well, I love 3 planar mapping in Cycles, I use it A LOT!
I’m just wondering if there is any plan to implement the same projection type in the displacement modifier too.
thanks.
What is 3 planar mapping?
You mean cube mapping?
If so, yeah, in displacement modifier.
It shouldn’t be too difficult.
Use displacement 32 or 16 bit map as color diffuse. (box mapped)
Bake it on a UV map.
Cycles baking doesn’t support any kind of bumps anyway (B&W).
Pity because we could also bake such maps as T nmaps directly.
Yeah some issues may be on such an approach, however, much better than seeing people around trying to use pre bakes nmaps- patterns. A little out of your topic, or… maybe not so.
@michalis: Cycles will bake bumps into normal maps if you plug them into the old displacement output. It isn’t very high quality, but it works.
@Piotr
Missed that, thank you.
It is always possible via BI, however, the lack of AA and some other unexpected random artifacts may occur.
@Secrop,
Thanks, though already mentioned it, as a possible workaround.
*** I’M TALKING ABOUT PRODUCTION PRODUCTIVITY, I ALREADY KNOW ALL THE POSSIBLE WORKAROUNDS ***
(If you check my sign, you see where I work, and I speak as a HEAVY Blender user)
Considering that Blender has the best sculpting tools after Zbrush (imo) having a good displacement modifier that support the cube projection would be great!
Can you imagine to put a noise texture, or a skin texture in the displacement modifier? than continue to sculpt on the model while keeping it in the modifier stack, wit hthe possibility of scale and fix whnever you want? a dream! even better than zbrush!
of course you can have almost the same result if you spend 5 mins to open the UV, but than you have seams and texture scale deformation in most of cases.
At the moment only the procedural maps working great with displacement modifier, no seams, good depth etc…
Anyway this is just an idea how to improve an already amazing and useful modifier.
here is the artifacts you get if you have the UV and put on it a tileable texture.
- You’re a well known artist, a famous one among blender users, at least. Please, you don’t need to use capital letters.
- I’m afraid, that your request is too much for the blender development team.
However, it is a very reasonable request, IMO your proposed workaround makes sense. As a bump we already use it. Tiled (seamless) textures, sometimes mixing two or three of them, controlled by Vpaint sets.
We had some kind of announcement, some questions on Vpaint further development. Let’s see.
-Multires modifier is an almost abandoned project.
-Vpaint abandoned so far
-displacement modifier more or less abandoned, waiting for the famous opensubd implementation, which I doubt if it has any practical use on sculpting.
-dynamic topology, after a year of excellent development, seems abandoned too.
Yeah, the behavior of sculpting brushes is probably better than in zbrush (IMHO of course)
And, we are facing the bureaucracy of Blender Foundation.
indeed!
thanks michalis! keep the good work 
Yeah, indeed
It’s my conspiracy theory. Why BF avoids further sculpting development?
right now besides UV and baking the seamless displacement, sculpting the texture directly into the mesh with the tile option is another alternative.
but really good idea, Max. would also be good if procedural textures can be displayed by the displacer mod in the viewport.
i haven’t tried the other UV unwrapping solutions for this, but i’m guessing it will work.
also straight blender textures like noise and cloud would be best for seamless stuff, and you mix them in the stack to get a procedural effect.