Filter Forge Evolution and Filter 'Lifetime'

I'm wondering what the Filter Forge team's take is on the question of filter 'lifetime'. As Filter Forge evolves, components become obsolete and are replaced by updated versions (like the Blend component, for example). Certain tricks and workarounds (the beloved snippets) might become obsolete, as the introduction of new components simplifies what took large node-branches in older versions into a single node (take the Frame component as an example here). In short, as Filter Forge evolves, the filters age...

So, should authors update their filters when these contain obsolete components? Should they rebuild the parts of their filters which have become technically obsolete? And what if the original author has left his filters orphaned? Will there be an automatic replacement of obsolete components in the future that doesn't require the author to manually update the filter? Will the filter ranking system take care of this, with obsolete or orphaned filters slowly sinking into oblivion as next-generation filters emerge?

Quote
Crapadilla wrote: Will the filter ranking system take care of this, with obsolete or orphaned filters slowly sinking into oblivion as next-generation filters emerge?

I don't think that penalizing filters that have obsolete components is a good idea. The basic principle of the ranking system will remain unchanged: if a filter is useful for FF users, its author should be rewarded -- regardless of what's inside this filter.

How about automating mass replacement of obsolete filter components with their newer versions?

Say I have about two dozen obsolete blend and switch components in a complex filter. In that case replacing all those and manually redoing connections that go all over the place can become quite tedious.

Will FF provide some tool or option to automate this in the future?

i wouldnt want to see an auto-update of replacing components unless you could do this as an optional thing. i had a filter altered rather badly when we changed from one version to another and i wouldnt want this put on complete automatic.

as for the library, just my wish here, but i think the best of the best would go in the release version, but that the library itself would remain intact with ALL filters available. when you download the current beta version, you ARE NOT downloading all the filters as well. so, why invalidate the work that's in the library? you dont HAVE to download the entire library to get the engine. the engine and the library are separate entities.

so, if FF comes out in a boxed version, maybe put in two cd's, one with the engine and one with a selection of filters and then a link to the library. (you could probably do it all on one cd, but you get the idea).

Craig

cool beans

Craig

Well, this just answered most of my question. Except, what about people who are still using version 1. If I update my obsolete modules will they no longer be able to use my filter?

Quote
Morgantao wrote: Also JFFE, you don't have to sift through all 9000 filters. You can either browse only EPs, or use the search function to find something specific that you need.

Or easier yet, 6 months after a filter has 'low usage' ranking, if it isn't updated/improved, then it gets deleted from the library. Of course it could just be resubmitted, but the # of people who wouldn't do that, would help keep at least the worst of the worst out ha-ha.

jffe

Quote
one man's junk is another man's treasure

I have to agree with this statement. When I first got FF v1 I didn't see the use of a lot of the filters. I am not a game or web designer, but instead a craft designer and hobbyist. So all the filters aimed at game design or web design are of little use to me. So the question would be who decides what is junk and what is treasure? If high use is the rule of thumb, I would only be down to 3 filters in the library. LOL I hope my low use filters are used by someone out there. That's the point of sharing in the first place isn't it? I don't think leaving out casual users or people not in the "web" main stream of design is the way to go. Just my humble opinion.

Quote
jffe wrote: 6 months after a filter has 'low usage' ranking, if it isn't updated/improved, then it gets deleted from the library.would help keep at least the worst of the worst out ha-ha

I am sorry, but I do not agree at all with this, Are you saying that ALL the filters that have had a low usage for 6 months are the worst of the worst of the filter library??? Are you sure of this ??

Does this means that ONLY the most used and that are most liked by the GREAT mayority is what is really worth and the minory that are not liked must be deleted because they are not popular enough ????

The quality of a filter is ONLY measured for the popularity and usage rank ?

What happens if I really like and love very much a filter, that is considered weird and not very useful, BUT I personally have found a way to use it in a very good way, surely if I am the only one to use it will never rise the usage of the filter enough to make it an average usage and even less a high usage.

So does this mean that a really wonderful and useful filter that I like much, is really the worst because it has a ranking o low usage ?

Quote
one man's junk is another man's treasure

This is absolulety true. For some persons, or probably for the a great mayority a filter could be not liked and not useful at all, BUT probably for a small minority it could be really a treasure and a wonderful filter.

Quote
SpaceRay wrote: What happens if I really like and love very much a filter, that is considered weird and not very useful, BUT I personally have found a way to use it in a very good way, surely if I am the only one to use it will never rise the usage of the filter enough to make it an average usage and even less a high usage.

Once you download it, then you have it, so keep it, you'd still have 6 whole months to check for new filters. I mean surely you wander by here at least that often no ? Just because it gets removed from the library doesn't mean *you* lose it, just means it's removed to make room for the next 6-7 out of 10 filters that will someday become low usage and clog up the library ha-ha.

jffe

Another reason I can think of in favor of keeping "horrible" filters, is for new users (like me), to help learning how to create filters. Most of the uber-super-totaly good filters are also VERY complicated, and have just about 900 more nodes and components than I can handle. And don't get me started on those filters that use scripts!

Morgantao - One word for you = snippets.

jffe

Added : And I'm sure everyone can relax, FF isn't likely to change the filter library anytime soon, it's been suggested 500 different ways, and like 1 of those ways maybe got done waayyy back. Vlad is very much just not interested in that stuff ha-ha.

Quote
Or easier yet, 6 months after a filter has 'low usage' ranking, if it isn't updated/improved, then it gets deleted from the library. Of course it could just be resubmitted, but the # of people who wouldn't do that, would help keep at least the worst of the worst out ha-ha.

I don't think that's a very good idea at all. What if I made a texture for goat hoofs, it could the greatest and most photo-realistic goat hoof texture possible. Modders making skins for Microsoft goat simulator , could declare it to be the final word in goat hoof graphics, however it certainly be low usage, as sadly, goat simulators are not very popular, (they are just overshadowed by the sheep simulators that everyone prefers), and so, under your plan, goat artists everywhere would soon have to put up with substandard hooves, and would curse the day they wasted their money on Filter Forge, as their only use for it was goat hooves.

Quote
Mongoose King wrote: Microsoft goat simulator

----Wait, do Linux users know about this ?

jffe