[Bf-cycles] Procedural Noise clarity

[Constantin Rahn]

Hi,

would it be possible to add a 4th dimension to the noise textures, to 
animate the textures?
Actually you can only animate the x,y,z values, which is not enought for 
cases where you use all three dimensions for mapping. (eg. sphericall 
mapping for a sun or planets or 3d textures for volumes). Would be nice 
for the cycles textures and for blender textures.

Conz

Am 03.11.2011 21:31, schrieb Brecht Van Lommel:
> 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
>