Any idea when Cycles will have: Car paint, Iridescent, and Anisotropic materials?

I gave Cycles a more serious run and was very impressed with the furniture renderings I got from it.

But because I also work a lot with materials such as car paint or brushed metals I noticed those types of materials and textures are currently not supported but essencial for industrial design.

Does anybody have an idea when those might make it into Blender?

Technically, aren’t these things already there?

Car Paint can be made with very simple procedural textures (voronoi, for example) with some relatively simple nodes. And Brushed metal is made with textures usually, so why not in cycles?

When it comes to iridescent paint it is simply a case of using the Fresnel node correctly (mix with one colour, then the next with the values being set to fresnel).

I don’t really see what the question is here, or is that just me?

Yes, it’s just you. :smiley:

Naeh… But I guess many are used to have base materials/librarys instead if building our own materials on a scene to scene basis…

About the question then, this - - and this - - might be a good start. :cool: What you talk about, @cekuhnen, is all possible through creating the materials from scratch using shader networks. Regarding finished materials I guess they might add more shaders, but until they do we’ll have to build them our selves.

Well this all depends on how you see it Farm. A dedicated car shader has significant advantages
specifically in the way how it deals with the base material and the clear coating material.
This is different than just mixing shader results together.

Mixing a diffuse with a glass shader is not really the same like a diffuse with a coat on it or am I missing something here?

I am failing to see where in Cycles the tangent option for stretching the mirror reflection is.
I know you use textures for the look of the material but you need to change how the reflection works. In Blender Internal U use the tangent option for the specular element.

I am not sure if it’s what you want to achieve, but to change the way the reflection works you simply have to plug the image texture into the “Roughness” socket of the glossy material:

why is it always a user is asking for new features that some blender user tells him to fake it?

is this BI or what? he is talking about cycles which is a pathtracer. and in a raytracer you can have anisotropic reflections. why should he not use it? sorry for my negative post. but it was the same for the last 2 years when talking about bmesh. do we need bmesh? do we need ngons? will we get lazy with ngons. who needs bevel and a knife tool.

Here is the cycles roadmap for a semi realistic render engine:

Other features depends on developers with much free time.

Cheers, mib.

Well, it isn’t even a workaround, because that way you can’t fake anisotropic reflections. Ok, that was stupid of me, feel free to bash me :o

No, because BI can do anisotropic raytracing :wink:

On a more serious note I wouldn’t expect any additions to the shading part of cycles until the Mango artists need it.

mib2berlin and Hoverkraft

I hope this will be included sooner otherwise for me Cycles would be an incomplete renderer till they include a anisotropic BSDF tangent material.

Oh boy I hate this sometimes with Blender - you get very excited about a new product and then something essencial is missing.

Ah well there is still VRay and Thea.

The thing is, you’ll never always have shortcuts in 3D. Or life in general. Whatever you do in life, you need to learn to workaround what you don’t have, solving problems… So until you have this & that funktionality, but you really need it, you just have to fake it, what other option is there? And this is true about everything, working with Blender, in Maya or reassembling a Land Rover Series 2 gearbox… ;D

And don’t misunderstand me, I’m all for having ready to use shaders and material library’s, I’m as lazy as the next guy (and then some, hehe), but until I do there’s just no other way than to work around it… :smiley:


I think what he was talking about is a culture to tell people to fake things even when faking it is not even getting close to the desired result while in contrast other applications have such tools since years as a toolset but in Blender are seen as lazy tricks.


This is always the same history with blender. Seems like many users feel offended when someone ask for new features (the Endi’s syndrome). Farmfield is right, you must learn how to solve things you don’t have. But you just can’t fake even the basic things. It isn’t about become lazy because of ‘x’ feature. Is about how you can do the things easier and faster. And is not a minor deal when you have a lot of work and no time. Maybe for this kind of situations, many people can’t see Blender as a real professional choice.

That’s open source communitys for you, hehe, people getting upset when someone asks for a GUI for something basic, telling them things like changing the desktop background is easier using CLI than a GUI… ;D

You want a new feature ? That’s great but what are you now going to do to get it implemented.
Just look at the GSOC wishlist thread. Everyone has a dozen new features which they want and think are the most important thing in the world (ranging from useful, interesting, blender has the feature already, pointless ide etc etc). Why is yours more important than theirs ? Does a carshader fit in with the target for cycles or Mango? Probably not, so unlikely you’ll see one soon unless you do something about it yourself. Like it or not, that is the reality of blender feature development. You can wait an eternity hoping that your wishlist gets implemented ahead of the 10,000 other users in front of you, frig it, get it developed independently or the best option is to use something else that has the feature you need.

I agree with Richard, expanding on the shaders (anistropic, the cloth one from the other thread, etc.) could be an ideal gsoc project, but right now there are other priorities, which I assume are motion blur, sss, etc.

V1k1ngo yah I agree on your part on that one. I very often noticed that in the past Blender got 90% done but very often that last 10% was essencial for it to fit the need.

Learning fakes and tricks as time savers is not a bad thing, but when faking takes a lot of extra time and does not even get close to the needed result there is not much you can do about it.

And Richard I understand you point, I am sure I did not accuse anybody or the devs at one point.

Cycles is pretty interesting because I see a lot of potencial with it to push Blender out of its niche where it is only usable for and the render engine was before Cycles just Blenders main bottleneck and a big one.

After all I was only asking for a timeline info thats all!

I personally think it may be possible to emulate the first two shaders with existing in a realistic manner, but there’s no easy way to use existing nodes to create anisotropic shader that will give realistic results in all lighting cases.

A good quality solution for anisotropic shading would require the completion of the incomplete anisotropic shading code that’s already in the codebase. That is one case where a workaround simply won’t do it in terms of correctness.

@@cekuhnencekuhnen, Car paint shader would indeed be very nice, faked ones never really look that good (expect a few, eg the bmw), irredecent shader would be quite nice aswell, as irts not just frensel, its somthing more, can be done in cycles with some fancy vector math, anisotropicshader is already in cycles (ward) however its disabled as it dosn’t work due to inconsistant tangents, needs to be tweaked to use derivatives

but as to when we will get these, i truly don’t know, but if you are able to produce an example shader code, that might help these along

My theory is it’s because blender doesn’t really have a plug-in system so someone has to code it and then pester the core devs to get added – which sometimes is a lot more work than the actual coding (coughpenner-easing-for-fcurvescough).

If people really want every corner case in blender they should start up a dev-fund for someone to code a plug-in system for stuff like this (that can’t be done though the py-api) so you can have all the ‘lazy’ tools you want.

My other theory is if I want it and can’t code it up myself (usually because I suck at math) then I really didn’t need it in the first place and there’s no use whining because it’s my own damn fault blender can’t do whatever it is I wanted. This has also lead to a couple good features where I did all the grunt work, couldn’t figure out the implementation then someone else swoops in and finishes the hard parts.

I have a third theory on blender development but that one always starts flame wars so I’ll keep it to meself this time…