Raiko Texture [NOT a feedback thread!]

Moderation notice: Please pick a better topic title, it’s great you want to gift this as a present for blenders birthday, but judged on the title i expected this to be a complaint about the birthday popup on most of our sites. So please pick a more appropriate title that actually covers what this thread is about.

Nevertheless it raises a design question regarding what to do with the Voronoi Texture, as it’ll have duplicate features with the Raiko Texture. Some logical approaches to this would be:

1. Ignore the fact that there are duplicate features and implement Raiko Texture as is.

This is the only option I would not heavily fight against.

The removal of the Musgrave node did not go well, and I don’t believe Voronoi should now go through the same process.

Deleting Shader Nodes from the application is NOT something that should be approached casually. I don’t care if the math behind the scenes makes certain things redundant. What I care about is not having to recreate a few dozen materials, and now use different values than I did previously, just because “math”.

1 Like

Removing an established algorithm that every 3D DCC software and most 2D software use and replacing it with an entirely new algorithm with no research papers or any existing implementation is so far beyond a terrible idea that a new word may need to be invented to describe it. For now, I think “unbelievable” or “ridiculous” will work.

Why is there a push currently to break and replace existing procedural nodes, all coming from this one developer? I don’t mean to criticize this developer, but I don’t understand why one random person gets to throw away decades of established work because they think it would be cool… shouldn’t there be some kind of consensus process between multiple developers before stuff like this is even considered?

Why does this one random person get to make these kinds of threads, and yet I can’t make a thread called “let’s throw away bones in Blender and switch all animation to a new system I just came up with?” (Not that I want to, because I don’t think it’s a good idea to throw away the workflows people have been using for decades on a whim, but you get the point.)

My concern is that there doesn’t seem to be much oversight on nodes. No one person should have the power to even suggest getting rid of an established node, let alone implement it (should that happen, which it probably won’t).


Raiko Texture certainly can’t be turned into a node asset, which is also related to:

It’s not just a generalization of Voronoi and is just like the Gabor noise texture quite different than the other textures.
Therefore extending the Voronoi Texture for quick user feedback would be misleading at best.

There will be examples once there is an implementation in Blender. I’m only clearing some design questions beforehand.

I take that everyone’s OK with my suggestion of going with option 1. and not call the faster Voronoi function for certain sets of inputs.


No, I don’t think you should forge ahead with adding a new texture with no mathematical papers, performance measurements, screenshots or design examples, etc. I think you should slow down

First of all I’m not pushing for the removal of Voronoi. My first comment after the initial post already made that clear.

Secondly Blender communication not only occurs in a single Devtalk thread. I’m assuming you’re relating to Merging the Musgrave Texture and Noise Texture nodes. The decision was not just made by me, but with consensus of multiple developers, consensus in a nodes and physics meeting, consensus from an artist from the Blender Studio, as well as an OK from multiple artists on said Devtalk thread.

You seem to be only focusing on one possible scenario I mentioned in my post, however this thread isn’t about removing Voronoi, but rather about adding Raiko Texture. Also you can in fact make such threads on Devtalk. Exchange of ideas is what Devtalk is all about, if you e.g. think you can implement a new animation system that’s better than the current one, you of course can start a thread on it, as long as you’re the one seeing it through.

In that case your concerns are unfounded. You can try to change something yourself and you’ll see what I mean.

Anyone should be able to suggest anything they want. Whether or not the suggestion is good is another question, but nothing should prevent them from being able to make suggestions.
Also I never removed a established node, but rather moved it’s features to another one.


Your argument contradicts itself. How would you get the performance measurements, screenshots or design examples without adding the texture?


I’d expect there to be some underlaying idea for the new texture. Something like:
" like voronoi, but with these extra features."
" like the the FancySchmacyTexture in software X , but with these changes"
" A procedural texture that is geared towards generating these kind of patterns occuring in nature "

As it is it sounds a bit like " We plan to add a new texture with no plan and still need to think about what it actually is. "

Which is an interesting phase in the development of anything new, but imo a bit premature to already opn a feedback thread? I don’t really mind, but I guess this is why you get the questions above.


The same way people did before computers, when the Voronoi texture was invented? Or when Perlin noise was invented, and computers were still using vector displays? If you can’t demonstrate something mathematically on paper, software-agnostic, you definitely shouldn’t be adding it to a software

Who are you to dictate others what to work on? Jeez.

1 Like

Who are you to say that it’s correct to throw away 400 years of mathematical innovation being mapped out on paper and researched thoroughly before being implemented?

Did i say that? Nah. Did anyone else say that? Nah.
Big “old man yelling at cloud” energy from you here.

really guys, twice in one day? this is how we start the new year? Lighten up a little all of you, will you?


first and final warning for this thread

Please read my initial post before coming to such conclusions:

Raiko has decided to first do the mathematical derivation, then the implementation in Blender, then lastly the documentation and I’m not gonna make him do otherwise.

1 Like

That fairly well summarizes my take on it, as well.

“We have invented a new noise.” Ok, fine. But artists will naturally respond with “Why is there no imagery or … anything… that shows us what it looks like, and what possibilities it offers?”

In general, I very much like having more noise options. I’ve tested the Gabor Noise build, and I absolutely loved it. Can’t wait for it to be vetted and land into Final.

So for me, it’s not a matter of Raiko having value or not - it’s having no information to even determine that. But even if it is, I absolutely don’t want it to deprecate another existing node.

1 Like

Why the hostility? If Raiko is willing to do the coding work knowing that
his texture maybe rejected in the end, why dictate to him how to use his time?.
it’s not like he can force his code into blender, and using the actual
node and testing it by artist, maybe a better proof of its usefulness
than a mathematical equation …


This isn’t a feedback thread. I appreciate that artists are also trying to contribute here, but for now you’ll just have to wait.
As I said, once everything is ready you’ll get your feedback thread and all the information.

Feels like the thread was made too soon, but you’re excited to share the discovery. Interested to see where this goes.
Gonna give a quick take that if either option 2 or 3 is chosen, you could add a dropdown that lets you switch between voronoi/raiko (even if all it does is hide and show specific inputs). Also in this case the node could be renamed to be something like “Cell Texture”, which overall seems like a more fitting name for consistency with other procedural textures, noise texture isn’t called “Perlin Texture”

1 Like

I don’t want to detract from your plan. I’d say: go for it. If there’s a good idea and someone willing to make it that’s when nice new stuff can appear :-D.

I was just trying to clarify why (in my opinion) you got the questions you got. I’m in no way saying you should not work on this. I’d love more good procedural textures.

To me the question in the first post is a bit hard to answer without first knowing a bit more about the proposed Raiko Texture. But please don’t take my reply as criticism. If it seems like that it’s my poor choice of wording. I was just trying to clarify a discussion which seemed to get a bit too heated…

This whole thread is a bit confusing to me

There’s nothing to show (yet?) which is fair, and the only question asked, merging into an existing node vs making a separate node? does it really matter at this stage? For all we know there is no interest whatsoever in the core team to even accept this new texture, seems like you’re putting the cart way way waaaaay before the horse here.

I honestly don’t understand how we’re 25 posts into this thread with such… ahem… passionate… participants to the point i had to step in and moderate, when there’s so little substance here.