Page 2 of 4

Re: Can we have more procedurals?

Posted: Fri Jan 10, 2014 10:11 am
by alexos
If I could have one... I'd want three more. Ideally I would like a good 50% of IFW Nodes, particularly the "geometric" ones - panels, tiles and whatnot, all incredibly useful in archviz. Also, take a look at IFW's "region" nodes: couple one of those with a regional texture (panels, say) and you'll get the kind of semi-random variations that help immensely when dealing with complex, irregular patterns, something that is nearly impossible to achieve using image maps.

ADP.

Re: Can we have more procedurals?

Posted: Fri Jan 10, 2014 12:01 pm
by gordonrobb
So is there were we should be asking this? In terms of getting info form the Octane developers?

Re: Can we have more procedurals?

Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2014 6:04 am
by Rob49152
I agree. This is one of the things that would save me so much memory from having to load images instead. But seeing as octane seems to have some issues with mapping non-uv meshes I think this is a far hope at the moment.

But I'd love just a few of the IFW styled textures I use all the time like:
etched, FBm, pebbles, dirt, crackle, panels, crumpled, scratches, puffy clouds, Coriolis, bricks, pavement, planks

heck I'd even be happy with simple ones like a good turbulance or fractal, crust and crumple for a start.

Re: Can we have more procedurals?

Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2014 10:27 am
by gordonrobb
Whilst I'd welcome some more advanced IFW ones, I'm only looking for what I would call 'standard' ones.

Like fractal noise, turbulence, crumple for example. I'm not sure what the difficulty would be since the have already created some. Surely it's just duplicating existing ones, but with different maths?

How do I get a response from the actual people involved in the development?

Re: Can we have more procedurals?

Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:49 pm
by FrankPooleFloating
Not different maths at all, but just different coding. Any that exist in Javascript, C, C++, Python etc just need to be ported over to Lua, with the same math, but different syntax.

Re: Can we have more procedurals?

Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2014 1:15 pm
by gordonrobb
FrankPooleFloating wrote:Not different maths at all, but just different coding. Any that exist in Javascript, C, C++, Python etc just need to be ported over to Lua, with the same math, but different syntax.
Do you mean to add these to Octane, or are you talking about the option of scripts that will create texture images to use?

Re: Can we have more procedurals?

Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2014 9:37 pm
by stratified
Procedurals created in Lua are always converted to image textures, the GPU doesn't speak lua. Real procedurals need to be implemented in Octane and evaluated on the GPU.

Cheers,
Thomas

Re: Can we have more procedurals?

Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2014 11:49 pm
by UnCommonGrafx
Have any of you IFW-wishers asked Richard to join the party?

I can again if you will.

Re: Can we have more procedurals?

Posted: Sun Jan 12, 2014 8:55 am
by gordonrobb
stratified wrote:Procedurals created in Lua are always converted to image textures, the GPU doesn't speak lua. Real procedurals need to be implemented in Octane and evaluated on the GPU.

Cheers,
Thomas
So, will more be implemented in Octane?

Re: Can we have more procedurals?

Posted: Sun Jan 12, 2014 7:20 pm
by stratified
We'll put it on our list. We can't say when, every user want's their feature in Octane...

We recently had a vote about it:

http://render.otoy.com/forum/viewtopic. ... 5&start=70

cheers,
Thomas