Do we want to keep the Multi/Single GGX distinction here? I kept it in for compatibility, but since this is a new node, I'd prefer just having a single GGX option that enables it.
The description here appears to be identical to the Glossy BSDF, we might want to add something about specifically modeling the reflectivity of metals.
Feels like we should do const bool is_physical = (fresnel_method == SHD_CONDUCTOR); and then use that instead of repeating it four times.
I'd say "Real part of the conductor's IOR" and "Complex part of the conductor's IOR". The entire purpose of this mode is for users who know what that is, I wouldn't worry about a simple intuitive explanation here (especially since there is none as far as I know).
I went ahead and updated it, hope that's fine.
Changes:
- Rebase to latest
main - Moved radius out of kernel
- Cleaned up projection code
- Fixed inverse projection
- Applied formatting …
- Added separate input and output controls (similar to e.g. GIMP white balance) for more flexibility
- Added color pickers for both controls
- Moved the matrix computation to the Operation -…
Actually, we might want to extend it so that there's a "from temperature/tint" and a "to temperature/tint" option? In the case of the view transform the target is of course the display white…
@blender-bot build
Regarding __KERNEL_METAL__, the current state of the math headers is a bit of a mess there. About once a week we have a case where some PR or commit fails to build on Metal…
You can see it by hovering on the icon next to the last commit before buildbot was called. It's no longer shown on the bottom of the page right now since there are newer commits since then.
@ble…