philnolan3d Posted November 23, 2014 Report Share Posted November 23, 2014 Along the lines of "smart" the word Intelligent works well too I think. I like the word Slick, but I'm not sure if it describes the what the tool does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Javis Posted November 23, 2014 Report Share Posted November 23, 2014 How about Patina Coat? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Javis Posted November 23, 2014 Report Share Posted November 23, 2014 Incorporating the word "coat" has the advantage of it's reference to 3D-Coat. "Shape Coat" and "Smart Coat" are my favorites. Smart Coat. I like that one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philnolan3d Posted November 23, 2014 Report Share Posted November 23, 2014 Here's another one, Smart Pigment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member fuzzzzzz Posted November 23, 2014 Member Report Share Posted November 23, 2014 +1 for Smart Coat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advanced Member Aleksey Posted November 23, 2014 Advanced Member Report Share Posted November 23, 2014 MultiCoat? MultiCoat shader, preset, package... etc.. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advanced Member Grimm Posted November 23, 2014 Advanced Member Report Share Posted November 23, 2014 Procedural paint ? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Contributor ajz3d Posted November 23, 2014 Contributor Report Share Posted November 23, 2014 Procedural paint ? I like this one. Or Procedural Coat maybe? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philnolan3d Posted November 23, 2014 Report Share Posted November 23, 2014 It's not a procedural texture though is it? Maybe I misunderstood how it works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Contributor ajz3d Posted November 23, 2014 Contributor Report Share Posted November 23, 2014 It's not a procedural texture though is it? Maybe I misunderstood how it works. I'm curious, if we already have one of these new material layers, and then paint some more normal map details, will there be a live update for the material, or will it need "re-baked"? cavities are updated,the material conditions are "live" but the painting/filling is final...so if you did a previous fill or painted the material on a layer you need to delete those and fill/paint again. Output is affected by input and the magic happens using mathematical functions, so I'd assume they are more or less - procedural (minus what you paint manually). That's speculation of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Javis Posted November 23, 2014 Report Share Posted November 23, 2014 It's not procedural so that name is not going to work. It uses image maps only, with a minor procedural noise generator for tweaking those images if you want. Anyway, it's pretty cool. If you want to try it out, it's in the Google drive folder. :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Contributor artman Posted November 23, 2014 Contributor Report Share Posted November 23, 2014 Output is affected by input and the magic happens using mathematical functions, so I'd assume they are more or less - procedural (minus what you paint manually). That's speculation of course. No,there is no procedural stuff involved. Basically you need to prepare some maps first....tillable maps work the best. ex:gloss,metalness,a bump or normal map,a mask ect... You can make those using photoshop if you have some skills but the best is to use programs like Bitmap2Material or Pixplant. Its gonna let you extract all synched maps from a photo/image and make it tillable. Bitmap2Material is really the best app because it is previewing using PBR. The magic is cube-mapping....it allows you to "apparently" seamlessly apply your maps all around your mesh with one click using fill tool...but you can also use other projection modes (plane,spherical and uv-mapped ect..) You might want to use Uv-mapped method when pattern needs some direction...cube-mapping is really good for noisy/chaotic textures (that feels procedural) but is less good with flowing,directional stuff... Now what is really new is the conditions and the layering system(...cube-mapping was already in the old "material" tool.) We can now add multiple layers (each of those layers are combinations of the maps mentioned above) And you can use conditions to tell 3Dcoat how you want those layers to be applied. (ex:masked or not ,More on Top,More on convex/concav,Ao based,cavity based ect...) By using different layers with different conditions you can create very powerful "materials" that can be applied with one click if cube-mapping is used or you can manually paint it through projection like we always could before.... You can save and share those as presets in .pak format using 3DCoat Add extension from file menu. To make a comparison ,Its a more powerful version of Substance Painter projection tool. Its really not like ddo it won't create/generate the scratches for you ...But I find control of placement and scaling a lot more efficient than in ddo... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advanced Member Grimm Posted November 23, 2014 Advanced Member Report Share Posted November 23, 2014 And you can use conditions to tell 3Dcoat how you want those layers to be applied. (ex:masked or not ,More on Top,More on convex/concav,Ao based,cavity based ect...) By using different layers with different conditions you can create very powerful "materials" that can be applied with one click if cube-mapping is used or you can manually paint it through projection like we always could before.... Thanks for the explanation of the new tools Artman. So these new conditions would be the part that is procedural, very cool. I can't wait to try it out, Linux version? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Contributor artman Posted November 23, 2014 Contributor Report Share Posted November 23, 2014 So these new conditions would be the part that is procedural, very cool. No ,there is nothing that is procedural. Conditions are just "masking" your layers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advanced Member Grimm Posted November 23, 2014 Advanced Member Report Share Posted November 23, 2014 Anything where the software is determining how the texture is computed is procedural. AO, cavities, noise, etc are all procedural processes. I do see that this shouldn't be called procedural because you can still build the material without using any of the conditionals or masks, so no worries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advanced Member mocaw Posted November 24, 2014 Advanced Member Report Share Posted November 24, 2014 I like smart coat so far the best. It's straight forward, says what it does, and probably easy to translate, and as mentioned has the bonus of having part of 3D coat's name in there. Smart coat is good because it implies that the process is semi automated, or has some programing intelligence behind it. MultiCoat is fairly good too as is Material Coat, but they don't have this description of the action or what it does in the name. Patina is nice, and actually the most accurate AFAIK in terms of saying what it creates, but the term maybe too obscure. Random names on my part: Intele Coat Matter Maker Real Coat Matter Coat Reality Coat Elemental Coat 3DCoating Creator Alchemy Coat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member RobertH Posted November 24, 2014 Member Report Share Posted November 24, 2014 I don't see why we can't just use Smart Materials. Decades ago LED's where referred to as such. So was that wire that could be crumpled up and would revert to its original shape when immersed in hot water. And windows that would go from clear to opaque when electricity was applied. Plenty of graphics programs use "shaders" "paint" "materials" etc. and no one gets confused or upset. Why try to find something else, when Smart Materials fits so well? All the other suggestions don't really feel right some how. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Javis Posted November 24, 2014 Report Share Posted November 24, 2014 Hey Robert, I believe that the general issue is that it could present a legal issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Javis Posted November 24, 2014 Report Share Posted November 24, 2014 I like smart coat so far the best. It's straight forward, says what it does, and probably easy to translate, and as mentioned has the bonus of having part of 3D coat's name in there. Smart coat is good because it implies that the process is semi automated, or has some programing intelligence behind it. MultiCoat is fairly good too as is Material Coat, but they don't have this description of the action or what it does in the name. Patina is nice, and actually the most accurate AFAIK in terms of saying what it creates, but the term maybe too obscure. Random names on my part: Intele Coat Matter Maker Real Coat Matter Coat Reality Coat Elemental Coat 3DCoating Creator Alchemy Coat I like patina also. ;-) Full disclosure, mocaw helped with that name for it last week. Patina Coat. Oh yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member RobertH Posted November 24, 2014 Member Report Share Posted November 24, 2014 Hey Javis, thanks for responding, What I was getting at is, is it legal to take a term that has been around for decades, assign it to a program feature, and now it belongs to you, to the exclusion of anyone else using it, in that context? I'm not trying to be facetious, is that really the way it works legally? Or are you saying that it's just not worth the potential problems that it may cause. Just curious... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Javis Posted November 24, 2014 Report Share Posted November 24, 2014 Hey Robert! In the past there have been companies that have done that very thing, over a trivial feature, such as pie menus for example. Pilgway also had some trouble with another company over the name of what 3D-Coat used to be, 3D Brush, hence the name change. Anyway, I like Smart Materials personally, too. I think it is descriptive (though not as direct as the word patina), and is really just keeping in "standard" with language from another application. Personally, I don't really see it as a problem, but I could see what Andrew does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reputable Contributor AbnRanger Posted November 24, 2014 Reputable Contributor Report Share Posted November 24, 2014 I don't see why we can't just use Smart Materials. Decades ago LED's where referred to as such. So was that wire that could be crumpled up and would revert to its original shape when immersed in hot water. And windows that would go from clear to opaque when electricity was applied. Plenty of graphics programs use "shaders" "paint" "materials" etc. and no one gets confused or upset. Why try to find something else, when Smart Materials fits so well? All the other suggestions don't really feel right some how. Agreed. Smart Materials doesn't sound like a trademarked term at all. It's very generic, as it's just a simple description of what it is. It's nothing like "Z-REmesher" or anything. We already share a lot of naming conventions with Photoshop and aren't concerned about trademarks. Same with Stamps and Stnecils. Nothing wrong with keeping naming conventions more standardized. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reputable Contributor AbnRanger Posted November 24, 2014 Reputable Contributor Report Share Posted November 24, 2014 ...perhaps "Smart-Coated" Materials would be a bit more descript than "Smart Coat" if Andrew goes in that direction? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Contributor ajz3d Posted November 24, 2014 Contributor Report Share Posted November 24, 2014 No,there is no procedural stuff involved. Basically you need to prepare some maps first....tillable maps work the best. ex:gloss,metalness,a bump or normal map,a mask ect... You can make those using photoshop if you have some skills but the best is to use programs like Bitmap2Material or Pixplant. Its gonna let you extract all synched maps from a photo/image and make it tillable. Bitmap2Material is really the best app because it is previewing using PBR. The magic is cube-mapping....it allows you to "apparently" seamlessly apply your maps all around your mesh with one click using fill tool...but you can also use other projection modes (plane,spherical and uv-mapped ect..) You might want to use Uv-mapped method when pattern needs some direction...cube-mapping is really good for noisy/chaotic textures (that feels procedural) but is less good with flowing,directional stuff... Now what is really new is the conditions and the layering system(...cube-mapping was already in the old "material" tool.) We can now add multiple layers (each of those layers are combinations of the maps mentioned above) And you can use conditions to tell 3Dcoat how you want those layers to be applied. (ex:masked or not ,More on Top,More on convex/concav,Ao based,cavity based ect...) By using different layers with different conditions you can create very powerful "materials" that can be applied with one click if cube-mapping is used or you can manually paint it through projection like we always could before.... You can save and share those as presets in .pak format using 3DCoat Add extension from file menu. To make a comparison ,Its a more powerful version of Substance Painter projection tool. Its really not like ddo it won't create/generate the scratches for you ...But I find control of placement and scaling a lot more efficient than in ddo... Thanks for clearing this up, Artman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Contributor Malo Posted November 24, 2014 Contributor Report Share Posted November 24, 2014 I like the idea with MultiCoating from Aleksey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Javis Posted November 24, 2014 Report Share Posted November 24, 2014 Agreed. Smart Materials doesn't sound like a trademarked term at all. It's very generic, as it's just a simple description of what it is. It's nothing like "Z-REmesher" or anything. We already share a lot of naming conventions with Photoshop and aren't concerned about trademarks. Same with Stamps and Stnecils. Nothing wrong with keeping naming conventions more standardized. Agree or not, legal matters are up to Pilgway staff to decide when a company has a licensed or trademarked property, even something is trivial or mundane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Javis Posted November 24, 2014 Report Share Posted November 24, 2014 ...perhaps "Smart-Coated" Materials would be a bit more descript than "Smart Coat" if Andrew goes in that direction? That's past tense, not very indicative of what it's currently doing or is going to do for you. When describing something that can be done for you, you want to describe it with a present or future tense, not a past tense. Design 101. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Javis Posted November 24, 2014 Report Share Posted November 24, 2014 For what it's worth, I'm bundling up a bunch of Smart Coatings for the distro build, mostly nature, pottery, dirt and grime stuff. If anyone has a request, I'll see what I can do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reputable Contributor AbnRanger Posted November 24, 2014 Reputable Contributor Report Share Posted November 24, 2014 Agree or not, legal matters are up to Pilgway staff to decide when a company has a licensed or trademarked property, even something is trivial or mundane. I know it's up to Andrew. Never said anything to suggest differently. But it is still a generic tool label, not something that is labeled in unique manner. For example, if they named it "D-Materials" or "Smart D-Materials." Then there is the important matter of "standardization." Most artists like standardization, to help lower the learning curve, and increase familiarity. If Andrew likes Smart Materials, then there is good reason to keep it, going forward. If Quixel has a problem with it, all they have to do is notify him of their objection, and it would be no major problem changing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reputable Contributor AbnRanger Posted November 24, 2014 Reputable Contributor Report Share Posted November 24, 2014 That's past tense, not very indicative of what it's currently doing or is going to do for you. When describing something that can be done for you, you want to describe it with a present or future tense, not a past tense. Design 101. Doesn't apply here. You don't have to object to every suggestion I make because you like doing so. Just ignoring the post will suffice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.