Luxball5

[b.!!]

That would be great !

Maybe we need to talk to Abel about this, since he seems to be in charge of the wiki ?

[Abel]

I was listening anyway!

As I see it, you're bringing up two points:

1. the documentation for eye and path depth is missing or at least incomplete
2. the wiki is not a step-by-step manual that will tell new users how to get started

Point one is known, the issue is on the todo list (http://www.luxrender.net/wiki/Documentation_todo). The problem is that we don't have the manpower to get all issues on that list done in the foreseeable future. Most of the points on the list are small tasks that shouldn't take much time and anybody with some time to spare, a basic command of English, patience and a slightly analytical mind could help with those. However, only few people have shown the dedication to work on the documentation. For this particular case, you could help if you're interested - if so, send me a PM if you would like some more detailed instructions.

Point two is partly conscious design, partly lack of manpower. The wiki is set up in such a way that there is a manual describing all the features, a manual about how to use your exporter of choice (if it happens to be LuxBlend ) and tutorials targeted at different levels. I believe that a step-by-step manual covering all features would be problematic because 1. it would be extremely long 2. some features are exporter dependent and 3. it would not be possible to easily distinguish between important and less important features. To solve this, there is a tutorial section containing tutorials that focus on a particular topic, level and program. However, similar to point #1 keeping all tutorials up to date takes a lot of manpower, particularly when the program and host programs are being developed so quickly.

So I don't think we should try to "popularize" the manual, we should just improve it by adding clear examples and sections that are missing. While this won't tell users on which button to click, the pictures should be understandable for anybody. In addition to that, we need updated or new tutorials for those looking for an easy to follow introduction to the program.

[b.!!]

Hi Abel,

Yeah I've checked the TODO list a couple of days ago, and the idea of working on the doc passed through my mind while struggling on some fishy details I couldn't master, or things that would have been much more understandable if they had been embellished with the extra infos I got on the forum (just like this one).

But how can I explain it ? I'll just be able to say "well mates, just maximize your light depth ". We got to find a link between this tip, and the real knowledge behind it, which the reader has to learn. I guess there is a lot of communication between Dev and Doc team ?

As a matter of fact, there are things in the TODO list that cross my personal tests list...so I think I'll tell you soon about things I'm aiming for. I also have some suggestions passing through my mind. So we'll see that by PM as you proposed.

I won't give up on a (little at least) starting up guide. And if I feel I finally got the knowledge I'll definitely submit one. You need to boost your community by collecting some fresh innocent people, that's how you will (at long term) settle the problem of the lac of materials in the database for example.
About the way it should be made, I don't know, I think it can be realized alone with some über-welcome tutorial files....then we could in the feature list say "refer to tutorial scene X to tweak that feature !" That would be so much more communicative and that seems similar to your proposal of setting examples to illustrate, but it's interactive and ready to use :p

For the tutorials, I'm following some right now and I think the current line-up is not efficient yet. There are (in my opinion) About hierarchy, about gaps, about up to date or not etc...for example, that wonderful soap material, with those cool lights etc, I'm dying to achieve it, but I think people need a bunch of preliminary tutorials that don't exist yet to be able to follow.

Whatever, for now I must insist on that fact : I'm beginning with Blender 2.5 (and I've never been a 2.4x killer) and about Lux, you must have guessed I'm a beginner.

[J the Ninja]

b.!!:

That's pretty much how I got started, both writing documentation and in the Lux community in general. Btw, my wiki edits are largely just me transcribing things the dev's say on the forum or in IRC. (Mostly IRC....and mostly from LordCrc )

Speaking of our IRC channel, it's a good place to hang out if you have questions about Lux/Blender/Max/3D-in-general, or just want some moral support while modeling. Plus you get to watch all the dev chatter, and occasionally if you ask nicely we give you cool stuff like SPPM builds. It's #luxrender on freenode.

[Abel]

But how can I explain it ? I'll just be able to say "well mates, just maximize your light depth ". We got to find a link between this tip, and the real knowledge behind it, which the reader has to learn. I guess there is a lot of communication between Dev and Doc team ?

Mr. the Ninja explained one possible process pretty well, a somewhat more complicated option is:

1 get interested in how a certain undocumented feature works
2 create a rendering, change the setting, see if it makes a difference
3 google for the feature, maybe other render engines have it too (or check the PBRT if you have access to it). Also search this forum.
4 if necessary, try a different material/scene/lighting scenario until the effect of the setting shows clearly
5a. if it still doesn't seem to do anything, post on the forum and ask something like "hi, this option doesn't seem to have any effect, what is it for?"
5b if it does, try more settings and try figure out the pattern
6a if you're completely sure how things work, update the documentation
6b if you're moderately sure and have some examples, post them on the forum for confirmation
7 create some images that show the effect nicely while using only a low resolution; render all of them to the same level or for the same time

One more starting point is following the modifications to the source code that developers make. In all scenario's the vital step is to get information out of the developers and put it into understandable and visible form.

I admit that the path and eye depth are not the easiest to figure out (in particular the difference between the two), but there are other tasks that are much easier, like creating examples of material settings: in that case, you can basically show that property X has effect Y on the image.

[b.!!]

@J the Ninja
SPPM !!! Wooooow !!

....
.
.
Some Super Power...mmmmh Particle Materi....erm...
...What is SPPM ?


Yeah I'll give IRC a shot ! (must have been something like....1/4 of my life I didn't get back to it...).

@Abel

For now, I'm doing something that doesn't seem to be in the list.

I'm actually working on light, trying to get visuals that would clearly reveal the difference between power, efficacy and gain. (Yeah these are measured in different units and even that dummy Einstein knows that Lumens just kick some serious bad ass , but...to me and a lot of people it's just like speaking Chinese and when I tweak those three parameters, I can't get to see with my eye (not my brain ) the difference I'm seeking).
I think it should be explained a little to people lost in all those parameters...I mean for now they just seem to be factors of each others to me but the gain is tweakable during render (and widly enough to re arrange things if you messed with the two other parameters).

But Then I'll have some common stuff with the Todo list to help with.

[Lord Crc]

What came to mind is that each material/texture page in the wiki could perhaps have a "tips and tricks" section giving brief information on things to be aware of and possible "out of the box" usages. It should be somewhat general, ie not listing every current limitation of hybrid fex, but more like the "be sure to increase maxdepth when using glass!" type stuff.

[dougal2]

"be sure to increase maxdepth when using glass!".

Maybe we should just increase the default maxdepth [in the exporters]?
I haven't noticed any particular speed penalty when using a maxdepth that is higher than strictly necessary.

[J the Ninja]

In my experiments, I've found pretty much no speed difference period, certainly no difference between 16/16 and say... 32/32. In fact, someone in IRC (I think LordCrc) talked me into setting up the luxblend25 MLT preset to use 32/32 instead of the default 16/16.

[jeanphi]

Hi,

You'll start to notice it when using very high values like 100 or 1000 which might ne required for SSS.

Jeanphi