Yea I don’t understand the hostility either. Of course, new options to generate procedural patterns are always nice. I think the pattern/ngon generation aspect alone looks great (imho a weak part of shader nodes), and it makes some cool swirly things as well. My concern is understanding better the goal of this texture. Right now it seems a little “jack of all trades”, not too sure what it wants to be.
I agree, quite the opposite in fact ! but I also understand being wary of a new thing that hasn’t been proven anywhere else, being enthusiastically added by a new guy and being named after them, and adding maintenance burden to a program developed by a rather small team. If anything this needs testing… and they provide a build, so, yea ! I’ll find some time to look more into it
Yea, I agree, let’s not. Let’s re-read the thread in question instead.
There was on one hand the utmost consideration and patience from @Hoshinova, fixing bugs as they went and addressing concerns in a very reasonable way -and on the other, some of the most disgraceful reactions, to the point of libel and ad hominem.
Starting off this here thread with setting a similar atmosphere is frankly not cool @joseph.
Well… if someone calls for some action there will always be some people who think different.
@joseph and @thorn tried to explain why this might be not a good idea… based on what they “learnt” about replacing voronoi. This might be a bit “hasty” as good old fellow Fangorn would decribe it, but they clearly stated that this is their opinion.
Weirdly enough they were accused to spread false information even when they gave some reference. This may be based on some “questionable” (?) information about the wonder-voronoi texture (i mean voronoi is voronoi and yes there are some quicker algorithm but to archieve the voronoi… ) ??? IDK…
Anyway:
Even if they may be “biased” about this, this is a discussion. The OP is also biased because it is his project.
And in general: Only because someone wants to constribute this doesn’t mean that it is “good”.
I’m not saying this is bad at all but maybe if everyone is looking at this “new node” proposal (as i understand this yet) the discussion might be a bit more civil ?? And one may agree to some points ?
We do not want to shout down people with different opinions here do we ?
Also:
This is mainly an “advert” for the thread on devtalk. So (again) no reason to fight each other here. Because this doesn’t affect any decison made on devtalk anyway.
The Pull Request doesn’t implement the entire Raiko Texture, so the builds from the buildbot can’t read the first 2 “Prototype demonstration .blend files”.
The first 2 “Prototype demonstration .blend files” need to be opened using the Blender build from the .zip file above them, not the one from the buildbot.
The relevant “Demonstration .blend file” for this Pull Request that can be read by the Blender build from the buildbot is only the last one.
Since this is a little confusing I’ll ask Raiko to remove the .blend files that need the .zip build to work.
I do not appreciate the number of people putting words in my mouth I did not say. Let me be perfectly clear.
In my personal opinion, Hoshinova’s previous work on shader nodes has been far from transparent and, as a result of conflicting messaging from the beginning and end of projects, I choose to look at any future Hoshinova project promises with a strong degree of skepticism.
This is my opinion, one I am fully entitled to express at my pleasure, provided I do so civilly and without stooping to insults. You are all welcome to your own personal opinions, but you are not welcome to twist my words and disparage my opinions in an uncivil way with personal insults.
I edited the Pull Request to make it more clear. When you download the “Demonstration .blend file” now it should work with the Blender build from the buildbot.
I am and have always been devoted to clearly communicating my work and intentions by answering almost every question or comment mentioning me and by always giving updates should implementation goals change.
The fact that the final implementation may differ from the initial proposal is because I take user feedback very seriously and may change things if the user feedback demands so.
It is unfortunate that there appears to have been misunderstandings in the past, but let’s leave the past be the past and look at this project with a fresh and open mind shall we?
Update: The original Pull Request was written in a way such that it was hard to understand what’s actually being implemented. It has since been updated to be clearer.
Apart from that the original Pull Request had files that were not directly related to the actual Pull Request (which were those that had “prototype” in their name). These have also been removed.
If you have downloaded files with “prototype” in their name please download the ones without “prototype” in their name.
I’ve changed my phrasing to be clearer on what I wanted to say. The original Pull Request had 2 sets of files with very similar names, but 1 of them wasn’t directly related to the Pull Request.
If the files you’ve downloaded contains “prototype” in their name, then they are unrelated and shouldn’t be used.
The pull request currently has 4 linked files (not counting pics/vids) that don’t have “prototype” in their name: elliptical_remap_node_groups.blend, Raiko Texture Components User Documentation.pdf, raiko_texture_components_example_use_cases.blend, and Raiko Texture Components User Documentation Old.pdf (which seems to be the same as Raiko Texture Components User Documentation.pdf since that’s what downloaded). Since I can’t tell which of these used to have “prototype” in their name I’ve downloaded all of them. Thanks for your help.
The names of the files haven’t changed, only a few unrelated ones were removed. So all files that are still linked in the Pull Request are the new ones.
To make things easy there are 3 files that can be downloaded:
A user documentation PDF file and 2 .blend files. The ones that are linked in the current Pull Request are the correct ones.
makeing a video where the advantages of any new procedural texture might be explaned so that someone can imagine how “cool” and/or easy this would be to use… might be a better idea to “present” this pull request on devtalk or here…
I often see that users do not understand the bascis of some noise texture or for example voronoi and the duality to delaunay… or some more in sight on weighted voronoi…
So this new one could used be used to make some “abstract” ocean or flame texture… but people did this with for example this ocean already over 10 years ago (and guess what… with voronoi):
…this styleized fire:
…or this more “realistic” mentioned here:
…
I do not want to take your (both) ambition down… but artists have done fire and water for years with the tools the had at hand and to convince people to vote for some new feature this should be more “grounded”.
For example it might be interesting to see what the shader setup for this looks like… and looking tint the docu…
People also did polygonal shapes (just one example):
So you might explain how much faster (?) the R-gons are (except from beeing round) or something.
The R-spheres:* well i do not know how much of interest a 3D shape is to use in 2D textures… again: some explanations/example.
R-sphere-fields: i might have not understood this yet…or:
Radial Tiling:
So you can till the above pattern… and waht about others ??
Elliptical…:
Doesn’t use users the flao curve for this ??
Linear system solver:
ups… okay…
So you might think everyone can look into the experimental builds and i appreciate the fact that they seems to be multiplatform… but a in depth explantion with examples might be better for this “presentation for a new feature (or vote for it)”.
( In fact i can’t use even blender 4… yet because of the need of OpenGL 4… but that’s another story. )
Nevertheless:
When advertising “the next big thing” (<- exaggerating here ) it might be more suited to simple show and explain the advantages instead of letting everyone try by themself. The count of 7 for the link to the pull request ( ) might speak for itself. In fact you didn’t link any devtalk discusssion about this new/partly one expect the one where some communication problems (!?) arised from.
You might even try to break this into smaller parts… for example your R-gons seems to be nice…
) it might be more suited to simple show and explain the advantages instead of letting everyone try by themself. The count of 7 for the link to the pull request ( 
) might speak for itself. In fact you didn’t link any devtalk discusssion about this new/partly one expect the one where some communication problems (!?) arised from.