Kraellin
![]() |
i've mentioned a number of my wish list items before but i thought i'd put this another way and let others add theirs as well. i dont know if there is time enough for any of these to be done before a release or the next version, but if there is but there is ONLY time for ONE THING to be changed or added, what would yours be?
the one thing that drives me crazy with almost any filter i make is, there arent enough control components do to everything i want to do. and i dont mean enough variety, i mean simply that 10 is way too few! so, that's my ONE THING; NO RESTRICTIONS ON HOW MANY CONTROLS CAN BE USED IN ONE FILTER!! there is no good reason to limit this. let the user apply his own judgement as to how many is too many. so, if only one more change could be made, that's what i'd like. ok, now i'm serious about this. i've beta tested before and i know there often isnt any time to add anything new or make any serious kinds of alterations. so, limit this to just ONE THING per person. dont do 3 or 4 or you may find that your ONE THING gets left out. if it turns out that most folks all want that one same thing, this sometimes has a chance of making it into the next release...sometimes. and dont treat this thread like a petition to try and force the developers into something. it's not meant that way at all. if they have time and have the inclination to make that one change, then fine and good. and, if they dont have the time or dont have the inclination, then fine and good also. there is NOTHING guaranteed here or even suggested that there might be a chance to see that ONE THING. this is strictly at the discretion of the developers and meant only as a 'if you can do it, we'd love it' type thing. craig If wishes were horses... there'd be a whole lot of horse crap to clean up!
Craig |
|||||||
Posted: May 31, 2006 1:35 pm | ||||||||
uberzev
![]() |
I'd also like to see the restrictions removed.
Perhaps filters with more than 10 controls could be constrained to an 'advanced' category so less sophisticated users don't get confused. |
|||||||
Posted: May 31, 2006 1:47 pm | ||||||||
Quasimondo
![]() |
Since most of the functionalities of the additional components I'd like to see can somehow be assembled even with the current set I also think that the limit on the amount of controls is the most important issue at hand that should be worked on.
|
|||||||
Posted: May 31, 2006 1:49 pm | ||||||||
byRo
![]() |
ONE THING
![]() This rules out a lot of interesting stuff when using non-square images. ![]() I know Vladimir said somewhere that it would mess up the "Seamless" stuff, but for a coder looking from outside ![]() Rô _________________________________
My favourite question is "Why?". My second favourite is "Why not?" |
|||||||
Posted: May 31, 2006 9:59 pm | ||||||||
uberzev
![]() |
I agree with you byRo. There are ways to work around the control limit but not the forced 'squareness' of everything.
![]() |
|||||||
Posted: May 31, 2006 11:47 pm | ||||||||
Vladimir Golovin
Administrator |
Not of "everything" -- for example the Perlin noise is not "squared". This restriction is applicable only to components that can't provide seamless ouput into a non-square region. |
|||||||
Posted: June 1, 2006 6:32 am | ||||||||
Vladimir Golovin
Administrator |
Not quite so. There is a lot of subtle internal dependencies that also need to be examined. It's like an ecosystem -- you remove one element and the whole thing breaks apart. |
|||||||
Posted: June 1, 2006 6:34 am | ||||||||
Vladimir Golovin
Administrator |
By the way, great thread -- keep it rolling!
|
|||||||
Posted: June 1, 2006 6:34 am | ||||||||
byRo
![]() |
I know. That's why my smiley is winking at you. ![]() Rô _________________________________
My favourite question is "Why?". My second favourite is "Why not?" |
|||||||
Posted: June 1, 2006 6:38 am | ||||||||
uberzev
![]() |
Maybe could have a way of voting for which new feature is made a priority?
|
|||||||
Posted: June 1, 2006 7:15 am | ||||||||
Quasimondo
![]() |
I noticed that the maximum value of the pixel size is always the shorter edge of an image - maybe it would already help if that maximum side would be the longer side - like this there wouldn't be any repetition of the gradient within the visible image area.
|
|||||||
Posted: June 1, 2006 7:27 am | ||||||||
Vladimir Golovin
Administrator |
The Offset component isn't "squarified" -- it just behaves differently when Seamless Tiling is turned on. This is needed to avoid edge artifacts on effect-type filters. Try turning Seamless on/off in the "Bumpy Glass" effect and you'll see.
Could you give us more details? |
|||||||
Posted: June 1, 2006 7:28 am | ||||||||
Vladimir Golovin
Administrator |
byRo, I think I have an idea. Can you think of any other specific components to free from "squarification"? |
|||||||
Posted: June 1, 2006 7:31 am | ||||||||
uberzev
![]() |
Sorry Vlad, I had a misunderstanding about the function of the offset filter. Carry on.
![]() |
|||||||
Posted: June 1, 2006 7:41 am | ||||||||
Ken |
Vladimir
The Seamless ‘square’ format is only needed for the Texture Filters, and filters created for this category need to be kept seamless, however could this feature not be turned off for all the Effects Filters. What would be the reason for tiling an effect? Ken. |
|||||||
Posted: June 1, 2006 7:58 am | ||||||||
byRo
![]() |
The other basic gradients, 3-colour and 5-colour, also suffer from squarification. Other than these, I think the rest is immune. ![]() Rô _________________________________
My favourite question is "Why?". My second favourite is "Why not?" |
|||||||
Posted: June 1, 2006 7:06 pm | ||||||||
Vladimir Golovin
Administrator |
Such voting would greatly depend on what choices are available for voting, and how these choices are worded. I'd suggest to simply post all ONE-THING-candidates right into this thread -- I believe this will work better because your choice won't be limited to the poll options. |
|||||||
Posted: June 2, 2006 2:38 am | ||||||||
uberzev
![]() |
Ok, my ONE THING vote is for non-square gradients!
Might want to sticky this topic. |
|||||||
Posted: June 2, 2006 2:57 am | ||||||||
Vladimir Golovin
Administrator |
Done. |
|||||||
Posted: June 2, 2006 2:59 am | ||||||||
uberzev
![]() |
At first I though the 10 control limit was draconian, but after becoming more experienced with the software I've begun to realize that it really isn't a problem 99% of the time. What's nice about it is that it forces you to make more user friendly controls.
The gradient squarification on the other hand is still evil. ![]() You with me Kraellin? |
|||||||
Posted: June 3, 2006 2:18 am | ||||||||
Lucato
![]() |
And my ONE THING I'd like to see most is My Filters TREE (See attached image). So, in the options I would get to set where My Filters folder is in my HD (Browse...) and I would build the tree as I want to.
![]() |
|||||||
Posted: June 3, 2006 7:46 am | ||||||||
Kraellin
![]() |
uberzev,
hehe, fraid not. the sqarification issue does seem needed and wanted and is up there on my wish list as well, but without more controls i probably wouldnt make use of it anyways ![]() as for the user-friendly part of the arguement, i find that having more control over your workflow is MORE user-friendly rather than less. i mean, by that arguement photoshop should be stripped down to only a few functions. yes, it would be easier to use that way, but not really more 'user-friendly' if you dont have the options to do what you want. so, i guess it somewhat depends on what you mean by user-friendly. there's a very old arguement that still goes on in the computer world. do you 'dumb it down' to reach the common denominator of users or force the user to smarten up by not dumbing down the software. even computer languages have fought this battle. assembly is still my favorite computer language. it's the only true 'smart' language because it's the closest you can get to actual machine language. but it's not the most user-friendly. FF is very user-friendly and i love it for being so. and it's always going to be a bit of a debate whether you kiss (keep it simple stupid) the software or open it up to more function and expect the user to supply some smarts. i do somewhat like the idea someone supplied of having a 'simple' interface and an 'advanced' one. in the future, the guys making FF may even do whole versions which go one way or the other. buy the simple version for $99.95, the medium for $149.00, and the advanced for $249.00 or whatever. ok, i'm getting away from the issue a bit ![]() ![]() craig If wishes were horses... there'd be a whole lot of horse crap to clean up!
Craig |
|||||||
Posted: June 3, 2006 10:03 am | ||||||||
Lucato
![]() |
||||||||
Posted: June 3, 2006 5:23 pm | ||||||||
bolba
Posts: 5 |
It would be really nice to use node instancing. So you can base your networks on simultaneously changing nodes.
Also, as I said in other thread. It would be nice to change scale of the nodes previews (using zooming in/out), to quickly navigate throught your network. |
|||||||
Posted: June 3, 2006 6:10 pm | ||||||||
uberzev
![]() |
Ok I want to change my vote, Kraellin you were right after all.
![]() My newest filter uberLENS 2 won't be getting any new features in the future because I've already exauhsted the 10 control limit. I'd really love to add some frosted/cracked glass effects without losing the current controls. ![]() |
|||||||
Posted: June 4, 2006 9:41 am | ||||||||
Kraellin
![]() |
uber,
just tried your filter. really cool! and i can see why you guys are so keen on the squarification issue. some of those lenses really need to be applied just once and spaced differently for the full range of effect. and yes, adding more controls on that effect would be incredible. is there no way to read the length and width of an image and apply effects based on that? craig If wishes were horses... there'd be a whole lot of horse crap to clean up!
Craig |
|||||||
Posted: June 4, 2006 9:59 am | ||||||||
uberzev
![]() |
|
|||||||
Posted: June 4, 2006 10:08 am | ||||||||
Kraellin
![]() |
hmmm, too bad. maybe that one shld be added to the wish list also. craig If wishes were horses... there'd be a whole lot of horse crap to clean up!
Craig |
|||||||
Posted: June 4, 2006 10:23 am | ||||||||
Vladimir Golovin
Administrator |
We already have an idea regarding this on our long-term list. |
|||||||
Posted: June 5, 2006 3:43 am | ||||||||
Quasimondo
![]() |
Yes right - image width / image height should work like a control component. |
|||||||
Posted: June 5, 2006 9:32 am | ||||||||
pixel8ted
![]() |
I vote for the ability to assign scratch disc(s) to another drive. I've crashed a few times already trying to build something too memory intensive. Some sort of resource status bar at the bottom of the application wouldn't be a bad thing either.
Terri |
|||||||
Posted: June 12, 2006 12:04 am | ||||||||
Vladimir Golovin
Administrator |
||||||||
Posted: June 12, 2006 1:25 pm | ||||||||
ProLost
![]()
Posts: 25 |
Hey all,
My single top feature request, as indicated here, is a version for After Effects 7.0. Basically a plug-in that reads a custom filter file written by the standalone GUI and creates an effect out of it. This could be a great way to create and share custom effects for AE. -Stu |
|||||||
Posted: June 14, 2006 11:52 am | ||||||||
Mike Blackney
![]() |
I think what I'd like to see the most is a text node. Not a comment, node - I mean for creating text. Just creates text (colour from an input) on a background (from another input). Could have size, font, etc. At the moment I've been sending rasterised text to FF from Photoshop, but a node would be a lot more versatile.
(I don't know if this has come up before, but I looked around - funnily enough, a search for 'text' comes up with lots of hits on a board about 'textures' ![]() |
|||||||
Posted: June 25, 2006 12:14 am | ||||||||
Kraellin
![]() |
that's an interesting idea. and yes, making one's own fonts seems like a natural for FF. craig If wishes were horses... there'd be a whole lot of horse crap to clean up!
Craig |
|||||||
Posted: June 25, 2006 1:14 am | ||||||||
Vladimir Golovin
Administrator |
Mike, the Text component is problematic.
First, identical fonts may look differently on different machines, platforms, OS versions, driver versions, video cards etc etc. Plus there's that font substitution thing that makes the problem even worse. Second, to make sure that downloadable filters work for every FF user (including those who don't have a particular font installed), we will have to embed the font into the filter's XML code, which can bring serious legal problems for us. |
|||||||
Posted: July 7, 2006 10:23 am | ||||||||
voldemort |
Splines Im sure there is a simple method of doing this that as of yet eludes me but to be able to take a shap (lets say one generated from a profile gradient) and make it follow a spline (with simulated z axis so that all 3 x y and z are represented) and be able to control spacing of said shape or if its extruded.
Also for the external section to add a grab clipboard (this will import whatever is selected at the time and use it as the source image including its alpha Layers under patterns righs and circles ( I realize you can use a profile gradient to do this and have done it in some of my filters ) I think this will free up developers for creativity and get them away from having to focus so much on mechanics lets all whine for a wine port |
|||||||
Posted: October 17, 2006 9:38 pm | ||||||||
Vladimir Golovin
Administrator |
Interesting. I'm not sure that standard clipboard formats support alpha channels, but the idea is worth exploring. I've added this to our long-term plan.
Yes, we have and idea for a "layered blend" component and even implemented the first prototype, but it was really awkward and didn't make it into the beta. We hope to include it in future releases.
Not sure what do you mean by righs ![]() |
|||||||
Posted: October 18, 2006 3:31 am | ||||||||
voldemort |
Glad to heere that and by the way ""rings""
![]() I did notice that the one topic you didnt touch was splines I realize this really lies more in the realm of 3d apps But comming from a world of using splines in apps like blender I know just how many doors they open up Hey I never said I wasnt asking for my cake and to eat it to ![]() Id like to reiterate again how impressed I am with your product but now that Ive started reviewing posts here its even more impressive your apparent dedication to constant improvement I hope that you keep your distance from complacency like you have it is what sepperates the good from the truly great lets all whine for a wine port |
|||||||
Posted: October 18, 2006 9:06 am | ||||||||
Vladimir Golovin
Administrator |
Oh yes, the splines. We discussed that internally. Adding splines to Filter Forge is quite a radical change from the architechtural POV -- a Spline is an object that can't be defined parametrically via the component inputs, as everything else in Filter Forge. That means that to add splines we'll need to implement the infrastructure for components that can have their own 'binary' data. This is possible but I wouldn't expect that soon. |
|||||||
Posted: October 18, 2006 10:33 am | ||||||||
Kraellin
![]() |
well, having gone through several updates now, my ONE THING has changed. vlad was kind enough to add more controls, for which i'm quite greatful, but now i need to control the controls
![]() ![]() i've posted this suggestion before, but it's now become my number one wishlist item, so i'm posting it again. i do filters with many, many controls. i dont upload them for a number of reasons, but i do use them. most all of these multi-filters use a fair number of switches. and therefore, most all of them branch out into sub-modules or sub-trees. my request is in order to remove the clutter of all these controls, if it's possible, i'd like to either ghost out the controls in the sub-tree when it's not in use or to hide it completely. in other words, if the switch isnt switched to that branch, ghost out or hide the controls in that branch. hiding would actually be better. when you moved the switch to a different position, that new branch's controls would then show up and the old one would ghost or disappear. the BIG advantage to this is that not only do you have fewer controls to view at any given time, but you know exactly what ones are active. if drop-down menus on controls ever get implemented, this would work also. just put a drop down on the switch control. but i'm guessing from previous discussions this isnt going to happen any time soon, if at all. the other way would be fly-out panels with menu items on a switch control. but again, i'm guessing that isnt going to happen either. i've actually found a way to put in a dummy 'spacer' item to divide my controls in the listing. so, i can group my controls into their respective branches with a divider between the groups. that helps, but it can still get a bit confusing, even for me the creator of same. i can only imagine the confusion others might have not knowing what goes with what in the controls (and that's actually one reason i dont upload any of these). it would also help to have a 'dummy' spacer control component though. anyways, that's my biggest wishlist item currently. and i thank vlad and the FF team for the really great integrity in their testing and the great response to user feedback. it's a pleasure dealing with you guys, even if that may not be true in reverse ![]() ![]() Craig If wishes were horses... there'd be a whole lot of horse crap to clean up!
Craig |
|||||||
Posted: October 27, 2006 1:40 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!
22 unregistered users.