"Bald Eagle" <cre### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> I think you're right, and wrong again at the same time.
> > In some height_field thread I mentioned image_pattern was a 'different
> > beast'.
> You did, and now you've provided some more interesting data, but IIRC, you were
> bringing that up in a conversation with Kenneth Walker, not me. :D
(sorry if this is mistakenly wandering off-topic:)
There is also something in the link below that proved useful to *me* in 2020
(near the end of the thread), about pigment_pattern vs image_pattern, with the
former actually being more 'user-friendly' when coding complex textures. Near
the middle of the thread, IVE mentioned the reason, in response to a question I
had (not about height_fields though.)
Post a reply to this message