Jerome <ber### [at] inamecom> wrote:
: * it's easier to use for those who are used to the old one
: (and it doesn't change anything for the others);

  Why should it be easier to make a (new) object with your function than with
the current function? I don't understand.

: * it gives more variation than Nathan's fix

  But is it a good thing? You say it as if it was an advantage, but I don't
see why it's that.
  AFAIK, what Nathan did was not to fix the function itself, but the scaling.
The function is exactly the same as before only that now the "amplitude" is
correct. So there was nothing wrong with the function itself and thus he
didn't fix anything about the function.
  As you said, if one want more variation it can be done with the color map.
What if one does NOT want more variation, but the old regular smooth noise3d?
I think it will be a bit hard to do with your function.

: 	So I guess, my question is: both changes (mine and
: Nathan's) have advantages and drawbacks

  Sorry, I don't see any drawbacks in the corrected noise3d in megapov.

, which would you
: prefer to see included in pov?

  I don't think they are mutually exclusive. Both could be included and
allowed to be used at the same time. The question is if it's needed.
  I still think that your function should be renamed if included.

  I don't see any need for this function to replace the current noise3d,
as well as I don't see any need for keeping the old buggy normal pattern
scale.

-- 
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message