Two things I like about Rhino's rendering UI

@andy @nathanletwory (I don’t always complain :grinning:)
Here are two things I like about the Rhino rendering UI.
a) The modularity and discoverability of the Physically based material’s sections. I like how they generate visually distinct groups of settings as needed. (Blender’s material UI kind of does the same thing, but is not so neatly grouped making me feel lost).

b) The modifiers of the texture panels being in one place for each material texture.


1 Like

The main designer of the rendering UI is @andy, so all positive feedback should go to him (:

1 Like

With the introduction of Cycles, the Rhino rendering is starting to be relevant. UI and engine go hand in hand for satisfaction. Some kudos are earned from both of you. :slight_smile:

1 Like

Its nice to hear we got some things right :slight_smile:

I’m unsure what you mean by b)…could you explain what and why you like it?

In Blender they have the concept of material Nodes,which is powerful but hard to discover what to connect in each place unless you know about it. So in that paradigm, the modifiers to a texture are other nodes that you connect like Lego pieces. The problem with that concept is that it splinters the UI in multiple smaller hidden parts, requiring more UI clicks and more esoteric knowledge to get it going.

The UI in the panel/tab is indeed dope.
The UI in the pop-out windows (from clicking on material in Layers panel) is not so dope, and possibly dysfunctional. For example, when opening the texture w/in the pop-out material window, VP navigation locks.

The issue I have with both is that one apparently needs to edit map sizes for each texture component of a [PBR] material separately. While this can be empowering on in certain cases (such as adding noise, scuffs, overlays, etc), having to setup each “base” channel’s (AO, D, M, N, R, etc) mapping (uv offset, repats, rotation, etc) individually is total krazy talk, resulting in an absurd tedium.

Scott tipped me off to a shortcut and I don’t know if that results in a different process for modifying maps or not.

It would be preferable to control the mapping globally for the material, and not have to click-down into the individual textures to do so. If one wanted to, having the ability to un-link a texture channel from the main mapping can aid in adding additional nuance, but generally AO, D, M, N, & R are all scaled the same in the source, and should be mapped as a group.

Please let me know if I’m missing something here…

-dt

  1. change the grid view to tree view
  2. open the material node of the pbr you want to edit texture mappings for
  3. select all textures in the tree view
  4. adjust the texture mapping settings.
1 Like

Thx, NL. I’ll have a look at that.
Conceptually, it seems strange, tho: PBR materials are typically comprised of textures, and they should scale together. One wouldn’t rotate the Diffuse channel 90-dgrs w/o also rotating the Albedo, Metallic, Normal, Roughness &/or Specular, as well, among others. That’s why it seems that mapping should be a setting higher up in the hierarchy than at the texture image level.
Specialty texture overlays (for variation, detail, etc) would indeed continue to benefit from independent mapping settings.
Not sure how the Substance plugin works, but cool it’s available. I do most of my rendering in UE4 these days, but sometimes need to output something quickly from RH.

You are right of course @dtmurcielago , but until that is an actual possibility in the GUI in the future this is how you can do it with todays GUI.