Sounds good to me. As far as older scenes not being compatible with the new SkIndigo: you win some, you lose some.
In the end, I think most users will be quite pleased.
External or Internal Texture Maps?
what you discribed in your last post sounds great whaat, i think it'll be very easy for anyone to continue using skindigo as they do now, or to try and use external textures if they like. also, having some preset shaders would be awesome too, whether built-in to skindigo or at least dumped in the forum somewhere.
actually a small piece of documentation would go along way in getting people creating their own shaders. the more people make and share the better everyone is.
cant wait for SkIndigo 1.1.9!!
actually a small piece of documentation would go along way in getting people creating their own shaders. the more people make and share the better everyone is.
cant wait for SkIndigo 1.1.9!!
I think the external way sounds pretty good, it certainly is less intuitive than just using the skp materials, but I'm willing to learn something new 
I think the advantages of using external mats outweigh the loss of wysiwyg mats, but it sounds like ti will be in there if needed.
isn't this how maxwell works?
also, it seems like using blended mats will be easier, no loss of them if you purge.
would it be possible to have a folder with the blended mat and req. mats for the blend and just link to that blended mat? I'm still a little confused over the blended mats I think
I think the advantages of using external mats outweigh the loss of wysiwyg mats, but it sounds like ti will be in there if needed.
isn't this how maxwell works?
also, it seems like using blended mats will be easier, no loss of them if you purge.
would it be possible to have a folder with the blended mat and req. mats for the blend and just link to that blended mat? I'm still a little confused over the blended mats I think
-
kwistenbiebel
- Posts: 496
- Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 12:31 am
Giving us the option to choose is really cool Whaat.
I for one wouldn't use a 'lo-res' as dummy texture that gets replaced by the external hi-res.
To me personally that is bad practice. My HD is already crowded with textures and I would hate to have 2 versions of each texture.
Also, the method implies you make the lo-res the exact same size as the hi-res, otherwise uv-mapping will be gone in output.
The only way to play that correctly is to use the same image size for the lo-res dummy texture but with a seriously reduced dpi (e.g 72dpi).
Most of the time, it is not the textures that make my scenes 'heavy', as I think that 512X512 or 1024X0214 at medium quality most of the time is sufficient. (note: it's high poly that makes my scenes go bananas, not so much texture sizes).
The only times I would load up a really heavy texture would be when using displacement textures. The rest I would love to be able to do straight in sketchup. (and wysiwyg all the way if possible)
So giving us the option to choose in this case is a fine solution.
I for one wouldn't use a 'lo-res' as dummy texture that gets replaced by the external hi-res.
To me personally that is bad practice. My HD is already crowded with textures and I would hate to have 2 versions of each texture.
Also, the method implies you make the lo-res the exact same size as the hi-res, otherwise uv-mapping will be gone in output.
The only way to play that correctly is to use the same image size for the lo-res dummy texture but with a seriously reduced dpi (e.g 72dpi).
Most of the time, it is not the textures that make my scenes 'heavy', as I think that 512X512 or 1024X0214 at medium quality most of the time is sufficient. (note: it's high poly that makes my scenes go bananas, not so much texture sizes).
The only times I would load up a really heavy texture would be when using displacement textures. The rest I would love to be able to do straight in sketchup. (and wysiwyg all the way if possible)
So giving us the option to choose in this case is a fine solution.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 46 guests