Author Topic: Any way to get luminance variation in a bitmap?  (Read 26725 times)

It seems that the node can't fill your tiles entirely with parameters values you're using. Try to bump a bit the Fill Steps parameter. Something like 16 should be enough for this (or, if it isn't, as much as needed to fill entire cells). Also, you can try to increase a bit the Inner Resolution Divider to help the node fill your cells faster. For 2k graph, a value of 3 or 4 would be good. Generally, for higher Inner Resolution Divider values a lower value of Fill Steps would be necessary.

i find here a v2 node
and i try it
but i still have some troble

this is the best i can get frome it

and i attach a bitmap i use for it
if you fave a minute to see  it and maybe make some test
thats wil be soo super )

well my map isn`t tile
so i think this is the troble

the new result :)
work pretty good now )

Been using this for a while now. Just want to say thanks and great work!

Also... would it be possible with a random gradient/slope node next?  ;D

You're on!  ;)

Check it out:

I'm looking to making a node that will be able to fill the mask with gradients/slopes running in different directions. It's a prototype for now, so I'm looking for some input on it.
Last Edit: May 01, 2017, 01:08:32 pm

Hey mate, saw your "Inner Resolution Divider", but there's a trick to optimize the node with less potential issues
• Run your min/max spread on downsampled resolution
• Extract new black/white border via cutoff node (basically anything not black will turn to white)
• Distance node to get rid of the borders (set to "only source")
• Transform to get the map to original size (use Nearest filtering)
• Blend multiply original border

And Viola! downsample by like 4-5 levels without any issues, and no need for extra complex parameters ;)

Last Edit: June 30, 2017, 02:01:30 am

Thanks! I'll check it out. I agree that currently there are too many parameters under the hood and it will be beneficial to simplify the node a bit.

Apologies for dragging this thread up from the depths, but I have a bit of an issue, and wondered if anyone would be able to help.

I've been using this filter a lot, it's immensely useful for me and my work, however I've run into a bit of a snag with it. I've been using it in Substance Designer, as part of my own custom Substance file where it works perfectly, super quick and great results, however I'd like to publish it to an .sbsar file and use it in 3ds Max, to really speed up my workflow. As soon as I do this though, in 3ds Max it seems to take around 15~ seconds to calculate any changes that are run through this filter. If I remove/bypass the filter though and republish the file, it updates and recalculates any changes in Max in just a few milliseconds.

It's a bit over-my-head with my basic knowledge of Designer, and I've not had as much time as I'd like to try and diagnose the issue, but from my initial tests it seems to be only when this filter is 'linked' into my Substance file. If I physically copy/paste the nodes from the .sbs file, into my custom Substance file, and have all of the nodes linked up appropriately there, it seems to run perfectly fast, but correct me if I'm wrong, by doing this I then lose the flexibility of being able to change the parameters like Fill Steps etc. don't I? (At least without re-exposing all of these values?)

I'm using the latest Substance plugin (2.0.1) for 3ds Max 2016.

I mean I guess this seems to be a 3ds Max issue, but I've been searching for ages and seem unable to find anyone with similar issues. I'm not 100% sure if this only occurs when linking in this filter, or if it happens with others also. This is something I'll try to test as soon as I can. I just wondered if you or anybody else had come along something similar and had any answers. Thanks so much for any help, cheers!

Does this node work on 2017.2 ?

(I'll have so many nodes from the substance share, that may need to be updated for 2017.2 release, but how.)

You no longer need it - use flood fill.