Mick Hazelgrove <mic### [at] mhazelgrovefsnetcouk> wrote:
> I like this new structure very much. I've only just come across the need for
> a "finish map" (No, not a map of Finland!)
> this would solve the problem nicely and is much more logical.

Hmm, I came up with this a long time back.  I wanted to do a wood pattern,
and looking at the wood (balsa) I was working from, I noticed a series of
tiny lines perpendicular (or maybe parallel) to the grain that shine more
than elsewhere.  Only way I could do it was a texture map where the pigment
and normal were the same, but the finishes were different.  Having a
separate finish map to allow for finishes that vary over the surface while
the texture does not could be nice.

On the other hand, where textures are also varying, it requires two maps
with the same entry values (to do what used to be done), but I'm not sure
that's a good reason *not* to do it.  Certainly making them independent
allows for a lot of new possibilties (ex: Textures vary based on granite
pattern, while finishes based on bump, or whatever)

Geoff

Post a reply to this message