I’m trying to figure out if I’m misunderstanding something in the docs, or if maybe they need to be updated. From my experience using direct and collection-based bindings, it has seemed to me that direct bindings are stronger.
However, in the Bound Material Resolution description, #4 states:
At any given prim, the collection-based bindings are considered to be stronger than the direct bindings. This reflects our belief that the combination would appear primarily to define a “fallback” material to be used by any child prims that are not targeted by a more specific assignment
The attached scene has direct binding and collection-based bindings targeting /World/ShaderBall/sphere1; the collection lives on /World/ShaderBall. USD and Hydra both show /World/Materials/MaterialBlue as the resolved material, but based on the docs, shouldn’t MaterialGreen be stronger, as it’s collection-based? If I author the collection on sphere, then I do see MaterialGreen “win”; but that seems a bit impractical, as the collection is likely to target many prims, so it probably lives on the model root, or some other common ancestor?
Am I missing something, or is that maybe an out-of-date description?
Thanks!
ResolveMaterialsTest.usda (4.2 KB)