> Nieminen Juha <war### [at] punarastascstutfi> wrote...
> >   3) I really didn't mean this. What I meant was that there should be a
> >      way to scale the pattern independently of the normal. This means that
> >      after scaling the pattern it should be possible to scale the whole
> >      normal statement (which would scale both the pattern and the normal).
> >      I don't like the "scale pattern or normal, but not both" type of
> >      scaling.

Ah, now I see. Yes, being able to do either as needed would be better
than one or the other.
 

And Nathan Kopp responded:
> I think adding a 'pattern' pattern would be useful.  That would look like
> this:
> 
>     normal{
>       pattern{
>         crackle
>         scale 10  // scale goes here
>       } 0.5
>     }

Well, I'll comment that I think this could be a more logical general
syntax. If "pattern" could be used anywhere a function { pigment {...} }
is now used, so it is consistant in its usage (or even if were more 
like "function { pattern { ... } }" ) Calling it a pigment function 
implies it affects the pigmentation somehow, when in fact it was
just meant to imply it uses the texture patterns, so changing 
the syntax to use "pattern" in place of "pigment" would be more
self explanatory.


Charles

Post a reply to this message