[Bf-cycles] Procedural Noise clarity

Brecht Van Lommel brechtvanlommel at pandora.be
Thu Nov 3 23:37:33 CET 2011


Hi,

My main concern at this point is getting a decent base set of texture
nodes, so we don't have to break compatibility later on. Once
something is in trunk it's much harder to remove a node compared to
adding one.. The other thing I'm working on is to get basic texture
coordinate transforms into the texture nodes, to make node setups
simpler.

I also agree that we should try avoid too complex nodes, but rather
try to make building blocks, the planet texture for example can
actually be done as a node group as far as I can see.

Brecht.

On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 10:46 PM, Daniel Salazar - 3Developer.com
<zanqdo at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd prefer a more modular system, given the nature of the node environment
> instead of complex megatextures
> Daniel Salazar
> 3Developer.com
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Sean Olson <seanolson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Since the conversation is on procedural textures, I'm curious what the
>> mindset is on including new ones?  I've had Farsthary's planet texture patch
>> in mind for quite a while now.
>> http://farsthary.wordpress.com/2010/11/28/the-planet-texture-patch/
>> -Sean
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>


More information about the Bf-cycles mailing list