[Sidefx-houdini-list] ubershaders

Lisa Reynolds 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.

-Lisa


----------------- 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  
shader"
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  
several years
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-  
"hey Ivan,
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  
use their
"ubershader" for everything. Like trying to ride a bicycle with a  
semi. SUV,
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  
shaders, but
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  
work
assembling the specific parts, instead of using some do-every-damn- 
thing shader
that nobody actually comprehends....

NO MORE UBERSHADERS!

oh well. I'm just asking for too much.






More information about the Sidefx-houdini-list mailing list