Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> Op 18-4-2021 om 14:58 schreef Bald Eagle:
> Thank you Bill, I do really appreciate indeed your comments and I am
> sadly aware of your own experience of this. The thought passed through
> my mind too. However, I wanted to give Yve what in French is called "Le
>
> own conviction, whatever he may make of it.
>
> --
> Thomas

(I'm guessing something got omitted in there, but I understand where you're
going)

Indeed.  Now, we don't really need to "be fair" or give Ive/Yve a fair hearing -
because he can post [virtually] anything he wants here, any time he wants - and
there's damned little any but a select few can do to stop him.

Perhaps like so many before - artistically brilliant and enviously talented -
but psychologically....  wow.

I certainly give plenty of people a fair chance to present their views and
discuss them and what they believe their reasons for having them are.  Maybe we
agree, maybe we don't.   Sometimes we leave it at that, sometimes it begins a
long and continuing conversation that can last years.

But I'm not getting any younger, and I've learned some hard and painful lessons
from people who have quite frankly surprised me by their sudden and inexplicable
U-turns in thought/belief/behaviour.   So I just add them to the list of people
who are lost, too far gone, or too dangerously damaged for me to consider it
worthwhile bothering with.

As you say, I sadly got put through the wringer, but: I _learned_ a lot - both
about other people and myself, had my eyes opened, my illusions dispelled, and
after 10 years am doing well enough.  Although it no longer hurts, it's the pain
of the burn that keeps the child from grasping the hot handle of the pan on the
stove again.
Having instructed college chemistry, I did my due diligence and asked of the
students on the first day of lab, "Before you go and just thoughtlessly pick up
a beaker - what's the difference in appearance between cold glass and hot
glass?"
<silence>
"There isn't any."

I mean, I'm generally a top-of-the-Nolan-chart Libertarian who will genuinely
defend people's God-given Rights to say, or do, all manner of things.  But I
always admonish them with a reminder that "with great power comes great
responsibility" - and freedom and liberty are the fonts of personal power.  So
just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD.  Just because I'm
not going to stop you, doesn't mean that it isn't still a bad idea, or that I
won't try to dissuade you.  It also doesn't mean that after you do it, I won't
judge you for it, lay the blame and responsibility at your feet, or think that
it's a swell idea to continue my association with you.  I may, at some future
time, even realize and regret that I may have played some part and bore some
responsibility as well.   Stuff happens.  You can either get all hung up on it -
or move past it, grow, mature, and hopefully do better next time.


You were making an honest and wholly innocent effort to freely give of your
time, experience, and expertise to breathe new life into a set of procedural
textures that are decades old - and he decided to pop in out of nowhere,
snarling like a rabid dog, hurling blanket accusations and baseless attributions
of motive, intent, and willful negligence, and then just as abruptly stormed
out.

So, based on past similar behaviour and a peek under the the facade across the
interwebs, I'm making the call that there's a whole lot going on in that can of
worms, such that I don't see any value in getting drawn into it, and [caveat]
depending on the specific details of location, proximity and resources, one can
never really tell what any given individual is apt to do.  As an American, I was
surprised to find that Norway placed top of the list in 2011.  Maybe the
pressure cooker in TX has just been building up to bursting for the last decade.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJKJM36lMTE

Now, if I'm wrong or there's some underlying heap of stuff but everything gets
aired out and fixed up - fine.  I can be wrong.  I'm wrong a lot.  I prefer to
be "right", and that's why I spend such an inordinate amount of time learning,
and fixing things, and helping other to improve.


So, if people want to be decent and civilized, so be it.
If they want to be an epithet, that's their choice as well.

But at this point, regardless of whether or not it's "their bat and their ball,"
they can go home if they want to.  It's up to them.

Post a reply to this message

Op 18/04/2021 om 18:23 schreef jr:
> hi,
> 
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>> Op 18-4-2021 om 14:58 schreef Bald Eagle:
>> Thank you Bill, I do really appreciate indeed your comments ...
>> my mind too. However, I wanted to give Yve what in French is called "Le
> 
> umlauts + accents etc (currently) cause hiccups.

Oops! I had not noticed that, sorry. I mentioned "the benefit of the 
doubt" there.

> 
> 
>> own conviction, whatever he may make of it.
> 
> only two things to .. observe -- why "Yve"?  some Freudian thing?  :-)  concur
> with BE, "ingrown toenails", likely.  not your problem.
> 
> 
> regards, jr.
> 

Right! Freudian, no doubt ;-) I have no idea why I mis-typed....

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Op 18/04/2021 om 19:13 schreef Bald Eagle:
> (I'm guessing something got omitted in there, but I understand where you're
> going)

My fault, sorry. I talked about "benefit of the doubt"

> 
> Indeed.  Now, we don't really need to "be fair" or give Ive/Yve a fair hearing -
> because he can post [virtually] anything he wants here, any time he wants - and
> there's damned little any but a select few can do to stop him.
> 
> [snip]
Again, thanks indeed for your extensive comments. I aappreciate them. I 
have not had too many experiences like this or like what you have been 
up against, and in general I /thought/ I was ready for them, but of 
course it hurts. I am interested in people and why they do or say what 
they do or say. We are social beings aren't we, but the internet is 
something very different indeed and a place where I go reluctantly, with 
the exception of a very few like these ng's.

Well, new lesson learned.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot wrote on 16/04/2021 08:46:
> [snip]>

Regarding marbles, in my area it was often used marble containing 
ammonites, does this seem an interesting challenge to you?
See the picture as reference.

Paolo

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'img_20210417_122316-01.jpg' (1426 KB)

Preview of image 'img_20210417_122316-01.jpg'

Paolo Gibellini <p.g### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Thomas de Groot wrote on 16/04/2021 08:46:
> > [snip]>
>
> Regarding marbles, in my area it was often used marble containing
> ammonites, does this seem an interesting challenge to you?
> See the picture as reference.
>
> Paolo

:D   Way to raise the bar, Paolo.


Maybe something akin to Ingo's blob pattern could be used for the ammonites, and
then a repeat warp added in...

Post a reply to this message

Op 19-4-2021 om 11:57 schreef Paolo Gibellini:
> Thomas de Groot wrote on 16/04/2021 08:46:
>> [snip]>
> 
> Regarding marbles, in my area it was often used marble containing 
> ammonites, does this seem an interesting challenge to you?
> See the picture as reference.
> 
> Paolo

A challenge? It would be a very interesting to do indeed. Not 
immediately as I want to complete the granites first, but it is /an 
offer I cannot refuse/ ;-)

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

I think we are on the verge of version 2.0 of granites21.inc. Thanks to 
your comments important improvements have been made or are pending. So, 
thank you indeed for your comprehensive contributions.

Attached are examples of the latest developments. All the textures have 
been wrapped into material{} with an ior of quartz (1.6) and now include 
a finish with fresnel. The tentative to use the albedo keyword however, 
has been abandoned for the time being as too difficult apparently to use 
in any way. Without being exclusive, thanks to Alain and Maurice, and of 
course the usual suspects Bald Eagle and Kenneth.

In a next stage, the use of more elaborate macros are planned, including 
sslt possibilities for instance. Bald Eagle has proposed a first version 
of such a macro and I am going to study it and see how to integrate 
things. In the same way, Jr proposed a HowTo html file where for 
instance the content of the headers and additional info can be provided. 
Thanks to both of you.

More discussions can and will follow here of course, but a new version 
of the package will be uploaded in a new post in due time.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'mohoganyfro2-1.jpg' (99 KB) Download 'mohoganyfro2-2.jpg' (99 KB) Download 'mohoganypol2-1.jpg' (101 KB) Download 'mohoganypol2-2.jpg' (98 KB)

Preview of image 'mohoganyfro2-1.jpg'

Preview of image 'mohoganyfro2-2.jpg'

Preview of image 'mohoganypol2-1.jpg'

Preview of image 'mohoganypol2-2.jpg'

Op 20-4-2021 om 14:56 schreef Thomas de Groot:
> More discussions can and will follow here of course, but a new version 
> of the package will be uploaded in a new post in due time.
> 

A couple of things I failed to mention but are particularly important:

1. Following Maurice's suggestion to use a pigment_pattern to vary grain 
sizes, there follows that the use of colour /map/ codes becomes 
important. Bald Eagle suggested this also and we need to determine if 
those should go as different files or whatever, then to be addressed by 
macros.

2. Bald Eagle stressed the importance of starting to make list of "all 
those things we've learned in the past 20 years...". This remained 
dormant until now where I am concerned, but I intend to start to 
actively dig around and document.

Later,

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> to use the albedo keyword however,
> has been abandoned for the time being as too difficult apparently to use
> in any way.

Interested in hearing why - it's always good to document perceived failures as
much as successes.

> In a next stage, the use of more elaborate macros are planned, including
> sslt possibilities for instance.

I simply figured that with something that had transparency like quartz, it might
be a good thing to include.

> Bald Eagle has proposed a first version
> of such a macro and I am going to study it and see how to integrate
> things.

As always, let me know if there are any questions.   The code was mostly to
demonstrate the rudimentary principles and stimulate further discussion and
development.

Now that some of this has percolated in my head for a bit, I think I see
Maurice's concern more clearly - the distribution of the texture elements are
too uniform.  Yes, there are different grain sizes and colors, but there is no
layering, veins, or variation of scale throughout the texture.

Should we have a color_map .map file, or should we have a texture or material
map for something as complex as a granite?   Different grains are different
minerals, with different colors, iors, sslt attributes, finishes, etc.  Maybe
make materials for each individual mineral and then combine them into the final
granite.  More than simplistic, less than explosively complex.   Put some
comments in where we're leaving excessively complicated things out of the stock
new granites, and leave those as avenues to pursue for those wishing to craft
more complex materials.
Part of what I'm thinking is to be able to select from a list of "complete"
materials and use them combinatorially, like in Jonathan Hunt's "Pebbles.pov"

Going even further along that line of include file development, it would be
beneficial to create an array of default versions of all the macro textures so
that the user could address and select them _numerically_.  A macro in the
include file could be called to instantiate such an array if desired, so that
it's not generated each time the include file is called.

I'm thinking that the variation of the granite will probably either have to be
controlled / achieved with layering, or by elevating the level of the underlying
"granite" pattern with a pattern map or function or some other approach.  Here
at the outset, it's not so crucial to actually achieve the goal, but to define
it, so that we can see what theoretically should be done, and then decide what
compromises and tricks can be used to approach that without undue complexity.
Set out some must-have attributes for what, geologically, a proper granite
should embody, and then at least we have something to shoot for.

I also think that the white that got added into some of the granite texture
examples seems "off".   Like they are clouds and are floating over and apart
from the underlying stone and are not a part of it.  Not sure what should be
done to address that, or if you see it as a problem.


Anyway, that's what was bouncing around in my head.

Post a reply to this message

Op 20/04/2021 om 20:06 schreef Bald Eagle:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>> to use the albedo keyword however,
>> has been abandoned for the time being as too difficult apparently to use
>> in any way.
> 
> Interested in hearing why - it's always good to document perceived failures as
> much as successes.
> 
In a nutshell (I want to investigate more of course) I fail to tweak the 
different values (following the rules) without drastically changing the 
colour/aspect of the texture too. Something fundamental escapes me.

>> In a next stage, the use of more elaborate macros are planned, including
>> sslt possibilities for instance.
> 
> I simply figured that with something that had transparency like quartz, it might
> be a good thing to include.
> 
Yes, and it certainly needs more work.

>> Bald Eagle has proposed a first version
>> of such a macro and I am going to study it and see how to integrate
>> things.
> 
> As always, let me know if there are any questions.   The code was mostly to
> demonstrate the rudimentary principles and stimulate further discussion and
> development.
> 
Of course.

> Now that some of this has percolated in my head for a bit, I think I see
> Maurice's concern more clearly - the distribution of the texture elements are
> too uniform.  Yes, there are different grain sizes and colors, but there is no
> layering, veins, or variation of scale throughout the texture.
> 
Yes. I tackled the grainsize differences but I am still not happy with 
the aspect overall.

> Should we have a color_map .map file, or should we have a texture or material
> map for something as complex as a granite?   Different grains are different
> minerals, with different colors, iors, sslt attributes, finishes, etc.  Maybe
> make materials for each individual mineral and then combine them into the final
> granite.  More than simplistic, less than explosively complex.   Put some
> comments in where we're leaving excessively complicated things out of the stock
> new granites, and leave those as avenues to pursue for those wishing to craft
> more complex materials.
> Part of what I'm thinking is to be able to select from a list of "complete"
> materials and use them combinatorially, like in Jonathan Hunt's "Pebbles.pov"
> 
Again, yes. I am now exclusively working on the Mohogany granite and I 
want to explore those avenues you suggest. I realise that I have taken 
on a major investigation :-) and that is ok. I am not bound to a 
deadline. I certainly would like to come up with a credible granite 
material and I am beginning to get "obsessed" by it as it were. Slow 
work of trial and error... discussing the issues helps to focus on the 
weak and strong points, and eliminate dead-end issues.

> Going even further along that line of include file development, it would be
> beneficial to create an array of default versions of all the macro textures so
> that the user could address and select them _numerically_.  A macro in the
> include file could be called to instantiate such an array if desired, so that
> it's not generated each time the include file is called.
> 
yes indeed.

> I'm thinking that the variation of the granite will probably either have to be
> controlled / achieved with layering, or by elevating the level of the underlying
> "granite" pattern with a pattern map or function or some other approach.  Here
> at the outset, it's not so crucial to actually achieve the goal, but to define
> it, so that we can see what theoretically should be done, and then decide what
> compromises and tricks can be used to approach that without undue complexity.
> Set out some must-have attributes for what, geologically, a proper granite
> should embody, and then at least we have something to shoot for.
> 
following what was written higher on. The "depth" aspect of the rock is 
crucial but also difficult to achieve.

> I also think that the white that got added into some of the granite texture
> examples seems "off".   Like they are clouds and are floating over and apart
> from the underlying stone and are not a part of it.  Not sure what should be
> done to address that, or if you see it as a problem.
> 
Imo, the white represents the quartz veins that cut through the 
granites. In the original code they came out as mere "clouds" of grey; I 
brought them back at least as something looking like veins (the top 
texture). See the examples I provided.

> 
> Anyway, that's what was bouncing around in my head.
> 
Quite a lot to have bouncing around in there, sir. ;-)

Your comments are much appreciated and keep me on track.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message