[Bf-cycles] Procedural Noise clarity

[David]

Hi Kel M,

I was just going to suggest something similar, either that or...

produce a the unified noise texture node which contains a drop down menu to choose the most popular procedural textures and the regular numerical input boxes below.

Would produce a much simpler set of texture options.

Thank you,

David Black


PS: Thomas, speaking of nodes, did you manage to fix the bug, adding certain types of nodes always appearing outside of the node editor viewport, 

happens no matter how far out the node editor window is zoomed?  The two worst offenders are 'Texture Coordinate' and 'Mix Shader'.  Thank you.





________________________________
From: Kel M <kelvinshrek at gmail.com>
To: bf-cycles at blender.org
Sent: Thursday, 3 November 2011, 19:57
Subject: Re: [Bf-cycles] Procedural Noise clarity





On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Thomas Dinges <blender at dingto.org> wrote:

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 procedural is really needed, and some changes
    there 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 texture makes more sense than what we have now. Perhaps make the 'Clouds', 'Marble', etc. as a row of buttons at the top of the Noise texture panel, that would 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
    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> 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 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.blender.org/pipermail/bf-cycles/attachments/20111103/63abe29a/attachment.htm