a WORKING viewport (not a fancy one)

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

THREAD CLOSED
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 07 July 2013   #1
a WORKING viewport (not a fancy one)

This is very broad but simply said:
We need the viewport to show us the correct result of shading networks (as long as OpenGL supports it)

There are a zillion things that are not shown properly in the viewport.

Eg.: Animators want a visual reference of how blending displacements (blendcolor node) will react during facial anim.
Adding a normal map works fine but when you simply blend 2 together, the $3,675 industry leader application goes flat on it's belly... This is just silly and frankly AD developpers should be ashamed of this since almost any cheap/free modern game engine seems to have no problems with this simple task.

So stop adding fancy features like viewport 2.0 and give us `ONE` that `WORKS`.

Last edited by ljilekor : 07 July 2013 at 10:37 AM.
 
Old 07 July 2013   #2
You want a better viewport, but ask AD to stop developing their new and improved viewport? Hardly makes sense.
Yes, they could improve upon VP2, and mayafeedback.autodesk.com is there for you to raise your concerns. Which will probably be a much better place to do so, than in here
__________________
Website
Steam Punk Challenge
 
Old 07 July 2013   #3
So you want working displacement in an online-style viewport rendered by the videocard, but you don't want them to invest in the new viewport that allows for more complex shaders on the videocard doing things such as displacement that they are furthering to do exactly what you're asking for?

Very confusing way to ask for something

If anything my issue is with the DX dependency of the uber-shader limiting it to windows, I really wish it had gone down another path, but I guess that's what you get for lifting a freebie (the DX ubershader) from another package (MAX) that is strongly tied to windows and therefore doesn't have a linux userbase to care for
__________________
Come, Join the Cult http://www.cultofrig.com - Rigging from First Principles
 
Old 07 July 2013   #4
Quote: You want a better viewport, but ask AD to stop developing their new and improved viewport? Hardly makes sense.


Not really asking them to stop. Just asking them to do things thoroughly and implement things properly. Starting with the basic and obvious stuff
eg blending 2 normal maps and see the result in the viewport.
Why is Maya viewport (whatever one) able to show a normalmap but can't it show 2 normalmaps blended together... ? If you ask me: poor implementation. Codewise, the two procedures should be exactly the same since the blend happens earlier up the flow in another node (Blend Colors).

Been working in the wonderful world of cg since '99 and with Maya since 2004 as an all rounder/animator/TD ... Honestly, I'm kinda getting tired of waiting for the evident stuff to work properly (when it comes to hypershade results).
The hundreds of animators, shaders, TD's, all over the globe that I spoke with think likewise. Just ventilating the frustration of many people: Make sure the basics work before starting on the fancy shait that are only in there for promotional reasons (look at our feature list!).
In other words: We'd all prefer to see the result of a somehow complex shadertree than fake motionblur, fake occlusion, aa, etc...

I coded OpenGL before and I can assure you that applying the result of a shader node after calculating the shader tree shouldn't be any problem for experienced developers.
We are so used to work around these issues that we hardly see them anymore.

Quote: So you want working displacement in an online-style viewport rendered by the videocard, but you don't want them to invest in the new viewport that allows for more complex shaders on the videocard doing things such as displacement that they are furthering to do exactly what you're asking for?


I'm aware that displacements can't be shown in the viewport. And of course it would be great. But the applications would be very limited if poorly implemented.
Eg. Displacement (or just the normalmap simplified workaround)! What an awesome new feature!
Of course we'd assume that blending in the forehead wrinkles during a frown using a simple BlendColors node is an obvious consequence and should work fine... But.. are you crazy, that's way too advanced!

It would be an obvious consequence if all the basic stuff had been properly implemented in the first place. Now we are left with fancy features that are only used occasionally because they are limited.


Quote: mayafeedback.autodesk.com is there for you to raise your concerns.


U r right. Mayafeedback.autodesk.com happened to be down at the moment I wrote the previous message.

Last edited by ljilekor : 07 July 2013 at 03:52 PM.
 
Old 07 July 2013   #5
I think I can relate to what Mitch says without even knowing what he is talking about. Give me one viewport that works properly instead of three, where each does half a job. And... the concept is not limited to viewports!
As a comparison, can you imagine something you do in 3D-coat and not see it on screen? Why are you so forgiving towards maya?
 
Old 07 July 2013   #6
Quote: Not really asking them to stop. Just asking them to do things thoroughly and implement things properly. Starting with the basic and obvious stuff


This is neither basic nor obvious. The obvious and basic stuff in fact HAS been implemented in Viewport 2.0 already. I don't even use normal maps for my arch/viz work, why would it be obvious or basic for AD to make a blending shader for something only a portion of the userbase needs? Either you don't know what "basic" means or you don't know what "obvious" means, because there's no reason anyone not doing precisely what you are doing would need such a thing.

In short, code it yourself. If you want specialty features, create them. If you want features in 3DCoat or another application that aren't in Maya, use that application. Complaining here, where nobody can actually help you in any way, is just whining. Take action. Do something about it. Write a new viewport tech and publish it, if it's so basic and obvious and easy to do.
__________________
Commodore 64 @ 1MHz
64KB RAM
1541 Floppy Drive


"Like stone we battle the wind... Beat down and strangle the rains..."
 
Old 08 August 2013   #7
This kind of Viewport stuff isn't really accessible through Maya api...

Not looking for a solution, just for a little support.

But, ... who needs a 'working' viewport anyway? As long as the feature list and demo's look great.

Lets just tell the animators it's not possible and it won't be for a long time.
Moderator, please close this thread for there is absolutely no support for my miserable plight.


There's some hope though. Them youths seem to grasp the issue (big up zoharl)
 
Old 08 August 2013   #8
Originally Posted by zoharl: I think I can relate to what Mitch says without even knowing what he is talking about. Give me one viewport that works properly instead of three, where each does half a job. And... the concept is not limited to viewports!
As a comparison, can you imagine something you do in 3D-coat and not see it on screen? Why are you so forgiving towards maya?


My first time posting an xkcd, but figured this one was appropriate...

http://xkcd.com/927/

__________________

 
Old 08 August 2013   #9
Originally Posted by ThE_JacO: I guess that's what you get for lifting a freebie (the DX ubershader) from another package (MAX)


Hi Raffaele,

I am the developer who wrote the Uber shader and this is not what happened.
The DX11 Uber Shader was written from scratch for Maya's DX11 customers.

As you can imagine, this was very important work for us in relation to Playstation 4, which has a shading language very similar to DX11's HLSL 5.

We have big customers who needed this work done the way it was done. They need to hook into the DX11 viewport to do a lot of custom things to match their game engines and it really had to be DX11 for that to work. The Uber Shader was a sort of 'icing on the cake' of the tremendous amount of work that went into creating the DX11 viewport and all the core changes that came along with that.

So it may not fit exactly into what some others would like to use it for, but it serves the needs of a large number of customers who develop for these next gen platforms.

That said, it runs on Viewport 2.0, which is platform independent.
This means that a very similar Uber Shader could work in OpenGL viewport also.
Except for the tessellation part, because we do not have this in Maya's OpenGL viewport.
The reason for this delay is two fold:

- One is that Mac does not support OpenGL 4 yet.
- Two is that we rely on CGFX for Maya's OpenGL viewport, which does not support tessellation.

If you want to know more of what we are doing there, you are welcome to join the Maya beta. All I can say is that we are very motivated to provide real-time shader solutions for all customers and the Uber Shader is only the tip of the ice berg.
__________________
-Kees
 
Old 08 August 2013   #10
Originally Posted by ljilekor: Adding a normal map works fine but when you simply blend 2 together, the $3,675 industry leader application goes flat on it's belly...


If I look at this request just by itself, this can already easily be done in today's viewport.
You can write a shader for CGFX, HLSL, or DX11 to blend your normal maps.

However, I assume you want to do it with the old DAG nodes, and then also render it in some software renderer.

And this is where the story becomes a lot different and also where your comparison to "a game engine" stops. Maya can certainly do what a game engine does. But a game engine doesn't have to also software render the same nodes.

I believe we do make an effort to make sure the DAG nodes can preview properly in viewport 2, but more work is needed.
__________________
-Kees
 
Old 08 August 2013   #11
Thx Kees.

Finally a proper answer! Refreshing to see someone who understands.

It would be nice to have it working out of the box of course.
I tried CGFX shaders (authored and exported with mental mill) a few months ago without success. Probably did something wrong. I'll try again. Do you have any tips regarding this workflow?

PS: We render with modo. In the case of the examples mentioned above, we need the normal maps for the animators to have a simplified visual reference of what happens when the animation driven displacements are applied.

Last edited by ljilekor : 08 August 2013 at 09:41 AM.
 
Old 08 August 2013   #12
Originally Posted by kees: Hi Raffaele,

I am the developer who wrote the Uber shader and this is not what happened.
The DX11 Uber Shader was written from scratch for Maya's DX11 customers.
...

Well, I stand corrected, information elsewhere was obviously wrong/mis-represented then

For the record I don't criticize the DX choice, it sure as hell there's a lot more demand on windows + DX for something like the ubershader than there is on linux, or on OGL in general, so it makes sense to begin with, but as a largely OGL/Linux user (it's simply the way it is in film) I wish, choice of the word wish is key here and in previous post, it had been different.

Thanks for poking your head in on this. It's always good when the developers pitch in.
__________________
Come, Join the Cult http://www.cultofrig.com - Rigging from First Principles
 
Old 08 August 2013   #13
Originally Posted by ljilekor:
Finally a proper answer! Refreshing to see someone who understands.



I am sorry, didn't mean to imply you were just whining.
I certainly understand why you want to do it, and the benifits.

It was more a comment to viewport 2 being a "fancy feature". I find it very useful for animation, especially in the latests versions, where it seems better and better at displaying things correctly.

Anywho, hope you get your issues solved
__________________
Website
Steam Punk Challenge
 
Old 08 August 2013   #14
Quote: If I look at this request just by itself, this can already easily be done in today's viewport.
You can write a shader for CGFX, HLSL, or DX11 to blend your normal maps.


Just tried to export a cgfx from mental mill again (simple dual bump mixer routed in the normal parameter of an illumination phong).
Imported the cgfx in maya 2014 cgfx shader with no result...
 
Old 08 August 2013   #15
Hi ljilekor,

I cannot speak for Mental Mill.
It is a 3rd party application and I/we have no control of what it exports and if that is correct for it to work in Maya.

That said, if you/your company wishes to join the Maya beta, we do have a solution for you there...
__________________
-Kees
 
Thread Closed share thread



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 09:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.