandescence
Translucence
Translucence depth
Translucence focus
Specular color
Reflected color
Irradiance
Irradiance color
Refractive index
Surface thickness

Which ones are used just depend on how you want it to look. The cameras used to *view* the object also have maps.

FF has charted a very careful path between being simple and useful. Personally I wish it had more maps but I don't blame them for building the way they have.

It's hard, one trades time for quality often [ or maybe it's bad design LOL ] Anti aliasing set at 65 can get amazing results

Just to make things more concrete; here is a cap from Maya showing the attribute editor with a lambert shader. Notice the checkerboard at the red arrow. This is a map input, equivalent to the green boxes used in FF, where either a procedural or a bitmap can be plugged in.

this is a good discussion and one long over-due. i want to thank you, KG, for helping me to understand these maps better. i'm already making better use of these.

one thing i had never noticed is that if you plug a control slider into 'reflectivity', 'reflective blur', or 'metallic' you simply get a global increase across every pixel... not very useful, in most cases. but, if you plug a mapped component into any of these, boy, does that do something! you are now mapping those inputs with a variety of values and not just globally adding a value across the boards. odd that i had never seen this before, but oh well, learn as you go. it's odd, really, i had known this about the height map but had never really looked at the other inputs that way on the 'results' component. i'm now getting much more dynamic images as a result!

so, thanks, guys and especially KG!

Ron I'll be interested in seeing your use of ff textures

Nice!

Hey Carl - more than three weeks without releasing a new filter. You have either been busy elsewhere or you are about to spring something incredible on us - I can't wait to see what you release next.

Quote
Carl wrote: casual vineyard work

It must be really tough to get the purple out from between your toes.

Quote
Carl wrote: PS your welcome to come over to Carl's Corner

I have noticed Carl's corner, and I have wanted to join, but even at the risk of seeming like a jerk I have decided to stay focused on my own project – sorry. If I am able to make some good use of your textures it could be worthwhile.

Quote
Carl wrote: progress

Disappointingly slow. I'm not letting up though.

Quote
Carl wrote: I actually made my own wine a couple of years ago in the tradition manner of foot crushing

eeeewwww!

Quote
Carl wrote: you wouldn't drink wine [ can't wash the grape ] if you saw what goes in like Bird poo, earwigs, spiders even field mice and snakes I've seen in the harvesters

I'm a country boy so the rest I could handle but it's the earwigs that have me freaked out. I wonder why the workers come to work with teeny wigs on their ears? We don't wear them here in the States. Maybe they should glue them on with some of that fake mustache glue to keep them from falling in

Wow, how did I miss this gem... or rock... or whatever.

If I had power to give you editors choice I would, then I would give one to myself and StevieJ as well

Quote
StevieJ wrote: Cheeks Ahoy!!!

LOL

This isn't editors pick yet?


Bump

It was the lego mosaic and I did tweak it to their specifications, ohh well

Seriously though, I think that this filter is one of the most photo realistic filters out there, good work.