fundamental flaw in node editing

[faulknermano]

firstly, LW9's node editing is still limited within architectures. you cannot use a scalar layer (for example) in a displacement to be used in a surface.

secondly, you cannot even reuse a node across multiple surfaces, or even for that matter, neither can you reuse a node from another displaced object.

[duke]

That's a fundamental flaw? In most packages you can't share nodes across materials.

[faulknermano]

do i really need to say "maya"? you can have any pluggable attribute share a single qualified node existing in maya. there are no borders. yes, materials can share the same input node.

in other words, the fundamental flaw is that the "nodal" concept is stuck to only several parts of lightwave, and worse unable to be related to each other. this isnt about simply about expanding nodes to other architectures. even if we only have nodes on side of textures, displacements, etc, the nodes themselves are compartmentalised in such a way that they cannot be brought out to be shared.

again, to reiterate, the best example that tells of this myopic compartmentalistion is the inability for a two surfaces, which belong to the same category (e.g. "surfaces") to share a common node, or a displacement of one object unable to share its input nodes to other objects who'd benefit from a common input (like having a single user input controlling the procedural texture of a landscape).

[jin choung]

agreed faulknermano,

it seems somewhat of a waste to have the CONCEPT of nodes and yet not implement it to best take advantage of a nodal system.

this threw me off so much that i was almost certain that i was mistaken in this (i actually had to ask this on a separate thread!).

i'm thinking in terms of maya too but especially considering the NATURE and CORE COMPETENCY of nodes, what nodal apps DON'T allow sharing of nodes across many entities?

one of the most economical things about it is that if several materials would have to use the same values, you can just create a SINGLE node and feed it into however many takers you have. instead of replicating a new node for every one.

this has the added advantage that if you need to change that value, you do it on that single node and everybody gets the change.
-----------------------------------

having said that though, it's pretty rare that i see such economical node structures in maya. usually, i see a lot of unnecessary redundancy. too bad there isn't a way to identify identical nodes and delete all but one of them and re-feed them to relevant takers.

if lw ends up going in this direction, they should make such a tool built in.

jin

[jin choung]

btw,

the only way that i've seen to be able to "share nodes" is to just brute force EXPORT the node and re-import it to other nodes that need it.

this is in effect duplicating the node and not really sharing it but at least you don't have to build a node from scratch.

jin

[Sensei]

LW9 nodes were made from 3rd party plug-in, therefore it inherits its limits.. It was little enhanced & integrated with LW but still what you're talking about is not possible.. It would require giving up current nodal system and make new one..

[Castius]

I don't think it's node editing is the limiting factor in this case. I'd imagine it's LW structure that holding it back. So I'd bet when the core is changed more we will see Node editor expanded.

[prospector]

So if I use the 'share nodes' way and I want to slightly change 1 surface, I can't because they are shared and all change.
If I use 'brute force' way and copy/paste, and decide to slightly change 1 attribute I can....

HMMmm, I think I like the way it is now.

[Lightwolf]

So if I use the 'share nodes' way and I want to slightly change 1 surface, I can't because they are shared and all change.
If I use 'brute force' way and copy/paste, and decide to slightly change 1 attribute I can....

HMMmm, I think I like the way it is now.

I prefer to have a choice. Especially since, with shared nodes, you still have to option to manually copy and paste, but with the current limitations you _don't_ have the option to share.

Looking at the way I build my scenes, anything that allows me to add more proceduralism is good (i.e. one value to drive x others, be they motions, displacements, surface attributes).

Also, since nodes are per se moe complex than the previous layer based system, re-usage (more precise: dynamic re-usage using shared nodes) is even more important (the euqivalent for layers would be layer instances).

Cheers,
Mike

[Mylenium]

That's a fundamental flaw? In most packages you can't share nodes across materials.

Whoa. Houdini? Maya? Renderman? MentalRay? finalRender? Need I go on?

Mylenium

[Mylenium]

So if I use the 'share nodes' way and I want to slightly change 1 surface, I can't because they are shared and all change.
If I use 'brute force' way and copy/paste, and decide to slightly change 1 attribute I can....

HMMmm, I think I like the way it is now.

You're seeing this far too onesided which only indicates a lack of experience in working with nodes. There is no causality for inheritance - if one of your surfaces needs to look different, you simply plug in another node at the point where things need to be changed, but you can still pass on the unmodified parameters to the remaining nodes. Since your node is still connected to the base network, it will inherit all changes, but within the limits specified by your extra node. I don't really see why this should pose a problem - just the opposite is true. With nodes you can achieve a level of control on a global scene level that is impossible and inefficient with simple copy&paste operations.

Mylenium

[RedBull]

Totally agree with Faulk....
It was a wasted implementation, i saw a review that said Nodal was a really good implentation, although it has potential within the first 24hours i wrote a list of improvements (posted in other forum) i totally agree..

I think it was a fundemental overlook, of what Nodal was meant to achieve.

[Lightwolf]

I think it was a fundemental overlook, of what Nodal was meant to achieve.

Let's just hope that global nodes can be added in at a later revision of LW.

Cheers,
Mike - who's got some other gripes with the nodes as well.

[faulknermano]

So if I use the 'share nodes' way and I want to slightly change 1 surface, I can't because they are shared and all change.
If I use 'brute force' way and copy/paste, and decide to slightly change 1 attribute I can....

HMMmm, I think I like the way it is now.

well it's always possible to copy/paste new nodes even if you're sharing them.

if you want to change one surface slightly, like minus 10% diffuse, then just add a subtract node before it goes into that surface. of course, it wont affect the other nodes, as long as you network the nodes properly.

[Pavlov]

i agree on global nodes; imho the whole "nodal" thing shouldbe kinda a parallel world into LW, which you can enter, do stuff and connetc it to what you want, single/multiple surfaces, displacement, item's channels movement or whatever.
It would be as useful (or even more), as Lightwolf says, to have Layer instances - just think at the time you spend on adjusting several layers in different channels....

bye
Paolo