Ok, I thought about this a bit, and think I can explain my self just a little bit better. So here goes nothing.
As I said in the OP, I am playing with the disc object in a number of ways. One of which is a null object/control object. Yes I see that TG has a null node. but it is limited in many ways.
The reason I was trying to see what I could get away with, with the disc as a control is that while, yes, the node system does provide a lot of freedom to create. That freedom happens in a series of strictly defined (and not always well explained) rules, the nodes them selves.
What I wanted to touch on was the idea that the rules could be bypassed. or at least, the entire context of those rules could be altered. And the disc object is shapped in a way that lends its self to what i'm doing anyway.
So for example, what would happen if it was added to the disc object, an atmo input? In fact, why not allow the disk, plane and so on, to have the same power as the default planet, within the confines of their simple shapes?
For example, In another thread, I asked about the idea of a planet in the shape of a cube. I was told that getting an atmo cube shaped would be hard at best. Because an atmo is inherently spherical. That response made sense, its true after all. Yes? Yes.
But if a plane object, was on its own, able to have an atmo like the default planet, and you took six of them and formed a cube, then you end up very close to a cube with a cubic shaped atmo. Yeah there would still be a lot to mess with, but the things that need manipulation are now there.
OK OK! Not everyone is going to have much interest in a cube planet from a superman comic book! But look at all that extra freedom! That cube world is just one idea from one person. I have fear of what others in this community could do with more freedom with nodes!
As for the disc object.
Why must a CG atmo
always be inherently reality based? For example, why cant the atmo be programed to happen in a torus that wraps around the disc? Why not?
And if any of that were possible than just as a planet can be placed in or around another, and then made invisible. couldn't also the simple objects? And what kind of control would that add to something like clouds?.. That is, where all the nodes used to build up any kind of cloud scape you can think of, land in a single "end node" that allows for full control over all position and orientation of the clouds, separate and apart from the default planet (in terms of what controls the clouds, and where there nodes connect to)... As a null object should do. Or at least as null objects do in other soft that I have used.
^^ how about meteorites? If you don't like the other examples. A rock object, for my last example, that has its own clouds! Thats basically what I did here in AE. But rather than a rock (which would have been better) I just used the "null":
https://vimeo.com/24949961And after seeing Hannes asteroid video and a number of TGCs TGDs in the forum, really think this could be a good simplifier.
Now just a word on the idea of reality, in the context of my examples above.
To the best of my knowledge there is not, and never will be a cube planet in our universe. Yes I do really accept that, as mush as it pisses me off.
But I don't, my self, use terragen to recreate reality so much as use it to make fantasy believable. Usually that means making something reality based and simply putting it in a fantastical context. But even when you stay with-in reality completely, who is going to complain about more freedom to create, with more control over what is created?
I realize I jumped around in this post a bit. I hope that you guys will forgive the mixing of ideas. But just to be clear this post and thread are related to actual TG projects that Im playing with, where I find the conventions in the forum don't quite make what I want possible. Or make them really hard and time consuming.
So there you have it.
Thanks for reading.