PDA

View Full Version : The new procedural node...why isnīt there any invert option.



prometheus
02-06-2019, 09:08 AM
One of the strenghts with all nodes and procedurals for lightwave...is that all of them had an invert function.
I was a bit surprised to see this new node without that function, it will only make it less usefull when you have to put an invert node inbetween the main procedural and the output, and if you would like to change procedural, you will have to remove the invert node for specific prodedurals..

that little function makes me wonder if it simply isnīt better to use the layer nodes instead.

Fix this please.

mummyman
02-06-2019, 09:12 AM
Agreed

BeeVee
02-06-2019, 11:17 AM
Get a Feature Request in!

B

Tim Parsons
02-06-2019, 07:44 PM
Deuce talked about this at around the 1hr mark.

https://youtu.be/C31kMPCnKs8?t=3545

Why not allow a favorites list? That would go along way towards improving nodal workflow. I'm always using the same nodes (invert, image, multiply, color tools, scalar) so why not have a user defined favorite list? If there is something like that please tell. :)

prometheus
02-07-2019, 05:48 AM
Deuce talked about this at around the 1hr mark.

https://youtu.be/C31kMPCnKs8?t=3545

Why not allow a favorites list? That would go along way towards improving nodal workflow. I'm always using the same nodes (invert, image, multiply, color tools, scalar) so why not have a user defined favorite list? If there is something like that please tell. :)

Tim...this has nothing to do with the new procedural texture node and itīs lack of built in invert functions, it just describes another situation dealing with alpha and adding invert nodes to correct it...a different story.

gar26lw
02-07-2019, 06:38 AM
not all blending modes are supported too, in nodes.

they are in layers.

i have made a feature reqest for this.

Tim Parsons
02-07-2019, 10:49 AM
Tim...this has nothing to do with the new procedural texture node and itīs lack of built in invert functions, it just describes another situation dealing with alpha and adding invert nodes to correct it...a different story.

Did you hear the part where the team discussed putting the invert in the node itself but decided to leave it out and just have it be its own node. So I don't think we are going to see it in the procedural or image nodes anytime soon.

erikals
02-07-2019, 11:26 AM
i'd vote for a Yes in the node itself.

gar26lw
02-07-2019, 12:29 PM
so would i, its user experience thing. its also the type of stuff that made lightwave fast to use in the past.

it doesnt all have to be physically accurate. bending the rules was what made lightwave great

stoecklem
02-07-2019, 01:03 PM
why would they think it is a good idea to not include an invert function? there is only upside and no downside to having this in the node. Every baking type node in any other renderers I have used has an invert toggle.

pinkmouse
02-07-2019, 01:23 PM
Don't hold your breath. I've been asking for a Linear toggle for the gradient node, (useful for motion graphics and animations to work accurately regardless of the colour space you're working in), since LW 10, the only response I ever got back, paraphrased, was "We don't see any point in that".

gar26lw
02-07-2019, 02:03 PM
Don't hold your breath. I've been asking for a Linear toggle for the gradient node, (useful for motion graphics and animations to work accurately regardless of the colour space you're working in), since LW 10, the only response I ever got back, paraphrased, was "We don't see any point in that".

of course they don’t but do they use the software in the exact same way we do, in fact do they use it at all?

it’s simple stuff but add it up and it makes a big difference. look at od tools. the reason that is there is cos of items like this.

prometheus
02-07-2019, 05:14 PM
We could make a request as suggested by Beevee.

You know...I really hate working with blender nodes in one way..and that is because none of the procedurals have a built in invert function in the node..while in lightwave that is mostly the case for all procedurals, with the exception for hv procedurals in the standard drop down list, and now the newly implemented multiprocedural node.

- - - Updated - - -


Don't hold your breath. I've been asking for a Linear toggle for the gradient node, (useful for motion graphics and animations to work accurately regardless of the colour space you're working in), since LW 10, the only response I ever got back, paraphrased, was "We don't see any point in that".


that is not the same as an invert function in the node, we hold our breath in different situaions here, just because your idea got rejected..doesnīt emply this suggested feature will.

BeeVee
02-08-2019, 06:30 AM
Also, be sure to specify what you want to invert - is it colour, alpha, value or what?

B

prometheus
02-08-2019, 06:43 AM
Also, be sure to specify what you want to invert - is it colour, alpha, value or what?

B

for all the procedurals, I think as they are constructed now..there is only alpha invert, which basicly inverts the texture only.
for an image node there is both alpha and color invert, I think for the procedurals the alpa is the important one..that does what itīs suppose to do, invert the texture foremost, the turbulent noise procedural is excellent for cloud noise of billowing clouds..If it is inverted...of not, then the cloud style is good only for whispy turbulent cloud pathces of a different style..and that is the default state, so I constantly need to invert it..and it becomes cumbersome when you canīt without adding additional invert nodes.

Feature request, I hear you..I am just a bit baffled that the devs didnīt think and implement this for starters, it has been there for the other procedurals for a reason..why exclude it and make it less functional once they added a new multiprocedural?

BeeVee
02-08-2019, 07:38 AM
But that's why Feature Requests exist. After all, isn't it great to get the procedurals node in the first place? To be able to use all those third party procedurals without relying on them have created a nodal version, etc.?

B

gar26lw
02-08-2019, 09:52 AM
But that's why Feature Requests exist. After all, isn't it great to get the procedurals node in the first place? To be able to use all those third party procedurals without relying on them have created a nodal version, etc.?

B

it is great they exist but i find that's what happens, they exist but don't get implemented. I know there is a process and a certain amount of resources but there are loads of them, some very good ones lots of people have agreed and commented on over the years that never get implemented. I don't understand why.

I am not trying to be negative but I personally submit them fully expecting to never get to see them implemented but I do it so at least they are in the system.
An example from way back was on the edge bevelling/rounder; never been fixed. There was a load of really good input on that one.
This is why people have left lw, the feature requests just never get implemented but they do get implemented in other apps.
Sometimes we see a request put forward and then it appears in the competition shortly after.

But what concerns me more is that the dev's don't see the point of certain features or remove features from the app that are good.

prometheus
02-08-2019, 10:58 AM
But that's why Feature Requests exist. After all, isn't it great to get the procedurals node in the first place? To be able to use all those third party procedurals without relying on them have created a nodal version, etc.?

B

I do not know what happens if we try and add dpont additional rman textures, will they show up in this multiprocedural..if not, they are in such case very limited, and we should ask ourself, isnīt maybe more effecting to use the layer node, and add all your
favourite procedurals in to one node and use that, they will be invertable.
That said..they are not a nodal procedural..so other limitations are there.

Just tested and I can confirm, once installing rman textures...they do show up in the new procedural node, so that is great.:thumbsup:
just need that invert texture (alpha) to avoid wrestling with it, cause many of the effects and textures I use..Requires the textures to be inverted...and having to add invert nodes all the time is a bummer.

There is however another thing with that procedural node I do not like, some of the main settings, frequences, small power, contrast..is somewhat hidden in a new Options tab...I see no point in relocating such important main settings into another click button, the other procedurals doesnīt have it made like this..so why hide and complicate the functionality?
The nodes with all itīs settings previously accessable directly and invertable...was just fine and great, why starting something completely different and less functional?
Maybe the team just missed how the old procedurals worked somehow..if knowing better at the time, they may have made them similar.

Sanchon
02-08-2019, 04:25 PM
The worst thing with new surface system is that there is no replacement of IFW2 nodes and its regional functions where you can apply different values, textures to every randomly selected procedural tiles like it was in brick, tiler nodes. Every other software has option to randomising tiles and advanced options to set look of the tiles. It is very important in ArchViz.

BeeVee
02-08-2019, 05:15 PM
@prometheus There are so many different settings that it would be impossible to have one interface to cover all of them. @Sanchon you should be able to use this Procedural node to use the IFW2 textures.

B

prometheus
02-08-2019, 05:29 PM
@prometheus There are so many different settings that it would be impossible to have one interface to cover all of them.

B
That response doesnt make any sense to me..
The alpha invert...shouldnt be an issue...then we have
The Main settings...is it those settings your refer to as impossible for this node ui to handle?

Sanchon
02-08-2019, 05:54 PM
@Sanchon you should be able to use this Procedural node to use the IFW2 textures.

B

Yes and this is one of the reasons that I did this update but unfortunately procedural version of IFW2 lacking of some of the nodal functions like regions for example.

BeeVee
02-08-2019, 06:12 PM
@prometheus Yes, I wasn't referring only to any invert button but to the huge variety of settings between different procedurals. @Sanchon, I see. Unfortunately, the programmer of the IFW textures decided to cease working on the project.

B

stoecklem
02-08-2019, 06:17 PM
Oh so we can’t use nodal IFW2 with the new procedural node? Darn... that’s what I was expecting

gar26lw
02-09-2019, 12:43 AM
@prometheus There are so many different settings that it would be impossible to have one interface to cover all of them. @Sanchon you should be able to use this Procedural node to use the IFW2 textures.

B

translation : we can't be bothered. At least that is what I read. Come on, look to make the program better, entertain the idea that the users have valuable input and a far better and more informed take on the optimal UX of the application.

Please! We want faster more optimal workflow and less clicky user experience. Mouse clicks and options panels open/close really add up when you are adjusting hundreds of times across multiple nodes, objects, surfaces etc :)

For example, how come the node editor cant auto refresh depending on which surface you have selected? Which an option to work as it does now or auto refresh and then a pin option so you can open multiple node editors and refine several surfaces at once, copy nodes between them etc.

I'll bow out here a I think I have made my point.

BeeVee
02-09-2019, 01:24 AM
translation : we can't be bothered.
...
I'll bow out here a I think I have made my point.

Hardly. Okay, if you really want to make your point, give me one interface that combines the settings for Turbulence (the most frequently-used procedural, perhaps) with that for SkyTracer Clouds, Brick and Underwater. That is just four of the 34 available by default. When you add in all the third party procedural nodes too, it makes life infinitely more complex. If you can do that (with no scrolling panels, remember - it's not a QT interface for the Node Editor), then I'll be happy to back down, and bow down.

B

gar26lw
02-09-2019, 04:08 AM
Hardly. Okay, if you really want to make your point, give me one interface that combines the settings for Turbulence (the most frequently-used procedural, perhaps) with that for SkyTracer Clouds, Brick and Underwater. That is just four of the 34 available by default. When you add in all the third party procedural nodes too, it makes life infinitely more complex. If you can do that (with no scrolling panels, remember - it's not a QT interface for the Node Editor), then I'll be happy to back down, and bow down.

B

Its a fair point, OK I will see what I can come up with and if I can't get anywhere, then I will retract :)

prometheus
02-09-2019, 05:18 AM
I hope a feauture request of invert option still would something possible after recent statements.

as for trying to acheive getting access to all the settings for each procedural..I can undertstand the difficulties, sadly when you have to use several popup windows like this to get acess, this little option window sometimes hide behind other windows, and even if you try and click the options button again..that window will hide under other windows.

jwiede
02-10-2019, 12:35 PM
I hope a feauture request of invert option still would something possible after recent statements.

as for trying to acheive getting access to all the settings for each procedural..I can undertstand the difficulties, sadly when you have to use several popup windows like this to get acess, this little option window sometimes hide behind other windows, and even if you try and click the options button again..that window will hide under other windows.

Yeah, I'll file an freq, it'd be nice if pressing the button that brings up a window were to always "front" it even if already open (for all such buttons, not just this case). If that's contentious for some, then add a pref as well.

jbrookes
02-12-2019, 02:01 PM
Which is a complete 180 from the days when they would tour studios and ask them what they wanted. Heck, it's even quite different than way back in the day when I asked for a few things (that are now in LightWave) and was told, "I don't understand why you'd need that, but I'll add it anyway."

erikals
02-12-2019, 02:36 PM
"I don't understand why you'd need that, but I'll add it anyway."
i've had a few of these.

never the less, the proof is in the final release(s).

gar26lw
02-12-2019, 10:17 PM
Which is a complete 180 from the days when they would tour studios and ask them what they wanted. Heck, it's even quite different than way back in the day when I asked for a few things (that are now in LightWave) and was told, "I don't understand why you'd need that, but I'll add it anyway."

tbh, when you get a response like that, you got my money for a long time even if I didn't use any of the new features at all.
That is great dev attitude. I know Brad did this in modo dev, maybe that was from the pre modo days ?

shadersrjj
02-19-2019, 01:08 PM
The worst thing with new surface system is that there is no replacement of IFW2 nodes and its regional functions where you can apply different values, textures to every randomly selected procedural tiles like it was in brick, tiler nodes. Every other software has option to randomising tiles and advanced options to set look of the tiles. It is very important in ArchViz.

You can still use this. Simply add an IFW2 procedural then check the mix box under the mapping tab:

144185

UnCommonGrafx
02-19-2019, 02:14 PM
Hmm, that's nice to know.

But surely to be lost in the forum...

Sanchon
02-19-2019, 02:29 PM
You can still use this. Simply add an IFW2 procedural then check the mix box under the mapping tab:

Yes I know. Somewhat limited compared to nodal version but works. Nice to see you, maybe a little update ? :)
Nodal version would be the best enhancement for LightWave texturing toolset especially that procedurals doesn't need much memory and in the time of GPU rendering it's important.

BeeVee
02-19-2019, 02:59 PM
You don't need to use the Standard material's T buttons to add that in 2019. There is a Procedural node.

144186

B

Chuck
02-19-2019, 03:19 PM
Virtually every new feature that gets implemented was someone's feature request. It is not the case at all that the development team does not listen to feedback and implement requests. A lot of LW 2019, in fact is feature requests, ranging from longstanding elements like "improve the Undo system" to nearer term requests like "Please let us make OpenVDB content rather than just be able to import and render it" as an improvement on LightWave 2018.

It is the case that the team receives a lot of requests and are not going to be able to get to all of them for a given release, and in fact some of them may take a very long time to get to; or may conflict with other requests, may not be possible within the architecture of the software or for other reasons may not happen for a long time or just may not happen. But the team does indeed implement feature requests, and in plenty.

Chuck
02-19-2019, 03:28 PM
Did you hear the part where the team discussed putting the invert in the node itself but decided to leave it out and just have it be its own node. So I don't think we are going to see it in the procedural or image nodes anytime soon.

I sure missed that conversation (but then I'm a marketing guy). :)

That said, however, having a separate invert node available does not preclude making an invert option available in other nodes. A lot of what the team worked on for LW 2019 was quality-of-life features that make things faster and easier to do in the UI, so I don't think doing similar work in the individual nodes could be ruled out as a possibility, especially if enough users seem to be interested.

Tim Parsons
02-19-2019, 06:52 PM
A lot of what the team worked on for LW 2019 was quality-of-life features that make things faster and easier to do in the UI,

"quality-of-life features" is a good analogy. Something as simple as being able to use the "alt-ctrl-click" zooming in the node editor is one of those "quality-of-life features"! So good that I was finally able to convince my boss to upgrade our seats today. yay!!

Ma3rk
02-19-2019, 08:12 PM
You can still use this. Simply add an IFW2 procedural then check the mix box under the mapping tab:

144185

So..., which of the IFW2 products work with 2018 and above? I thought they'd gotten left behind.

gar26lw
02-19-2019, 08:19 PM
It is the case that the team receives a lot of requests and are not going to be able to get to all of them for a given release, and in fact some of them may take a very long time to get to; or may conflict with other requests, may not be possible within the architecture of the software or for other reasons may not happen for a long time or just may not happen. But the team does indeed implement feature requests, and in plenty.

Like the rounder bug in modeller, right ? :P

there are some nasty animation ones too. I saw people going on about them a long time ago in a thread while searching for some info on here and back then it said they hadn't been fixed in 9 years. I think this was from 2012.

Maybe people dont feat request them or they get lost in the system?

Tim Parsons
02-19-2019, 09:12 PM
Like the rounder bug in modeller, right ? :P

That thing can't be fixed. Either wait for a brand new "Rounder" to make it into a future version of LW or get LWCad if you need that function now.

Sanchon
02-20-2019, 01:57 AM
So..., which of the IFW2 products work with 2018 and above? I thought they'd gotten left behind.

Every old procedural IFW2 textures works fine using standard texture editor or within nodes by procedural node which is like bridge between nodes and procedural textures. IFW2 nodes doesn't work including regional nodes.

gar26lw
02-20-2019, 07:06 AM
That thing can't be fixed. Either wait for a brand new "Rounder" to make it into a future version of LW or get LWCad if you need that function now.

i have lwcad and nearly every other plugin going for lw. :) rounder would be better if fixed

Tim Parsons
02-20-2019, 07:23 AM
i have lwcad and nearly every other plugin going for lw. :) rounder would be better if fixed
To get the thread back on point, Rounder needs an "Invert" option. :)

gar26lw
02-20-2019, 07:59 AM
To get the thread back on point, Rounder needs an "Invert" option. :)

hehe yeah.

MonroePoteet
02-20-2019, 10:31 AM
I use the Invert button on Textures all the time. It's great to see the inverted variation of a Procedural to see if I like it better than the regular version. For me, having to add an Invert node, make two connections (Procedural to Invert, Invert to Material or wherever) to see the inverted variation, and then re-connect the Procedural to the Material (or wherever) is very cumbersome. I hope they add the Invert to the Procedural node.

I'll be very sad when the Layers are removed from LW. IMO, LWDG would be smart to expand and extend the Layer nodes (scalar, bump, color), where a savvy user can layer many different Procedurals, Gradients and Image textures in a *single node* in the node network. Once you learn how the Layering works, it's very powerful.

Unfortunately, IMO "the writing is on the wall" and Layers have a fairly short end-of-life looming. The mere fact that a separate Gradient node was implemented which has to be cludged into being a Scalar gradient node via the Alpha channel, that there's no "T" button on the Material main panels, and that they're now pushing the "new" Procedural node indicates to me LWDG will be abandoning the Layers at some point. Too bad!

mTp

Chuck
02-20-2019, 11:29 AM
Like the rounder bug in modeller, right ? :P

there are some nasty animation ones too. I saw people going on about them a long time ago in a thread while searching for some info on here and back then it said they hadn't been fixed in 9 years. I think this was from 2012.

Maybe people dont feat request them or they get lost in the system?

Bugs and new features are two different things, and yes, the team does plenty of both, and the Feedback Agent lets you select whether you are submitting a bug report or a feature request. As I said above about feature requests, there are a lot of different things that can affect how soon a given bug can be addressed. The ones that affect the most people, that do not have a reasonable workaround, and that can be accomplished without a major overhaul to the subsystem involved are likely to get addressed sooner. Things that require redesigning and re-implementing a major subsystem cannot be addressed until the team has scope to do that.

You mention Rounder, but don't specify what bug you mean, so I can't address your specific case. However I can share one example case I am aware of. Rounder is an old technology and a lot of the reports on it are not bugs, they are just things that the technology and algorithms that Rounder was designed with do not handle. For example, Rounder is intended to be used with closed geometry, and a common bug report is attempting to use Rounder on open geometry, which fails. The minimum example is two perpendicular planes with a common edge, and wanting to use Rounder on that edge. That's not a use case that Rounder can handle - again, it needs closed geometry.

For a number of situations, for a workaround, an intermediate stage object with closed geometry could be created, Rounder applied to the necessary edges, and the polygons that are not needed then removed. For the two-plane example, you can make a box, use Rounder on the desired edge and then remove the extra polygons. This can be scaled for other open-geometry situations, but adds to the planning burden for the modeling process. (Note: IIRC Rounder does not actually understand edges, it works with points and predates edges in LightWave. I also had one person reject the workaround because he doesn't start his models with a box. That's irrelevant. Modeler does not care what you started with, all geometry is just geometry, points and polygons).

Summing up - the tool is operating per design in such situations, and a bug fix isn't the issue - a new "Rounder" with new algorithms that handle both open and closed geometry would be the solution, so it's a matter of a full redesign and replacement.

But it is also the case that Rounder is not the only tool in the box. The Chamfer tool has been around for quite a number of generations at this point, and Chamfer will work on that use case and other open geometry situations.

144199

Above is the use case with two perpendicular planes, and Chamfer applied with default settings and by hand, three passes. For precision you'd want to open the panel rather than just eyeball the operations. So the fact is, at least some of the open geometry uses cases are covered with existing tools, and the team may have at least some of the set of needed algorithms to hand to work into a more modern replacement for Rounder.

BTW, after some experimenting it looks like you can get away with open geometry for Rounder as long as the points of the selected "edges" are not in open geometry territory, but have contiguous polygons in all directions. Below, Rounder has been used on a cube that had two sides removed first, then the edge selected and rounded.

144200

In the next image, I started with just the two perpendicular planes, selected points and made "end cap" polygons so that the edge I wanted to round didn't end in open geometry. Again the rounding worked fine, and the extra polygons can subsequently be removed.

144201

I did the experimenting for my own interest in the limits of the existing tool, and for whatever value it may have for the dev team. No offense to anyone is intended nor should be taken.

Tim Parsons
02-20-2019, 11:29 AM
For me it would be nice if there was a "pass through/disable switch" on invert nodes (and others) so you didn't always have un-wire things and rewire to see results. I doubt we will see layers go away as I think the implementation NT did with the Standard shader seems to have addressed that.

prometheus
02-20-2019, 12:08 PM
Virtually every new feature that gets implemented was someone's feature request. It is not the case at all that the development team does not listen to feedback and implement requests. A lot of LW 2019, in fact is feature requests, ranging from longstanding elements like "improve the Undo system" to nearer term requests like "Please let us make OpenVDB content rather than just be able to import and render it" as an improvement on LightWave 2018.

It is the case that the team receives a lot of requests and are not going to be able to get to all of them for a given release, and in fact some of them may take a very long time to get to; or may conflict with other requests, may not be possible within the architecture of the software or for other reasons may not happen for a long time or just may not happen. But the team does indeed implement feature requests, and in plenty.


Undo system enhancements, I asked for that since I consider it being one of the most important thing that is needed in Lightwave, as prio 1 before going to prio 2 ..which in my opinion would be modeling in Layout.
Open VDB content, I asked for that as well, some stuff looks awesome..though some of it I excpected to not affect render time that much as it seem to do.

I fully believe you guys listen..and I suspect it is more of a case of how one is presenting the case, and in fact wether or not you have a good case or not, then itīs a matter of what resources in staff and time newtek has to deal with it.

And while I am at it, Prio 3...Native GPU rendering solution, it is one of those things that sort of really questioning if I find it worthwhile to upgrade, maybe in fact it is the deciding factor not to, when certain even free software deals with PBR rendering and volumetrics much faster than
what I actually can with lightwave CPU, but you guys have heard that request before, the dice is in your hands.

wingzeta
02-20-2019, 04:51 PM
Taking away functionality is generally bad, but consolidating functions can be good, if it is done in a way that improves speed / ease of use. That said, going down the road of "We don't need that button anymore, because you can do that with an "easy" node set up." is a bad way to go. Starting to think that every function in a software can be replaced with an "easy" node set up, is a slippery slope, because ultimately, almost everything can be replaced with nodes, and to a developer, it can seem simple enough to just add one or two more nodes.

A few steps removed, it becomes hard to see, how far away you are getting from what a new user can wrap their head around, and even a fair share of long time users. We've had the ability to do a lot of powerful things with the click of a button or two in the past. That's been one of the strengths of LW. Quick set up, quick tweaks, more depth when needed. Although Houdini is very impressive for how capable it is, it does not have the type of workflow I want to see in LW. I'd like to see Houdini's depth and capabilities in LW for sure, but not the node first workflow. The node editor is essential, but it should be there for digging in deeper, for more advanced workflows, not to make stuff that has always been simple, more complicated and slower to do.

gar26lw
02-20-2019, 05:44 PM
well said wingzeta. lightwave 2015 series was on a better path with the simple approach and then the nodes button for increased depth and functionality. 2018-19 is getting way too clicky. it’s slower to use. i am wondering if it’s due to beta testers and their workflows? too limited and needs a broader scope for more balanced approach? tbh i wish some of the more moany/outspoken people who were on here were beta testers as i think their knowledgeable feedback would make lightwave significantly better. i think they are gone now, which is a shame.

Chris S. (Fez)
02-20-2019, 10:30 PM
Users can setup the node network once and import it as needed. But I agree this is a simple essential function that should probably just be integrated into the node.

gar26lw
02-21-2019, 02:50 AM
@ chuck, thanks for taking the time to g through that. long reply. I know all the workarounds for rounder. its not practical on more complex objects but good to investigate none the less.

great if you can pass on findings to dev team and explain the issues. hopefully will help with the modeller dev push.

MarcusM
02-21-2019, 03:26 AM
There is no perfect solution for now in LightWave for rounding. I made simple comparison showing when trinagles are in mesh then tools can't give good result.

But if although "weighted normals" would be in LightWave then visual effect, nice rounded corners could be achieved with chamfer. Example in Next image and attached object to play with.

prometheus
02-24-2019, 02:19 PM
I wonder, if it now isnīt possible to get the same UI for tweaking each individual node in the multiprocedural node..due to limitations, and also lacking option to invert...

wouldnīt it be better to have a multiconnector with bypass option for all other nodes, you choose and pack your favourites it in to your own special node..something like compount, that has all their outputs fed in to a multiconnector node, with the options to bypass all nodes that arenīt of interest, a selector so to speak.

This could allow for using the standard nodes with all itīs ui glory and invert alpha...since the new multiprocedural node doesnīt give us the full UI tweaking range as the normal nodes, and lacks the invert alpha option.

prometheus
03-18-2019, 01:37 PM
Not sure what to think of the new procedural node,getting frustrated all the time with it.. some complaints above as seen, and I need to file improvement request.

Apart from..
Lack of invert option.
the finer settings such as lacunarity, octaves etc is buried within options, and that opens another window..which canīt stay on top Even if you click on the previous UI "option" for that setting, the window and settings could be hiding under all other windows.

I have to add another minus to this node, which is the fact that these finer settings of lacunarity, octaves, increasement etc, isnīt open for any additional node to be fed in to any input of that setting...as we can do with other procedural nodes, it is thus limiting in power and flexibility, apart from the fact that working with this workflow is slower and more frustrating, than just adding your favourite nodes and reconnect what node you need.

I need to file this as a request perhaps...
If all lightwave procedurals had a bypass/active function to click on (like houdini) I think we could have a switch node, and make a preset of all procedural nodes, Or of all your favourite nodes in the form of all nodes are fed in to a switch node, and by checking active or bypass, that node will be the one used, this setup would allow for the nodes to be fully tweaked and not limiting in the way that it lacks input control to the finer details, and it will overcome the issue of the UI, since it is in essential just the main procedural nodes gathered and the fed in to a switch node.

The Lightwave team needs to construct the switch node that can allow almost unlimited input postions, and they need to construct the procedural nodes with a bypass/active function..or something similar.