3
$\begingroup$

We've already had a few questions come up where people have asked 'How do I make xyz material/texture?'

Do these questions count as tutorial-requests, and thus should be considered off-topic?

These questions, by their nature, seem to invite too much discussion (especially when either the word 'realistic' or 'best' is in the question). But I could reasonably see questions of this type being limited enough in scope that there is no concern.

I imagine that, if we allow this kind of question, it will be a very popular, especially among new users.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I would consider making material X to comprise of quite a number of steps, especially if there is to be explanation for options. $\endgroup$ – iKlsR May 24 '13 at 16:45
5
$\begingroup$

It all depends, if the user is asking how a specific setting works or how to get a better result from a node or feature then fine.

What could be considered lengthy is however, asking for details on how to construct complex shaders or materials from scratch. It is also a good idea to specify specifics about the material type you want. You should also not use words such as 'realistic' in your questions, this makes it subjective and too open to interpretation as everyone has their own opinion of what looks real or not.

In essence, all questions related to anything Blender are fine, just keep them concise, on-topic and explicit.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ This seems suspicious: blender.stackexchange.com/questions/247/… $\endgroup$ – JNF May 25 '13 at 19:09
  • $\begingroup$ @JNF its ok imho, the answer above was geared towards materials mostly. Mats and models are two different things, hard surface models take less tweaking to get good results and he explicitly asks about sharp hard surface models, its fairly easy enough. There wasn't much left for the mind to decipher and he also asks how to get them to be more realistic, not fully realistic, so some mild differences there. Adding some realism to something is different from asking for it to be realistic. TL/DR: It was explicit enough. $\endgroup$ – iKlsR May 25 '13 at 19:25

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .