[Bf-cycles] Procedural Noise clarity

Brecht Van Lommel brechtvanlommel at pandora.be
Fri Nov 4 19:27:18 CET 2011


4D noise is usefu and it's possible to add this, probably using a Time
input socket. Animating the XYZ doesn't work well in e.g. a 3D volume
because you're just moving the texture then. I won't add this now, but
can be added later at any time.

Brecht.

On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Daniel Salazar - 3Developer.com
<zanqdo at gmail.com> wrote:
> @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
> _______________________________________________
> 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