The equations Roughness = power(Lacunarity, -Dimension) and subtracting Detail by 1.0 and covers most of the cases, however there are many edge cases where other equations are needed. When converting files from 4.0 to 4.1 all cases get covered, which is why the node setups after conversion are much more complicated than just adding the 2 nodes that are in the node setup in the picture in the release notes.
However these aforementioned edge cases rarely occur in practice, so to not add further confusion I didnāt include all equations.
Thank you! I built it slightly differently, but I absolutely believe that your screenshot in the manual is going to help people who are trying to bridge the gap in the future.
No, I didnāt mean node groups. Just a way to create the noise texture node with different types directly.
I would like to bundle node group presets for different noise types at some point. But a preset that matches the old musgrave texture would not be one of them.
I thought āMusgrave Noiseā was a term used outside of blender as a standard noise type as well, so I thought it would be a useful abstraction to offer to users. And it still feels like it is, but itās possible this is because I used to experiment with ridged multifractals from Ken Musgraveās website back in the day.
If I look at āMusgrave Noiseā on google now it just blender results. This does skew my opinion about the desirabilty of a shipped nodegroup as the new Roughness input does work in a much more predictable way when just experimenting and having a built in nodegroup will probably have new users use that (while they would be better off using the new Roughness param directly). And if āMusgrave Noiseā is not a general term but just some blender quirk the only reason to have it would be to keep old tutorials valid and appease people who are very much used to the old parameters. Keeping old tutorials valid is imo not a valid reason to add backwards compatibility stuff to blender and I guess most people very used to the old node would just one time create/download a nodesetup and happily/grudgingly (cross out whatever you donāt like ) use that.
However I still think itās going to cause a lot of grumbling in the #support channel, but weāll probably survive.
edit: āappeaseā is not really the correct word. Iām in no way implying they are not right in wanting to use what they know! I donāt really know how to better word itā¦
My question is - whatās the actual harm in including it as a shipped nodegroup?
Is it something more thanā¦ just a disliking the use of an artist using musgrave noise? Thatās not meant to sound like a personal attack, Iāve just no other way to phrase it.
Over in sculpting, theyāre coming up with a couple dozen preset brushes (which is great.) A musgrave noise preset doesnāt seem like a large ask?
@thorn-neverwake First of all itās not actually possible to have a node group that has identical behavior as the old Musgrave Texture due to:
Secondly, what Iāve been trying to stress all this time is that fundamentally the Musgrave Texture and the new Noise Texture are the same.
The Musgrave Texture just does some additional arbitrary transformations on the input values. These transformations only complicate things and if the Musgrave Texture didnāt exist youād be wondering why a node group would exist with some random input value distorting transformations before the Noise Texture inputs.
The fact that the input values (such as Dimension) were implemented with these transformations in the first place was a mistake as they donāt make any sense unless you really, really care about the mathematics behind them.
If you really want these transformations for some reason then you can just add some math nodes for that, but shipping a node group which is an inferior deprecated duplicate of another node doesnāt make sense.
I donāt really have an opinion on this. However if weād add backwards compatibility for every blender-specific quirk that got changed to be more standard blender would be a mess
I donāt really understand how this can be true and at the same time itās possible to create the correct nodesetup when converting from 4.0? Iām not disagreeing, just curious how this is possible.
The problem is that for different types of Musgrave noise you need different setups, e.g. the setup for fBM is different from that of Ridged Multifractal. When converting from 4.0 Blender knows which noise type being used and creates the correct node setup, which only works for that specific type.
However when you add a new Noise Texture Blender doesnāt know which noise type youāll end up using, thus it canāt know which node setup to use. This also means that the node setup converted from 4.0 only stays correct as long as you donāt change the noise type.
) use that.