[Bf-cycles] Procedural Noise clarity

Thomas Dinges blender at dingto.org
Thu Nov 3 20:46:50 CET 2011

Well, we have not changed the procedural textures in years!!
I don't like the argument that developers should stop doing changes just 
due to documentation.
Improving our current procedurals is really needed, and some changes 
there won't hurt.

We always have to make sure we do better. If these changes simplify code 
and usability, do it.
And I agree with Daniel and Brecht here, we have some textures that 
nearly do the same, unifying them is a good way forward.
And again, it's not that we change such things every few weeks. ;-)

Am 03.11.2011 20:40, schrieb Kel M:
> We're not talking about Cycles. I don't think Brecht or Daniel even 
> mentioned it.
> And yes, 2.5 wreaked havoc, but the benefits far outweighed any 
> documentation problems. As for reorganizing the textures, well, that 
> can be debated, cost vs. benefits.
> And, beginners don't follow development, or read release logs.
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Thomas Dinges <blender at dingto.org 
> <mailto:blender at dingto.org>> wrote:
>     Tutorials are valid for the version they have been written for.
>     If a Tutorial is done with 2.60, it's nice if it's still 100%
>     accurate for 2.61, but imho this should not restrict us from doing
>     changes. We have to document the changes well in the release logs
>     and then it is fine.
>     You could bring the same argument for lots of changes actually.
>     Should we not have done 2.5, because compared to 2.4 all the
>     buttons are elsewhere? ;-)
Thomas Dinges
Blender Developer, Artist and Musician


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.blender.org/pipermail/bf-cycles/attachments/20111103/29b68fc4/attachment.htm 

More information about the Bf-cycles mailing list