Failed Topic: Lacks realism and quality
3 Likes
It would be a good tutorial, though I wouldn’t call it a beginner topic. Depending on what’s in that node group, that’s intermediate to advanced level stuff.
1 Like
I am aware. You asked if it’s good for beginners, my answer is that it’s a more advanced topic, though it is a good one and I do encourage you to make this tutorial if you wish.
5 Likes
A good geometry node tutorial will explain the concepts of all of the elements, why they’re being used, and so on. Not just show how to make a particular result.
So this could be a good tutorial, or not. It really depends on the content of it.
5 Likes
A single screenshot is a terrible tutorial… 
But it might be a good topic for a tutorial. We don’t know how you are going to make the tutorial yet, so it’s unclear if it’s going to be good or not at this point.
I think it could be a great topic for procedural texturing beginners. It’s a bit more than beginner topic, but depending on how well you explain things and how beginner friendly you make it while you explain stuff, I think you could fit in a whole lot of useful concepts there in the process of making this.
It may be a challenge not to scare the audience, since some people might be put off by math or math that they might not immediately need for their day to day work, but I think it might make sense if you are planning to explain how you approach researching a more complex topic like this, like what makes it easier… how to divide it into simpler steps and so on… How to make a more complex task more approachable, how to think about it and so on. It might not be easy, but I think it has the potential to be a great tutorial.
1 Like
@MartinZ I agree with your comments.
I clicked on the screen and there was no video so I cannot reply to the original post. You cannot tell how the tutorial is if you cannot view it. 
1 Like
I had a look at your other tutorials, and the stuff you make seems really awesome, but I think a tutorial is not about that. It should be about communication and explaining things. So I think they are not really good as tutorials as far. The stuff in them is awesome, but there need to clear explanations.
3 Likes
Thanks a lot for the feedback! I genuinely respect your opinion and I’m glad to have your perspective on this.
Well, the stuff is awesome. I would even watch that myself to be honest, if you talked about it during the whole tutorial and explained your thinking process.
1 Like
I’m changing the subject on this thread to be something less completely generic.
1 Like
Looking at your animation, I would have to say it looks like an animated texture instead of a Rain Animation.
- It is extremely regular and not random, as rain always is; you can almost see the grid on which this was built.
- There is no splash! A raindrop hitting a puddle is going to produce a splash, which should also be animated.
It falls far short of your description of " incredibly powerful and visually stunning".
There are already many tutorials out there that range from good to don’t bother watching this.
What is going to make this concept of a tutorial better than all the ones that are out there, and live up to your description?
1 Like
Yeah actually looking more closely, there are quite a few problems, like for example the waves just disappear abruptly without fading away and there is no interference of any kind or interaction amongst drops which would probably be possible to atchieve in shader nodes with some math.
3 Likes
Well TBH I’m having a hard time with these easy to make sentences that sounds more like AI speaking than someone with an human brain and heart…
To me the result is interesting, probably a beginner can learn from it if it’s well explaind , especially if it goes to the logic and fundamentals behind.
Is it professional ? Well, if you use it professionally it is… Is it visually stunning ? To me the result could look better to be useful to me. The distribution look very regular and grid based, and the ripples looks a bit too artificial.
I think the best approach would be to use particles so you can mix raindrops , droplets and puddles …
This is NPR but it looks more natural to me in terms of shape and distribution :
Massive scene is probably also a non issue since this will be useful only close to camera and your pattern will show repetition anyway… Distant parts can use something a bit simpler with less visual noise…
My point is, what you do is great, but IMO using terms like professional, visually stunning, incredibly powerful in a kind of salesman speak fashion is making more harm than good… We are able to judge if it’s good or not or if it’s suitable for our work. Trying to oversell the thing is pointless IMO and it distract from the fact that it might be possible to learn something from what you did anyway…
My advice is rather than doing that, you can be more natural and just be yourself. There is nothing to gain by using premade sentences, clickbaith title or questions, stuff like that… especially here…
That sentence could be just rephrased as : This doesn’t rely on dynamic paint but only shader nodes which makes it lightweight and easier to use… And let people judge if it’s good or not, I think you’ll get instantly much more credibility…
If you made something interesting just share it naturally, I’m sure you’ll get more positive response to your work ! Which is already interesting anyway…
6 Likes
I don’t even ever need to make rain, but I’ll watch this tutorial! When is it coming out?
1 Like
If you use Goo Engine, this functionality is already built in, one node, the Drops type of the Water Ripples node:
See here, scroll down to the nodes section:
https://www.patreon.com/dillongoo/posts/goo-engine-4-3-2-141482680
2 Likes
I have always suspected there might be reasons so many people seem to like that Goo Engine so much. That looks like some really awesome functionality.
In the context of making a node tutorial I think something like recreating that Goo Engine node with vanilla Blender nodes and making a tutorial about it could be something really awesome. But it’s quite a fun complex task, so for a tutorial to be good the idea alone is not enough. I definitely see how along the way one would need to explain a whole lot of various concepts in procedural texturing, and if that is done well, it could be really useful. And I also think it’s not really all about this particular problem or whatever specific techniques one would come up with, but more about all the process and how one could approach a problem like this and all sub-problems along the way. How you come up with solutions basically. I think for it to be good it would need to be pretty much all talking about it in a lot of detail and in somewhat entertaining easy to listen way, so that’s very different than what I have seen in other videos of graphics_coding. They seem to be missing absolutely the main most important(in my opinion) ingredient at the moment - talking and explaining. @graphics_coding, you might want to make a few simpler tutorials with that first to practice. I mean you don’t usually make a masterpiece with the first try, right?.. I think while tutorials are about Blender and technical stuff, making them must be about something entirely different - good communication.