Filter Presets & Variation Pics In Un-tiled Format

Stevie, just be sure to activate Seamless Tiling for all the presets you are creating if you want them to be represented exactly as you made them. It is painful the first few times, but you'll get over it soon. Plus it saves you from being grumpy until the next beta.

Regarding the presentation, I have to disagree. Seamless tiling is a key feature of FF, and it is essential for evaluating textures and textural effects, which are - let's face it - FF's speciality. It is also an economic choice (dare I say "imperative") to render all filters with seamless tiling on, because doing it the other way would double the render load as BOTH seamless and non-seamless versions would have to be rendered.

I'd like this feature too.

Also one problem with the tile-format-library is that when you click on an image in the library you don't see the tiling effect -- so you still don't really know what the image (as a texture) will look like.
I'm currently working on a filter making all the presets have "seemless tiling" -- but without the wrap-around effect seen, alone they look "less good" in my opinion. (And I've noticed my filter looks even better *without* seemless tiling (from a 2D artist POV).)

Hey ssamm & Crapadilla....good morning I think that I'm kinda being misunderstood. I am not looking for any new features, rendering two sets of presets, or the generation of anything extra at all....

I would just like Filter Forge to stop running the unnecessary 'promo' tiling format on the website presets so that users see presets exactly the way they look after filters are downloaded....that's all

I am discussing this in a civil and rational manner....in a futile attempt to evoke change for the benefit of both Filter Forge and its users I have no personal interest in this at all

I just read the thread Crapadilla linked to. I didn't realize that in FF the default preset thumbnail has "seemless tiling" forced off.

So it seems the "rule" is to try to have all your presets look good with seemless tiling on for the web-library, and have your first preset also look good with seemless tiling off for the FF thumbnail (...if I'm understanding this correctly).

FF is all about tiling and textures, it's NOT about one-shots/stand-alones/artwork. We're just lucky it can also handle those things, don't worry about unchecking the tiling box, just know to make your presets with it set *on* and relax. You can always do them without the tiling box checked, and put a note in the filter description explaining that the presets will only look proper once the tiling box is unchecked, that's another possibility. Anyways, asking about FF changing what it is fundamentally designed for it = a losing battle, I say walk around that hole, and fill it up with other solutions.

jffe

Quote

Vladimir Golovin wrote elsewhere: [...] With a procedural node-based architecture, generating textures is the first thing that comes to mind. BTW, the original internal name of the project was simply Texturizer. The feature set of FF also supports this -- seamless tiling, normal/bump maps, high quality antialiasing. Also, texture generation is an underserved niche on the Photoshop plugin market, and Photoshop itself isn't very good at this -- so I thought why not?

[My emphasis added. ]

One must also keep in mind that, in addition to the ability to generate complete textures, FF can and will also be used to 'modify' existing seamless textures or layers thereof within photoshop via its 'effect' filters. It is imperative of course, that these 'modifications' don't break the seamlessness. This is different to the filters in PS, which aren't seamless.

So yes, there is a heavy bias towards seamlessness in FF due to its fundamental design roots in procedurality (as opposed to 'painting') and textures, and as such, FF is a specialized tool that focuses on things other tools CANNOT do. From my perspective, this an 'Excellent Thing™' that I'd hate to see watered down.

Quote
StevieJ wrote: Personally, I think it is a "HUGE" mistake to gear everything towards the 'Tiling King' mantra at the expense of everything else. That is just my humble opinion Big grin

You see, from a 3D/texture artists' point of view, it would be a huge mistake to NOT chant the 'Tiling King' mantra. I'm not asserting that there are only 3D/texture artists using FF, but - as illuminated by Vladimir's quote above - 'texturing' is at the root of what FF is geared for. The website and the library are presented in a way that highlights FF's key features, and I might add 'rightly so'. There's no point in weakening your product by failing to demonstrate a key feature.

So, while our two differing perspectives are equally valid, there is also the philosophy of the tool to be taken into account...

i slightly disagree with the 'watered down' comment, though i do see the point too. adding another strength or feature or aspect does take some attention off the original purpose, yes. and therefore, that does 'water down' the original purpose a bit. but, it also broadens your field or users, broadens your scope and shld broaden your sales. so, my only point here is, if you can broaden your scope without 'breaking' the original intent and function, then i'd say it's a good thing. but, if you have to break the original function in order to add a new purpose and set of functions, then you've goofed up and would be better off keeping the original as is and simply putting out a completely new product to handle the new function/purpose. so, that kind of boils down to can you add non-seamless, non-square functionaltiy to FF without destroying the original stuff.

this is actually an on-going topic here on FF. we've been asking for a number of things that break out of the mold of seamless, squared texture making. i, for one, fit into the category of not caring that much about seamless textures. sure, i use textures in 2d art and photo-manipulations, but i'm not a 3d person that needs to connect polygons and such in a seamless manner. and apparently, that's what FF is directed at. so, vlad's decisions in this first release have pretty much been geared to keeping that original intent, and rightfully so. get your product out the door as intended. get some sales coming in and then maybe you can branch out with a completely new product or an expanded first product.

i can easily see FF branching out into different areas with different products geared towards different users. heck, i even made a 'simple graphic editor' within FF and released it as a filter. i would LOVE to see FF put out an advanced, full-blown, procedural based, node driven, graphic engine. it would blow the socks off photoshop and paint shop pro and some others. when you, as the user, can design your own 'photoshop' tools or alter existing ones, that's POWER. even a second FF that is non-seamless, non-square would be phenomenal. artists would eat it up. graphic designers would eat it up. i can even see a CAD program done with FF's tools. and we havent even touched vectors and fractals yet.

so, the first product is shipping soon. it's going to be interesting to see what FF comes out with down the line.

Quote
Crapadilla wrote: tool that focuses on things other tools CANNOT do. From my perspective, this an 'Excellent Thingâ„¢

Egg-zactly!

Quote
Kraellin wrote: that kind of boils down to can you add non-seamless, non-square functionaltiy to FF without destroying the original stuff.

Yes. This is one of the things we'll be thinking about for the next release. As usual, I can't promise anything.

Quote
jffe wrote: people were looking for radical last minute changes

This certainly is not the case. Even if we find a solution, implementing it would be one of the biggest infrastructural changes in the entire release.

vladimir,

have you considered making the seamless and non-seamless as two separate programs? this might be more workable in the long run. both could then evole along the routes they shld without conflict.

ok.