Quote from: mhaze on July 17, 2013, 05:46:37 AM
TU, the real advantage over the powerfractal is that you can precisely sculpt the terrain or feature you need to realize an idea. Most of the time, I spend hours trying to achieve something akin to idea in my head, now I can achieve exactly what I want it in minutes. Think of a vector map as a sophisticated HF. My beach pic in image sharing begins to show what I mean, the piece I'm working on could not be achieved with powerfractals.
Yes I understand that concept from the beginning of this topic, that's not the problem I'm having.
It's one of the reasons I found a recent CGSociety discussion so good, where one guy started to ask "what the f.... are we doing for years? Working with polygons, UV's etc. It's all such a pain, why the hell are we still doing it this way?" And I couldn't agree more and I suppose it's quite a bit what Ulco meant with "I want to be able to do this procedurally" because then you won't need to worry about UV's and all those other ancient concepts where this whole industry has its foundations built on.
Ghehe, this almost sounds like a rant
I'm mostly very confused about the fragmented app-specific discussion and all the UV-stuff involved.
Possibly together with the lack of examples and properly described workflow.
I'm following this at a distance so to say, as I'm not actively experimenting and that definitely means that it can be quite hard to follow from time to time. For me at least.
The fact is that TG procedural noise is not "directable" and that's why you paint maps.
I can create a "build vector" node and attach a colour-PF to each of its axis-inputs and I would create a procedural vector displacement map.
So it's not that you can not do it, but that it is rather impossible because of the lack of "art direction" you can give to your fractals.
That was partially the point I was making with my previous point.