[Bf-cycles] Procedural Noise clarity

[Daniel Salazar - 3Developer.com]

@Constantin animate the offset. in cycles use a vector mapping node

Daniel Salazar
3Developer.com


On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 5:18 AM, Constantin Rahn <conz at vrchannel.de> wrote:
>
> 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
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-cycles mailing list
> Bf-cycles at blender.org
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-cycles