Thorsten,
I see that I have not been able to properly explain my points.
Basically, the 'new' trend in 3d authoring software platforms (at least those used in professional 3d world, the world into which I work) are offering the modeller a quick way to work with textures, achieving realistic renderings by using 'nodes' (Blender's Cycles Render is an example).
I'll try to summarize the very basic workflow:
A) The UV mapping is done
independently from a Texture; the vertex data are stored in 'datablocks', which will be referred to by the materials 'nodes'.
B) Inside the Node Editor, the modeller just sets up the required effect, using a concatenation of simple (but very powerful and effective) nodes [for instance the fuselage effect is achieved by regulating the 'Anisotropic Node' through five values (Colour, Roughness, Anisotropy, Rotation and a Vector (Normal or Tangent), to wich is added a 'Glossy node' regulated by two values (Colour, Roughness) and a Vector (Normal)].
the two nodes are then just 'mixed' before being output to the surface shader (the modeller may regulate the mixing amount of the two nodes).
C) The node set-up works fine
even without Texture, just using the relevant Colours instances of the nodes (later mixed)
D) Now, IF ... IF a Texture (any Texture: Color, Normal, Reflection, Ambient Occlusion, Displacement, or whatever) is used as an Input (inside the Node Editor) for the two Colour slots (Anisotropic adn Glossyness), ... then, the affected surface will use that Texture data (Colour or Not Colour) on that surface.
That's it. The fuselage effect that you see in the images above is WITHOUT texture applied: the reflections are given by Ambient Occlusion of the surrounding environment (the Hangar structure, or the surrounding Sky).
Should I need to fine tune the effect, Blender offers a variety of more sophisticated shaders/nodes to the purpose.
The final outcome is this: I work with way much less Texture files, and -
absolutely important in the modeller workflow - forgetting to place the actual UVs, scale them, regulate their colour tone, their brightness, and/or contrast and so forth (going back and forth in Photoshop). You create the Textures needed, and then you 'work' with them inside a single tool.
This is a major trend in ALL 3d professional Software, which of course use this 'nodes' approach with some variations .
The advantage is clear: time and fine tuning.
Now, this is Blender, and I'm not pretending that FG 'should' follow this trend; but, as a Pro modeller, I would love to see - in time - the Simulation platform to take it into account.
Why?
Easy of use, less Textures, much more time for proper modelling, and realistic look.
The 'nodes' shaders in Blender are just Python scripts, crunching numbers. And it's not my field of interest.
Might it be that someone would one day be interested in exploring, testing, developing this approach so to offer FG a more realistic models' look ? ... (of course keeping the compass about performance and what is feasible in FG, or not).
I dont' know.
The reason why I'm '
wasting time' into Blender materials it's because I can quickly check for modelling errors inside Blender (holes, smooth creasing of curved surfaces, appropriate light bounces and so forth): a major pain in the neck is to actually export the model to .ac file, then check it for conversion errors by the .ac plugin (it happens sometimes, and you're certainly aware how boring is to go through an .ac file made of 600 parts looking for the culprit), then back into Blender to tune things up and/or adding other parts, then back to the exporter...
The application of Anisotropy and properTest- Lighting ensure the modeller a comfortable workbench for his long task...
Regarding this:
I'm not sure what you're talking about here - as I mentioned abvove, all these /are/ in fact written to the model and used by FG.
I clarify: in FG (in the .ac file) you can only use the rbg values for the general effect; BUT:
1) we cannot instruct FG about the mixing rate of those effects (at least not easily)
2) and - more important - we do not dispose of the 'fancy tools' widely used today in professional 3d World (Anisotropy, Translucency, Fresnel, Volumetric emission, Layer Wight, Scaling, Colour control, Exposure ... just to name a few).
I will of course try to use ASL Settings with the new
Seattle (once ready!) ... but I fear that true, natural, reflection won't be possible in FG at the moment.
Which is a pity. Ray tracing - you are right - might be behind this; but, who knows...perhaps someone much more competent than me will devise something useful for that ...
Actually FG models lack realistic reflection, and this is something which we all miss a lot in our beautiful platform.
BTW, I've seen your Space Shuttle Project: just great !... Should you like to actually see&check how the model would look once properly "materialized" (with proper natural lighting, on ground and in space), I'll be glad to help.
Last, but not least, I concur about the Texture sharing the identical UV mapping.
But I do hope to have better specified what I meant in my previous post.
Thank you, Thorsten; it's always a pleasure to read you.
Best regards,
I-NEMO