lisa at red3d.com
Mon Oct 1 02:42:02 EDT 2007
No Ivan, you're not asking for too much. I agree with you completely.
Building small efficient shaders in a modular fashion will always be
preferable to me than any sort of ubershader. Seems like that concept
would be right at home with Houdini.
----------------- Original Message ---------------------------
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 23:07:38 -0700
From: Ivan DeWolf <ivan at martian-labs.com>
UGH! I realize I may be almost alone in this, but the "uber surface
is one of the worst ideas I have ever had the displeasure to deal with.
These multi-thousand line monstrosities are usually built up over
by a slew of freelance coders that never think or code in a similar
fashion, and are now unavailable for questions.
I have been handed several "ubershaders" at different facilities-
this feature isn't working. You can fix this, right?"
turns out all they needed was a 5-line shader, but they only knew to
"ubershader" for everything. Like trying to ride a bicycle with a
helicopter, and rocket duct taped to it. ugh. and know I have to fix the
helicopter so it doesn't mess up the bicycle. Pass the osciloscope.
I know, it is becoming the "industry standard" way of dealing with
couldn't we all just learn to link up a few VOPs at least?
an uber-library instead would RULE! you just have to do a tiny bit of
assembling the specific parts, instead of using some do-every-damn-
that nobody actually comprehends....
NO MORE UBERSHADERS!
oh well. I'm just asking for too much.
More information about the Sidefx-houdini-list