[Bf-cycles] Procedural Noise clarity

[Kel M]

Try these:

http://libnoise.sourceforge.net/examples/textures/index.html
http://sourceforge.net/projects/fxgen/


On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Daniel Salazar - 3Developer.com <
zanqdo at gmail.com> wrote:

> Is there any interesting open source procedural texture library out there?
>
> Daniel Salazar
> 3Developer.com
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Brecht Van Lommel <
> brechtvanlommel at pandora.be> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Brecht.
>>
>>
>> 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>
>> 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 procedurals 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
>> >
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/e6a32de8/attachment.htm