Materials & Asset Management

[HelmetFire]

Ladies & Gentlemen,

Should materials be named for their assets or the thing they’re applied to? I like the idea of a material being named for what it’s applied to as its name would serve as a reminder to the user that unless they want to edit the properties and assets for “Railing - Steel – Galvanized” too, they’d better duplicate or create new. If the latter is your preference is it better to organize them by material or by element? For instance; “Railing – Steel – Galvanized” or “Steel – Galvanized – Railing.”

What if a material will be coated in real life, like a painted steel railing. Would you…

•have a material for the steel railing
•have a material for the paint
•assign the steel material to the railing
•paint the railing

Or, would you create a material that had the physical asset of steel and the appearance asset of paint and assign it to the railing?

Thanks.

[david_peterson]

i think they're both good.
For example you could have materials named say Front West Railing and the Asset would still be steel galv. You could then have a material Back South Railing with the Asset being the same same Steel Galv. When exported to something like Lumion you could then have them render as different materials.
In general I think you want the material name to be tied to the Material keynote value, and the asset applied to the physical appearance.
Like wise you could have PT-1, PT-2, PT-3. They're all paint, but might be different shades of white or semi gloss vs flat.
Just my thoughts.