BI settings, Cycles render.

The developers should make Cycles have the same settings as BI because BI settings are so easy, you can tell it what color, if to emit light, how much specularity, how much diffuse reflection, but BI is a dumb renderer. That is my question to you developers. Will you do it?

No, it won’t happen. Cycles is designed from the ground up to be a node-based renderer because of the freedom it allows in the creation of any material more complicated than a couple of UI switches. Node-based materials (and workflows in general) are the trend of the entire industry, and the devs have no interest in going backwards against this momentum.

Not just that, but after the initial ‘how do nodes work / shaders work in cycles’… it usually is easier and quicker to get the look correct in cycles then BI (for me atleast.

I was exactly the same as you, nodes to complex. But after a few tuts, it just keeps getting easier and easier and you start to see the logic. In the end you concentrate on what you need right there in front of you.

It should be noted that industry (which industry?) trends and momentum don’t have a whole lot to do with the decision to use nodes for Cycles materials. It’s more about using the best (or perhaps better stated, least crappy) means of representing and describing complex materials. And if there renderer is internally nodal, a node-based interface that matches that structure is the least difficult one to create.

The current trend towards nodes is useful insomuch as it indicates that more people are becoming comfortable with working in nodes, but I’d be hesitant to say that Blender developers pay all that close attention to trends. Mind you, I’m not saying that as a slight of any kind. Trends change. That’s pretty unstable ground to build a design upon.

Silly request.

BI material/texture panel wastes a lot of time… After a few weeks of using cycles you’ll find it is better in every way. Setting up a simple material (diffuse, emit, spec) is a breeze in cycles. And building materials is even more fun. Throw in groups and all that and you have a much faster way of editing materials.

From the sounds of it nodes are going to be showing up in other areas of blender this year. So you might as well take 15-30 minutes to learn what you know in BI for cycles.

Cycles is just as easy as BI if you bother to learn how to use it. There are other differences that are more serious and constitute valid reasons to use BI… but the UI is not actually any harder to do basic materials with, IMO it’s actually a little simpler. Just watch a couple tutorials.

Is there still some work done on an ubershader? That would I guess maybe mimic a bit the way you set your shader that you find in BI…

edit post because of useless comment

BI and Cycles, the benefits of the superior node cycles system. I agree.
However, after importing an obj, it would be nice to see a basic mix/diffuse/glossy and some texture nodes ready on the table. (cycles)

“you can tell it what color”

If you look close enough you see you can also pick the color you want in cycles too lol

@LordOdin
Yeah, color (diffuse) is compatible. I was talking about texture nodes though.
OK, if you add a tex node you can pick the file from the database.
Imagine a complicated scene (imported) with lot of shaders. How many clicks for cycles?
In cycles we will obviously add a lot more nodes for specific shaders. That’s OK, cycles is a more advanced render than BI.
However, just the basics, it could be a nice starting point. A texture>diffuse> at least.

Try and do some shader math and mix layers of SSS with multiple diffuse and glossy materials using dozens of masks and textures with the BI system and then come back and say the node system doesn’t make any sense for physically-based materials.

edit post because of useless comment

Sum of Gaussians skin shader. Any comlpex skin shader, really. Anything with layers, if you want to be as general as possible.

Let’s just say, I have more than a little experience working with production level shaders.

Maxwell’s material system is most definitely node based under the hood. And I’d also argue that the UI they choose to use is abysmal for anything beyond their presets and very basic things. Every other modern material system is node-based as well. Arnold, Thea, VRay, Disney’s Principled BRDF, etc. Every one uses a node system either directly or under the hood in their code base. Some choose to allow access to nodes directly, some choose to express them similar to Photoshop layers, but the principles are the same regardless.

edit post because of useless comment

Last time I checked, computer graphics was still considered an artform. That being the case, everything is arbitrary. Physics is where you start… then you make changes and adjustments according to what looks best. This even happens in meatspace production. There’s a big difference between what looks real and what is real. Audiences are typically more interested in the former. Even still, physics-based materials/algorithms aren’t perfect; they have their shortcomings. Nodes are a great way to work around them… even take advantage of them sometimes.

Besides, some of us are more interested in producing visuals that aren’t physically plausible at all.

edit post because of useless comment

Physically based lighting and materials != physically correct anything. It means lighting and material definitions that are predictable, general, and measurable. It’s a workflow that means less wasted artist time. It doesn’t mean you’re bounded by physical laws, and as an artist, you never should be.

edit post because of useless comment