So I'm working on a character and want to add a tattoo via the blend node.  Now, this isn't as difficult as it can be, even with extremely complicated Material room setups, because I've created a base node setup that can take any texture and combine it with whatever I want with a minimal amount of work.  So I take a look at the skin node setup and sigh because it means I have to haul out my blend setup instead of simply using one or two blends for the texture and bump.  And just before I load up my shader, I pause because something catches my eye that seems a bit odd.

There's a connection from the texture that goes into a math function node, and then out.  But all the math node is doing is multiplying the texture by 1.  Nothing else.  And multiplying something by 1 gives you what you started with.

Not believing someone would do something so silly, that there had to be a reason for it, I bypassed that node and rendered.  Nope, zero difference.

So then I started looking deeper.  There was a color ramp node being fed a diffuse node.  All four colours in the colour ramp were black.  Hey, do you know the kind of gradient you get between black, black, black, and black?

And then, amusingly enough, that fed into a colour math node.  The creator took the skin texture, fed it through that math node that did nothing which I'd noticed at first, and then connected it to the value_1 of the node, and the output of the ramp into value 2.  And set it to multiply.

When you multiply a colour by black, you are multiplying it by zero.  I assume most people learn what happens then around the same time they learned about multiplying by 1.

And then, just to add insult to injury, they set the colour of value_2 (receiving a value of zero, remember) to...black.  Which is zero.  Which means their math node is multiplying the zero that's incoming from the ramp with another zero.  And then using that zero to multiply with the texture and, obviously, outputting a zero to the Alternate_diffuse (which was, of course, set at another colour).

Long story short, I was able to rip out about half of their node setup that was doing absolutely nothing.

Now, i can see that sort of thing happening when you're experimenting, but if you're going to sell it, i think it sort of behooves you to clean the thing up.

And thus endeth today's rant.

heh could have titled it 'Hey, Certain Texture Creator : Learn Math' instead of tarring everyone with the same brush ya know... ;)

I didn't want to pick on anyone in particular...

That said, I have seen some utterly ridiculous node setups.  I get the impression that some people are randomly adding things and believing they see a difference, or they've copied what someone else did and changed things without understanding how stuff works.

Quote - I didn't want to pick on anyone in particular...

That said, I have seen some utterly ridiculous node setups.  I get the impression that some people are randomly adding things and believing they see a difference, or they've copied what someone else did and changed things without understanding how stuff works.

Guilty!! Haven't sold anyting tho ;0)

Laurie

Quote - So I'm working on a character and want to add a tattoo via the blend node.  Now, this isn't as difficult as it can be, even with extremely complicated Material room setups, because I've created a base node setup that can take any texture and combine it with whatever I want with a minimal amount of work.  So I take a look at the skin node setup and sigh because it means I have to haul out my blend setup instead of simply using one or two blends for the texture and bump.  And just before I load up my shader, I pause because something catches my eye that seems a bit odd.

There's a connection from the texture that goes into a math function node, and then out.  But all the math node is doing is multiplying the texture by 1.  Nothing else.  And multiplying something by 1 gives you what you started with.

Not believing someone would do something so silly, that there had to be a reason for it, I bypassed that node and rendered.  Nope, zero difference.

So then I started looking deeper.  There was a color ramp node being fed a diffuse node.  All four colours in the colour ramp were black.  Hey, do you know the kind of gradient you get between black, black, black, and black?

And then, amusingly enough, that fed into a colour math node.  The creator took the skin texture, fed it through that math node that did nothing which I'd noticed at first, and then connected it to the value_1 of the node, and the output of the ramp into value 2.  And set it to multiply.

When you multiply a colour by black, you are multiplying it by zero.  I assume most people learn what happens then around the same time they learned about multiplying by 1.

And then, just to add insult to injury, they set the colour of value_2 (receiving a value of zero, remember) to...black.  Which is zero.  Which means their math node is multiplying the zero that's incoming from the ramp with another zero.  And then using that zero to multiply with the texture and, obviously, outputting a zero to the Alternate_diffuse (which was, of course, set at another colour).

Long story short, I was able to rip out about half of their node setup that was doing absolutely nothing.

Now, i can see that sort of thing happening when you're experimenting, but if you're going to sell it, i think it sort of behooves you to clean the thing up.

And thus endeth today's rant.

So they multiplied by zero several times?

Well at least they didnt try to DIVIDE by zero :P

I wonder how Bagginsbill would react looking at that shader...    :lol:

Are you sure the color ramp entries were really zero? That's a fake SSS I tactic I wrote a few years ago, and at least one of those is a very dark red. If they are all black, then the person did indeed copy the V4 shaders and change without understanding.

i dont like when the texture is 1345 x 457

who does textures like this? i mean seriously?

1024x1024
2048x2048
512x512

those are the basics.

i dont like when the texture is 1345 x 457

who does textures like this? i mean seriously?

1024x1024
2048x2048
512x512

those are the basics.

Oddly enough, I've seen (and bought) a few like that.  If I were buying characters for their node setups, I'd be a bit cheesed, but, since I change a lot of things, anyway, I try not to gain a migraine over it, lol.  But, yeah, THAT is dumb. 

 That math node could have converted the texture to a greyscale.

Now, I'm not sure that you need to do that. I've seen greyscale versions of the texturemap fed into the Bump input, so you have two texturemaps to load, but using the colour version doesn't seem to change anything.

Mind you, the explanations in the Poser manuals are pretty poor.

I'm more forgiving of what may look like spaghetti code or dead code in this context.
First, color math isn't always the same as plain math.  Second, there are some
oddities and exceptions in the Poser system that are understood only by BB.
Third, it's often useful to set things up in a standard template form so you can
change or add things into known positions.  It's easier to keep track of several
"variations on a theme" by setting some variables to zero, rather than by changing the
pattern of the nodes.

woosh nodes fly over my head good thing I'm a nurse and not a texture maker.

From a dummies point of view because i don't know a lot about maths but i have done some clothing textures and have added a dummy node or two. Iv'e heard about other people stealing others node setups and by adding a dummy node or two if they steal yours then you'd know it!

I'm like a kid with Legos in the material room. :D  Some of the resulting node connections look like spaghetti. 

Triple strobe (flash-flash-flash...  flash-flash-flash...), good for sci-fi beacons:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v604/seachnasaigh/tutorials/P7_mat_triplestrobe.png

120-frame seamless loop color shift, for the neon bubble tubes of a jukebox:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v604/seachnasaigh/tutorials/P7_mat_color_ramp_120f_loop.png

animated lightning seamless loop using a matrix (Poser Pro's movie node isn't working in the 64bit render engine):
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v604/seachnasaigh/tutorials/P7_mat_matrix.png

It is possible some people make complicated set ups to either discourage people from getting into it or to make it harder for others to figure out how the set up actually works?

Hi,
I bet they have some stock options with Intel or AMD and just increase the need for a faster
computer. Processing dummy nodes takes same time as processing  meaningful
nodes. :rolleyes:

Best regards,
   Michael

Maybe they're vestiges of a complex material setup the person keeps handy by leaving in, but with values set to zero or black so they have no effect?

Quote - Maybe they're vestiges of a complex material setup the person keeps handy by leaving in, but with values set to zero or black so they have no effect?

See, that one I could buy.   I have material setups like that myself, like that blender setup I mentioned: it (potentially) connects to all the commonly used nodes in the Poser_surface, so if there was no reflectivity, or ambient, or alternate_diffuse, those bits of the node tree stay inactive.

But...

In those cases I have a single "switch" as it were.  To use the obvious real-world analogy, if I want to kill the power in one section of my home, if I turn it off at the breaker, going around and turning off all the lights and electronics and appliances one by one as well isn't  going to make a difference.

Could those nodes be a boilerplate part of the merchant resource that the artist used, and he didn't implement them?

Who knows?

The point is regardless of how they originally used (if at all) the node setup, leaving them in the final product was unprofessional.  Sure, they didn't do anything, and sure, it's easy to clean them up yourself (if you know what you are doing), but even if it were a freebie giveaway it would have only taken a minute or two to clean the whole thing up before distributing it.

I could agree or disagree, Keith. I'm not sure what opinion to have. I'd have to see the specifics. Sometimes nodes are left in at initial settings that do nothing, but the end user may want to change the value. For example, my VSS shaders have a SSS Strength parameter that is equal to 1 by default. Multiplying by 1 is a waste of time, of course, but it isn't there to multiply with 1. It's there so an end user who finds the SSS effect is too strong can change it to less than 1, or if its too weak, change it to more than 1. Without that node, allowing a potentially meaningful multiplication, the user would have to change 4 or 5 other values. I leave that node in as a master parameter.

The key decider is whether the "useless" node connects to more than one thing. If it only goes to one place, and is not pulled out of the spaghetti for clarity, then it probably is dumb.

Oh sure, there are reason for doing it...and like I said I have it myself, but if I were going to share my shader setup with someone, like you did VSS, intentionally leaving "useless" nodes in because they can be useful in the right circumstances, I'd tell someone about it and make it easy to find.