[Bf-cycles] Procedural Noise clarity
Daniel Salazar - 3Developer.com
zanqdo at gmail.com
Thu Nov 3 21:32:59 CET 2011
Is there any interesting open source procedural texture library out there?
On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Brecht Van Lommel <
brechtvanlommel at pandora.be> wrote:
> Just to be clear here, the Cycles texture nodes are completely
> separate from the blender textures. While they are practically
> identical now, they don't have to be. Materials and shaders are very
> different anyway, so textures changing as well seems reasonable to me.
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 8:57 PM, Kel M <kelvinshrek at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Thomas Dinges <blender at dingto.org>
> >> 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
> >> won't hurt.
> > Well, you make a good point there. I'm not saying that developers should
> > just stop editing everything, just to think about what kind of effects it
> > would have. And yeah, after thinking about it more, a unified noise
> > makes more sense than what we have now. Perhaps make the 'Clouds',
> > etc. as a row of buttons at the top of the Noise texture panel, that
> > alleviate confusion. :)
> >> 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
> >> 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>
> >>> 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
> >>> 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
> >>> not have done 2.5, because compared to 2.4 all the buttons are
> >>> ;-)
> >> --
> >> Thomas Dinges
> >> Blender Developer, Artist and Musician
> >> www.dingto.org
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Bf-cycles mailing list
> >> Bf-cycles at blender.org
> >> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-cycles
> > _______________________________________________
> > Bf-cycles mailing list
> > Bf-cycles at blender.org
> > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-cycles
> Bf-cycles mailing list
> Bf-cycles at blender.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Bf-cycles