As topic title says, masks don't mask the generated displacement by the image map, gotta use a surface layer.
Maybe because once it's displaced, it's out of the range of the image mask.... Can you provide an example of the problem?
Quote from: Dune on March 14, 2021, 01:42:31 AMMaybe because once it's displaced, it's out of the range of the image mask.... Can you provide an example of the problem?
Just used a image map using it's scale, providing a 1000x1000 area, and masked with a simple shape at 1000x1000. Maybe I needed to use the fit feature, but seems unintuitive, especially when same deal as a child is maskable with the same simple shape.
I probably don't understand your problem, because if you have an image map of 1000x1000, and mask it by simple shape of same size, nothing would and should happen mask-wise.
Quote from: Dune on March 14, 2021, 03:24:19 AMI probably don't understand your problem, because if you have an image map of 1000x1000, and mask it by simple shape of same size, nothing would and should happen mask-wise.
Of course it would when you then apply edge softness to then have a stitched image map similar to heightmap gen. I'll upload an example.
Update: But the issue is because "Fit to mask" is checked by default, which I remember discussing this before. And still don't understand why this is default behavior. So no example needed but will upload anyway. I feel this should be disabled. I can't even think of a reason this would be helpful with images/terrains? Usually you are masking within texture space and final space.
I see now. I never use 'fit', so always have to turn it off indeed. For some workflows it is probably useful, but never for mine.