Quote - One person says they want to make shaders FROM SCRATCH.

Another person says the materials need to be easier to build.

These are conflicting goals.

I completely disagree. I don't think they are conflicting in the least. Not even a little bit.

Laurie

This may exist in various places and to various degrees as add-ons but my 'ideal' material interface would offer:

1. 'Complex' complete presets e.g. cracked concrete with rusty reinforcing rods etc.

2. 'Basic' presets e.g. metal with the ability to drill down and refine the material e.g. steel or platinum etc. and then be able to specify additional parameters in everyday terms, e.g. scratches, rust/corrosion, polished. dull, color yada yada. The same would go for plastic etc. with appropriate parameters. If you can give me oil stains or water driven by a distribution map, even better. I'm not necessarily interested in exactly duplicating plastic X with complete physical accuracy, just create say a pill bottle by chossing plastic and setting the color, translucency etc. and have it be reasonable. I would hide the numbers as much as possible - leave that to the advanced interface or a tooltip. I think the combination of numeric inputs and terms many don't really understand plus relationships between parameters that many don't understand makes the wole exercise seem hopeless for the less sophisticated. It may seem overly simplistic to have min/max sliders and terms like transparent and mirror-like instead of set ansiotropicana to .019, but I think I'd grasp it better.

"...Vue's shader system is easier to understand than Poser's..."

I agree. Whether deliberately or not, they seem to be less oriented towards the TD end of things. The realtime render thumbnail scene preview helps tremendously in seeing the result of your adjustments, but that's another story. I also agree that simple(r) DIY isn't necessarily a contradiction. It may well be that trying to 'tame' a node based system by constraining connections, adding some kind of sophisticated AI etc. might be more trouble that it was worth. I'd start with a clean slate and look at some other applications in designing a new basic material interface. I simply think that node based interfaces are less than ideal for casual users. I'm sure many will disagree. I throw up my hands whenever I read someone who says their demented great aunt was up and hacking the command line in RedHat Enterprise in two hours as well :-) I'm sure that the technical challenges of doing something different vs. the perceived benefits mean it won't happen, but I remain convinced that it would be a boon to a lot of people.

I think the OP's problem with Poser is that the basic mode in the material room is useful for nothing at all. I find that any little tweak to any material requires hitting the advanced tab.

A somewhat more comprehensive basic interface would also be useful to advanced users looking for a quick fix.

A big problem for me in the advanced room is the absence of macros. If I could lump together a bunch of nodes that do a specific job into a macro that could be saved and loaded individually, it would save a lot of time and make a complex shader lots easier to understand.

At the moment it's like coding a complex program without being able to use subroutines.

Finally, a minor point: the material presets that come out of the box with Poser: some are pretty good, some are rubbish. I'm sure it would help everybody if we had one set of decent presets for basic materials.

Quote -  

The exp, max, min, sin, cos, etc. functions, for example, are taught in math class, not in CG artist class. How you use them is like asking how you use a pencil.

I must have had a poor education as I only ever used sine.cosine and tangent to figure out whether the imaginary tree would fall on  our house, how on earth it relates to colours and lights and materials I have  no idea, but it would be nice to have some vague idea.

I can see where Khai is coming from, in one respect, i think and these aren't his words but mine.....Why do i need a degree in math to add a wood material to a particular model if i dont want to use a texture, or if i do want to use a texture why do i need a degree in math to make it look "professional".

Why did it have to become so complicated that we all feel like idiots becuase we aren't Stephen Hawkins IQ levels.

There is some ego stroking going on in here I feel ,sorry BB, but in a recent thread on wood procedurals I started, you were the only one whom I expected to post, but actually didn't. Imho that shouted volumes to me.

Not having a personal dig, but if you expect help from vendors in many cases, expect there to be a "Buy my product" caveat.

I keep being told poser is a hobby artists program, maybe its time for me to go back to school get a phd in maths, then I can continue to enjoy my hobby.

Even if I do use snarlys ezskin,ezmetals, BB's mail shaders, car paints, matmatics, if you have an enquiring mind it's nice to have a least some idea what's going on, and then maybe, maybe, one distant day in the future when I get fed up with using other peoples stuff, I can try and use my own.

Oh yes, and one last thing to all genii out there, just because we don't understand, please don't think we are stupid and patronise us....

Hate mail to the usual email address please............

I've actually had a revelation, some programs have a "Check my system requirements" applet to see if your PC can run the program, why don't they create a "Check my IQ" script to see if your brain can comprehend

poser or not ;)

I didn't answer because it is too complicated to respond to the wood question in a few minutes and I have very little time. Your thread is in a very long queue of things I need to respond to. I recently showed some wood in another thread and explained that I am not happy with it. It is just easier to use pictures, and it looks better by a mile.

The description you guys make of an easier material setup still smells like preset to me. Maybe I just have no understanding of what "from scratch"means to you.

Can you make fish scales in vue? How about chain mail rings? I did those from scratch.

I have always agreed that macros are needed to bridge the preset and from scratch chasm. 

Quote - I have always agreed that macros are needed to bridge the preset and from scratch chasm. 

It would also make it a lot easier to follow what's going on in an 85-node shader.

I conclude: macros in the material room - a must-have feature.

Vue, in the version 10 I have, has a threefold shader UI.

There's basic, intermediate and advanced levels (advanced graph).

The advanced level is similar to, or certainly at very least equivalent in complexity to the nodes system present in Poser's Advanced Material room.

What Poser lacks, relative to a comparison with Vue, is that intermediate material setup UI.

The closest thing we have to anything resembling that intermediate Vue material setup UI, at present, in Poser is provided by a third party, Snarlygribbly, in the form of EZSkin...

...and yes, its down to more presets... albeit very user-adjustable and mix-able ones.

Vue's intermediate UI has a system of "layering" different presets.

Vue has a system of material settings, functions and profiles. But ALL of them you can actually look at. And when you apply them, you get a really good representation of what they'll look like. If you wanna call the functions presets, than so be it. But you can tweak every one. It's a graphical interface and it makes sense to most ppl (including me). The Poser nodes system, which will allow you to make garbage and doesn't give a really good preview, are not. Only if you understand everything can you really figure much out. And why should we have to connect 85 nodes of spaghetti? Can't we make a decent shader with just a few? Why spend an hour setting up the scene and then 5 hours setting up the materials? It just seems lopsided. I'm not picking on anyone. Just questioning the logic... Vue's math is hidden and it just shows you want you'll get and allows you to mix. That's what I've dreamed of for Poser.

Laurie

Yeah. That's exactly what Poser does need now. I'd totally agree Laurie.

BB's done a lot of the maths already. Snarlygribbly's demonstrated a viable, intermediate approach with EZSkin.

Demonstrated that what's needed isn't to strip out the existing node system and start again. But, rather, an intermediate UI can be built, added on top of that.

Should this be done in time by SM?

Ideally, I guess. But not necessarily... things like EZSkin, PoserPhysics and now Reality for Poser demonstrate to me that aftermarket can be a very strong approach to solving "missing" requirements...

...this is my take on the issue, anyway

To be honest I would MUCH rather SM change it.

Laurie

If changes of this type are to be made, my personal opinion is we will be better off if SM makes them. A third party solution is just one more question that has to be asked when a user seeks help (i.e. are you using EZSkin?).

Until SM makes these changes, then we best be EXTREMELY thankful to the 3rd party developers!

Sure... the reality is they likely won't though... I simply suspect, in practical terms, if anyone is going to do anything with it, it'll be on the basis I alluded to.

Personally, I'd rather the advanced stuff is still there, so the likes of BB can still extend it...

...and the likes of me can manage to glean a little bit more than I might otherwise about how things are actually working under the hood.

To contribute yet another terrible analogy to a thread already laden with them... the closest I get to motor mechanics these days is changing the washer fluid. I don't generally even change the oil myself.

But if I get a choice of a car whose bonnet opens up and one which doesn't, I'd generally pick the former...

...that preference maybe isn't entirely rational of me. But, I have it...

EDIT: Sorry re-reading your post Laurie, and Basicwiz's I suspect I misinterpreted...?

...so in that sense, yes, it would be better, I suspect if SM actually implemented the idea of an intermediate mat room, sure.

In terms of just abandoning the nodes underneath. I don't think they should do that...

...and I really do think BB's shader work should be encompassed into the necessary presets in any intermediate preset-type system too.

"Vue has a system of material settings, functions and profiles. But ALL of them you can actually look at. And when you apply them, you get a really good representation of what they'll look like. If you wanna call the functions presets, than so be it. But you can tweak every one. It's a graphical interface and it makes sense to most ppl (including me). The Poser nodes system, which will allow you to make garbage and doesn't give a really good preview, are not. Only if you understand everything can you really figure much out. And why should we have to connect 85 nodes of spaghetti? Can't we make a decent shader with just a few? Why spend an hour setting up the scene and then 5 hours setting up the materials? It just seems lopsided. I'm not picking on anyone. Just questioning the logic... Vue's math is hidden and it just shows you want you'll get and allows you to mix. That's what I've dreamed of for Poser."

This^
is the problem as I see it as well.

In fact I am going to publicly "back peddle" on my previously stated blanket opposition to "Node based writing Diagrams" for material creation.
and simply state I would never use POSER'S implementation of this approach

Compare it to Blender 2.5 or higher
( you know that free program)

Spare yourself four minutes and watch this random quickie tutorial
I found  via google where the guy is creating some volumetric clouds with blender nodes,
not one mention of Math cosigns or any such techno-babble and a nice instantly updated preview of his results in the little window on the right
even the nodes&wires themselves are much ..."friendlier looking" for lack of a better description

BLENDER MATERIAL NODES

If posers mat room were even more like this, there would be less frustration for you guys IMHO

Cheers

Also, the profiles that Vue has are easier to understand. Most ppl understand what a profile will do from a 2D program. And they're also very powerful and can fundamentally change the way a function looks and how it behaves when mixed with something else. I used to love goofing around in Vue's material settings. It was fun. Poser's material room makes me cry....lol.

Oh, and yes, Blender's nodes normally have only a few familiar settings that you need to tweak and IIRC, you can combine a bunch of nodes. Or at least I thought I saw someone doing that in a vid...lol. The problem with Blender's nodes isn't that it's vague what they do, but that there are SO flipping many of them....lol.

Laurie

Vue's preview is definitely excellent, I reckon...

...and the Blender mat room looks good... thanks Wolf.

I don't know what Blender has in terms of material presets, within that nodes system, for metals, glass etc, of course?

That's surely where the maths starts to come into it?

Poser's mat room obviously has some SSS presets embedded into its nodes now, for the physical properties of things like Skimmed Milk.

I guess having presets for the material properties of metals or glass or plastic, etc. in the appropriate nodes... the kinds of things for which all the math nodes are currently required, as I understand it... might be a logical progression, in due course?

I am going to suggest the node cult forum at runtimedna if you want to learn the material room to create your own materials.

Looking at existing materials is also a good way to learn some basics.

At the risk of sounding like a Vue commercial, but to illustrate the idea of a multi level interface.

Overview of Vue's three level material editing

http://www.e-onsoftware.com/products/vue/vue_10_studio/?page=10

The AdvancedGraph editor  (level 3)

http://www.e-onsoftware.com/products/vue/vue_10_modules/?page=advancedgraph

Some features including:

"Control materials based on the properties of other objects

Advanced Python node for custom functions

Advanced SmartGraph input nodes: screen position, angle of incidence, distance to camera, distance on ray, depth in object, distance to object below, incident light angle, light direction, light color, reflected direction, etc."

IDK whether you can create fishscales but someone did create chainmail. At any rate, the point is the 'basic' editor is pretty similar to Poser and the AdvancedGraph editor lets power users go wild but the 'advanced' (not to be confused with AdvancedGraph) editor fits nicely between the two.

NB. you can get the AdvancedGraph module for $39 for the free Vue Pioneer or $99 Frontier (imports static Poser Content). I mention that only to try to forestall the 'yeah but Vue is a gazillion dollar application...' IDK whether it would be worthwhile for SM ti have an internediate .'module' It would make more sense to include it in the base and make the advanced editor optional/included in Pro as long as the advanced editor's output could be used by everyone. OK, bad idea :-)

None of your links are working FYI

Cheers

For those that want to argue that Vue is a gazillion dollar program, I say Vue had a damn nice material editing system when it still cost $189 bucks. I made a very believeable opal in Vue 4.

Laurie

runtimedna forums , the node cult would be where I would start looking.

*"One is pattern - often just dealt with (even by me) using a color map. But, making procedural patterns (for example, wood grain or scratches in painted wood) is a big deal, not easy at all. Goofing around snapping things together, you can come up with some fascinating patterns. But those are just happy accidents and it's like hitting random notes on a piano. Can you make one intentionally? Like fish scales in my avatar, for example? That's math and it's seriously hard. Most people can't do it, even after I explain how. And it's not physics so you can't even go look up what you need to do.

Two is what I used to call texture before I got into CG - bump or displacement shapes, turning a flat surface into something else. Since this sort of thing is usually based on noise, lots of people can stitch together useful noisy patterns. Little math is needed here, although if you're looking to produce something intentionally, it may be called for.*

Three is mediation of light - diffuse reflection, specular reflection, refraction, scatter, dispersion, ... this is where you really really just should rely on presets. Because this is serious math which you can look up, but the problem is it's physics. You have to first know how the world works. Then you have to come up with a way of reproducting that without simulating individual photons - you have to know and take advantage of the statistics of large numbers of photons. Then you have to translate that into a specification that a computer can deal with, which is all math.

This last category is where I really shine and where people get the greatest benefit from just using my shaders. There's not a lot of arguing about creativity here . Glass is glass, metal is metal. You can build it yourself, but you're going to end up with the same equations I already did, and I mostly got them out of physics books. There's not a lot to invent here and call your own."

*Loved this ^^ part.  Simple explanations ftw.  

Well, my question is then, at least for BB's last part...why isn't there a node called glass? Or metal?...I mean, if we'd all come up with the same node setup that is ;). That's what other programs do (including Vue). They have glass and metal already as a preset and then you build off of that. It sure beats having to build the whole node setup for glass and metal and THEN having to add to that. Anyone else see where I'm coming from? Sure, it might SOUND like cheating, but it really isn't if it's something we'd all arrive at. The noodles just aren't friendly at all ;). And for as relatively easy as the rest of the program is, it's out of balance. I mean, maybe only a small percentage of us rig, but we ALL have to enter the material room at some time or other.

Laurie

I have to agree that the problem, as has already been stated by others, is probably that the simple version of the material room is way too simple. It needs to permit more adjustments of the sort the typical user needs to make.

Plus a library of presets updated to the particular version of the software being used would be a very helpful.

Simple's too simple and advanced is too difficult..lol. No happy medium in Poser ;).

Laurie

Quote - Well, my question is then, at least for BB's last part...why isn't there a node called glass? Or metal?...I mean, if we'd all come up with the same node setup that is ;). That's what other programs do (including Vue). They have glass and metal already as a preset and then you build off of that. It sure beats having to build the whole node setup for glass and metal and THEN having to add to that. Anyone else see where I'm coming from? Sure, it might SOUND like cheating, but it really isn't if it's something we'd all arrive at. The noodles just aren't friendly at all ;). And for as relatively easy as the rest of the program is, it's out of balance. I mean, maybe only a small percentage of us rig, but we ALL have to enter the material room at some time or other.

Laurie

That was the point I was getting into last page... there is now a preset in the new SSS node for "Skimmed Milk", etc...

They've now added the proper scatter and fresnel blend nodes... both of which BB had previously had to come up with complex math workarounds for... as I understand it?

It's probably time to add some presets for other materials - like metal, glass, plastic etc. - into other relevant nodes?

That said, part of me suspects that BB would still end up publishing a better, complex math node version of whatever materials were made into presets, shortly after such presets were added

Still...

"I must have had a poor education as I only ever used sine.cosine and tangent to figure out whether the imaginary tree would fall on  our house, how on earth it relates to colours and lights and materials I have  no idea, but it would be nice to have some vague idea.

I can see where Khai is coming from, in one respect, i think and these aren't his words but mine.....Why do i need a degree in math to add a wood material to a particular model if i dont want to use a texture, or if i do want to use a texture why do i need a degree in math to make it look "professional".

Why did it have to become so complicated that we all feel like idiots becuase we aren't Stephen Hawkins IQ levels."

LMAO!  I sooo feel you on this.  NORMALLY - I consider myself to be a fairly intelligent person.  I read books on physics, (though I can't do the math myself personally, I can at least comprehend).  I know who Garrett Lisi is.  When Boson Higgs was recently discovered I actually knew how important that was.  

But that all goes to the wayside the moment I open these forums.  They have the magical ability to make me feel like a complete bumbling idiot in five minutes or less - usually.

As much as I appreciate BagginsBill, usually when he explains something I feel like he's trying to teach me to walk when I barely know how to hold up my head.

I decided recently that I wanted to understand what the math functions were in the materials room.  Though I knew I would never understand how to apply them. I still wanted to at least know what the heck they stood for.  

My childhood was complicated and through not much of my own choices I didn't make it past pre - algebra.  But I stayed in Honors English so I'll hang my hat on that.  Still my 15 year old son is a little bit of a math guru himself - going into Honors Algebra 2 in 9th grade.  So I brought him in to see if he knew what those math funtions were.  He rattled them all off the top of his  head (mid summer mind you) and proceeded to create diagrams for me so that I could understand what cosign was.

If BB hadn't already made me feel like an imbecile, my 15 year old accomplished it in about 15 minutes.  Through no fault of their own, of course.  

I guess the point in this post is really that I relate #1 and then that there is some disconnect between those who comprehend and those that don't and I do imagine that there is a fair amount of people who just simply get tired of feeling stupid.  I'm persistant and don't really care too much about what others think - so I guess I'm lucky in that way. 

Just an observation...

"Glass is glass, metal is metal..."

No it ain't! Some fabulous shaders out there, but sometimes, in certain configurations, they don't work, you have to tweak and tweak and perhaps rewrite.

Sometimes you have to fake stuff to make it look real. Ever seen any Hitchcock?

Alas, I don't know enough about optics for the math to intimidate me.

I need to motivate myself to learn enough to be frightened.

Sorry about the links -  the linkifier if screwing up for some reason C&P :-)

http:/www.e-onsoftware.com/products/vue/vue_10_modules/?page=advancedgraph

Now here is the main problem IMO. If a system requires a guru to create anything beyond the basics then it really cripple the potential of an application at this level. Where would computers be today if all coding had to be done with assembly language or even C/C++? That's still preferable for a few things but look at what the semi-literate user can accomplish with macros if Office or Python. The gulf is pretty much always filled by functionality between MS Paint and Photoshop, Movie Maker and Avid etc.

Frankly, I don't know what the technical challenges are. Can you have a generic 'Liquid' material and then adjust color, thickness (viscosity), coagulation(?), suspended particles etc. and create anything from clotted blood to oil to skim milk? Again, I don't necessarily need the oil to match Quaker State 10w40 in a mass spec, just credible oil. Is that a preset - yes. Is it the same as a skim milk preset that requires me to adjust some arcane (to me) math to get buttermilk - no, not when I can intuitively bump up the thickness and add some yellow particles for butter and have something reasonable.

Keep the advanced stuff, let the gurus create and produce loaves and fishes for the masses. Some of the masses do want to fish for themselves as well though. I really don't buy the notion that you can't even catch a carp without first reading up on the evolution of the bony fishes and then oceanography and of course marine engineering, cause you're gonna need a bigger boat. I can use other applications (as poorly as I use Poser) - I've never believed that Poser should be the be all, end all. At the same time though somethign more alonhg the lines of Vue, or Carrara or C4D or even the argh, pre-MentalRay Max editor would enable/encourage more people to get more out of the program IMO.

i think the solution is a combi approach, ezwood, ezmilk, ezpeazy, ezlight, ezdark, ezcome, ezgo  :)

Quote - Sorry about the links -  the linkifier if screwing up for some reason C&P :-)

http:/www.e-onsoftware.com/products/vue/vue_10_modules/?page=advancedgraph

Now here is the main problem IMO. If a system requires a guru to create anything beyond the basics then it really cripple the potential of an application at this level. Where would computers be today if all coding had to be done with assembly language or even C/C++? That's still preferable for a few things but look at what the semi-literate user can accomplish with macros if Office or Python. The gulf is pretty much always filled by functionality between MS Paint and Photoshop, Movie Maker and Avid etc.

Frankly, I don't know what the technical challenges are. Can you have a generic 'Liquid' material and then adjust color, thickness (viscosity), coagulation(?), suspended particles etc. and create anything from clotted blood to oil to skim milk? Again, I don't necessarily need the oil to match Quaker State 10w40 in a mass spec, just credible oil. Is that a preset - yes. Is it the same as a skim milk preset that requires me to adjust some arcane (to me) math to get buttermilk - no, not when I can intuitively bump up the thickness and add some yellow particles for butter and have something reasonable.

Keep the advanced stuff, let the gurus create and produce loaves and fishes for the masses. Some of the masses do want to fish for themselves as well though. I really don't buy the notion that you can't even catch a carp without first reading up on the evolution of the bony fishes and then oceanography and of course marine engineering, cause you're gonna need a bigger boat. I can use other applications (as poorly as I use Poser) - I've never believed that Poser should be the be all, end all. At the same time though somethign more alonhg the lines of Vue, or Carrara or C4D or even the argh, pre-MentalRay Max editor would enable/encourage more people to get more out of the program IMO.

That is what the presets are for. Click on a prop and click on a material - and bingo, you have a generic oil//water/whatever material on the prop.

Loads of presets materials are available - both freebies and from the market place. Physically correct and simple easy to modify ones.

If you are a normal user, you use those presets. If you are an advanced user, you modify the presets and if you are an expert, you create those presets.

I really don't see the problem

But a macro facility loading a set of connected nodes without disturbing the existing node set would indeed be very nice

Sounds like a thread in need of starting: "Here are all the shader presets for Poser."

Shaders presented by others are NOT the same as presets.

Laurie

What is the difference?

Because not only do you have to get permission for every single one you modify and wanna distribute, you STILL have NO idea how to make a decent shader. Truthfully, the Poser material room is a layman's nightmare. There, I've said it....lol. I use presets in other programs to start from...never the finished product.

Laurie

Of all the programs I've used: Vue, Blender, Bryce....the Poser material room is the most mystifying. Truth is, unless someone (yeah, BB) holds my hand, I can't do a damn thing with it. I really do hate it - A LOT...lol. And that's saying something. Bryce's is a pain in the rump too but still not nearly as bad as Poser's.

Laurie

Users don't distribute shaders, so this would only apply to content creators.

They also need to learn to model, texture and pose and need to create a decent presentation of their product. So there are lots of things which need to be learned.

I find the effort to create a decent texture much harder as creating a decent shader, so every one has their own strong and weak sides.

What Poser user NEEDS to model? LOL. It's a point and click program for most I'd guess. More reason to make the material room less idiotic ;). Most of us who use it don't do 3D outside of it. I create content. I don't understand one particle of it. I've tried. I've been trying since Poser 6.

Laurie

Quote - What Poser user NEEDS to model? LOL. It's a point and click program for most I'd guess. More reason to make the material room less idiotic ;). Most of use who use it don't to 3D outside of it.

Laurie

For those users we have the poiint anc click/ drag and drop in the material room with those presets (or 3rd party materials)

I don't see the difference

Then I can't make myself understood for you, tho I'm sure a lot REALLY get it ;) MODELING is easier than Poser's material room, which is kinda ridiculous when ya think about it...lol.

Laurie

I was referring to "Wat Poser NEEDS to model"

Well, I guess the folks using Poser the longest eventually get around to modeling....lol. But I bet the majority still really don't get the material room ;). It's ridiculously and unnecessarily difficult. When ONE person is the only one that runs the material room for the rest of us, that should tell ya something's seriously wrong.

Laurie

Quote - MODELING is easier than Poser's material room, which is kinda ridiculous when ya think about it...lol.

Laurie

Now THERE is a truly frightening concept!!!!!!!

Quote - > Quote - MODELING is easier than Poser's material room, which is kinda ridiculous when ya think about it...lol.

Laurie

Now THERE is a truly frightening concept!!!!!!!

It's twue...lol. Laurie

What I think people are saying wimvdb is that the process is complex enough to rob many of the ability to use it. You shouldn't have to be advanced to modify something. basic, e.g. you can use the volume control but to adjust trebel and base, ya need an EE. 

It's a semantic quibble I suppose, but I wouldn't even especially call liquid, metal, skin etc. presets. They're really base materials. I'd call elephant skin or mermaid tears (and anything derived from or incorporating them) presets - but that's just terminology. Nothing's perfecr. Vue has a dozen or more water presets like 'channel water,' You can modify their color, transparency etc., but they're no controls like 'murky' or 'algae,' things that would be specific to water. With the proper scripting support, people could write plugins to cover all kinds of general or more specific materials. If someone wants to include a temperature variable in their water plugin so that dialing it down cause surface ice to start forming, great.

So, have a hierarchy starting with the base materials. You can have environmental water or beverages under liquids, and drill down to as specialized as anyone wants. Use understandable parameters. rough, dusty, stained, wet etc. If I have to guess what it does, it doesn't make the cut. The ability to easily link some parameters to external factors e.g. water gets less murky over time or the closer it ges to the camera etc. You can expose the constituent parts of a parameter e.g. twiddle the things that make up murkiness, but that should be an oprion, not the default.

Well the "learn the material room" argument sounds great, but my problem is I learn something one week and forget it the next.

 I have a couple (IMHO) nice background shaders that I made up in the material room and understood what I was doing at the time, but if you where to ask me now how and what I did, even looking at the shader setup I would have no clue now as to what I did. 

Lol.

"...my problem is I learn something one week and forget it the next."

LOL, I remember reading the same tutorial to get a Poser figure textured in Max 3 - over and over because I could never remember how to do it. That may simple be brain density but I think it is a sign of an unintuitive or overly complicated process. And I'll stick to that eplanation :-) 

I've actually gotten half way through reading a tutorial, before I realised I'd read it a couple of weeks before... possibly on more than one occasion... I forget now