CorvusCroax
![]() |
So, I would like to suggest that a normal map node be added as one of the standard processing nodes. What I'm suggesting is a node which you input a grayscale map, and which outputs a normal map.
This would be useful, b/c it allows more interesting maps to be created from the basic heightmaps these maps follow the 'slope' of the object. For example, in this filter, I have the little mossy vine things growing on the lower slope of the rocks. ![]() FF can clearly do this sort of processing from a heightmap to a normal very quickly already - so perhaps it might not be too hard to add. There ARE jerry-rigged methods to do this which people have come up with, but they are a bit convoluted, and appear rather slow compared to how quickly FF generates a normal map. In the example above I'm using something Crapadilla whipped up http://www.filterforge.com/filters/3647.html. If there was a dedicated Heightmap -> normal map node, one could achieve the same effect below by simply doing an extracting the Green Channel. ![]() |
|||
Posted: September 16, 2008 6:34 pm | ||||
Crapadilla
![]() |
+1 gajillion!
--- Crapadilla says: "Damn you, stupid redundant feature requests!" ;) |
|||
Posted: September 17, 2008 4:02 am | ||||
ThreeDee
![]() |
Yup, it would be good. I assume the reason this has not been done is that it would close the gap between the basic and the pro edition for then you could generate normal maps from the basic edition.
|
|||
Posted: September 17, 2008 4:17 am | ||||
CorvusCroax
![]() |
Hmm... hadn't thought of that.
So, I don't know how big of a selling point this is between them (I went straight for the Pro version myself.) Maybe if Vlad, et. al. feel this is a critical distinction between the Standard and Pro versions, there could be some other way of toning it down. (maybe do each channel separately or something.) Still, the standard edition doesn't allow you to create bump maps or spec maps ... but you could defeat this via a switch and the color channel. It's just a hassle. (See my Spacehulk_v1 filter for a similar way to make a 'luminance map' using the diffuse channel.) |
|||
Posted: September 17, 2008 8:18 pm | ||||
CorvusCroax
![]() |
BTW; IMHO Photoshop-like batch processing would be a great Pro Edition selling feature. Particularly if you could control put a timer step into your controls.
|
|||
Posted: September 17, 2008 8:18 pm | ||||
Crapadilla
![]() |
The sad thing is, we've already discussed all this and the devs didn't seem to like the idea, reasoning that any lighting/shading should happen at the Result component due to learnability/usability considerations and design decisions.
My sneaky suggestion of calling these components 'Illumination Gradients' instead also failed to enchant somehow. Still, the possibilities of being able to process the shading from these nodes inside the filter tree seem too powerful to ignore... The image below could be a mask for a snow covering on top of the stones of a rough stone wall. Granted, you could arrive at this by differencing two tiles components (one with an offset), but what if you had a much more complex heightmap? --- Crapadilla says: "Damn you, stupid redundant feature requests!" ;) |
|||
Posted: September 18, 2008 3:30 am | ||||
KGtheway2B
![]() |
+1
You can already see I've tried to find a solution for this. Here. I just now realized that the filter probably looked like I was trying to defeat the purpose of the pro version, ![]() |
|||
Posted: September 18, 2008 1:10 pm | ||||
CorvusCroax
![]() |
Yeah it seemed like the whole concept of 'lighting and shadow' seemed to derail the conversation. Perhaps we could call them 'slope gradients' ... to obfuscate the Normal - Map and shading uses. ![]() |
|||
Posted: September 18, 2008 5:24 pm |
Filter Forge has a thriving, vibrant, knowledgeable user community. Feel free to join us and have fun!
33,711 Registered Users
+18 new in 30 days!
153,531 Posts
+36 new in 30 days!
15,347 Topics
+72 new in year!
21 unregistered users.