I will point out that a long time complaint with the Texture Filter default, from a significant number of customers, is that Texture Filter blurs the texture and makes it not suitable for closeups. Fast Mip-Map was designed to give you the better resolution for closeups without sacrificing speed, and most of you also care about speed.
The problem with the seam lines showing up goes away, in most cases, by getting a little further and/or a little closer to the subject. (Usually only a nudge.) Carrara doesn’t have an equivalent to shading rate that you have in DS or Poser, and setting that at 1 in either DS or Poser gives you the same results you are seeing in Carrara with Poser/DS Content, and since the content with the issue was designed for those render engines….
Thanks for commenting on this issue.
So far in my experience, and of course it is limited at this point, particularly with the Genesis and Genesis 2 textures I have available, the seam lines do not go away easily and certainly not with just a nudge. I have had far better results with many of the V4 textures (and I have no idea why – no surprise there) I have when applying them to a Genesis character. Many of those textures do NOT have any seams at all regardless of the distance the model is from the camera.
As far as complaints from customers go those types of things are subsets, of subsets, etc.
I know that I never saw a poll on this subject and I know I was never asked. In addition, IMHO, as more and more users become aware of this forced change, I believe more and more users will be upset over it. There are already some members attesting to that in this thread.
I remember this type of “reasoning” was used when then launched New Coke – how did that work out?
For my part I was totally unaware of issues with the textures being blurred and not suitable for close-ups. I have seen a great many close-up images posted on this forum (by PhilW and others) and did not see the blurring you speak of, nor did anyone complain of this issue along with the images they posted.
When these complaints were issued did the complainants say that they wanted a change to the default filtering method WITHOUT any way to choose another default method?
Did the complainants insist that they wanted Fast Mip Map without a way to easily pick and choose what object(s) it would be applied to?
Did the complainants want to have to spend hours and hours manually changing the Filtering on hundreds of shaders if they did NOT want Fast Mip Map?
I am not trying to argue for the sole use of one filtering method or another (or the merits and application thereof) but instead asking for an easy way for the end user to make the decision for themselves. Ideally the filtering method could be picked on a scene by scene basis and there would be the ability to easily pick a filtering method for different objects in a scene, so that one might have Fast Mip Map for objects in the distance and a different filter for close-up objects or any combination the user might prefer.
For my part I think it is important for the user to be able to make the choice and not have one method or the other forced upon them and not be penalized by a huge time suck if they do not want to use one method or another.
It should be all about choice and flexibility.