Hi Nicethugbert,
...and so are most people. So, I think there is a huge market for the tools I need.
I'm yet to be convinced, clearly. If there were a huge market, I would have expected someone else to have requested these tools by now. L3DT has been publicly available for seven years. In that time, some of the most requested and popular features, aside from faster calculations and
yet more file formats, have been the more and better brush tools and editors. Most users may not be artists*, but certainly a great many users want and use the editor tools. Maybe not every day, maybe not because they like using brushes, maybe not even because the L3DT tools are nice or easy to use, but because they get the job done.
* that's also debatable; based on my correspondence with users, I'd say most are a blend of developer/artist/modder. That sort of multi-skilling is necessary for indie developers, which make up the majority of L3DT licensees.
nicethugbert wrote:And, sorry, I did not realize that I was back to the same issue. Now I think that the sinkholes/mesas problem is related to the cavern and tunnel system problem.
Er...I was referring to your
other mesas and sinkholes thread.
nicethugbert wrote:In not to overwhelming technical terms, what is the technical nature of this problem?
As I think I explained in the other thread, the problem is that the map contains some depressions (either from noise, from the design map altitude layer, or erosion, or whatever), and the terraces algorithm is converting the depression edges into cliffs. So, you need to prevent depressions forming, filter them out, or change where the cliffs/terraces are applied.
I'm not convinced of these objectives could be accomplished by changing the noise algorithm or giving you more control over it. You can get sinkholes on maps with no noise. Of course, you do get more on maps with noise, because noise produces peaks and depressions. However, even if the noise only added positive peaks, some spaces between the peaks would still be depressions, and they'd result in sinkholes when terraced.
I don't believe the problem of sinkholes will be fixed by any change to the noise algorithm. Taking ten minutes to use the raise, smooth and perlin brushes in the 3D editor will (in considerably less time, I might add, than it has taken us to debate the issue). Any such change to the noise algorithm will, however, make the design map more difficult and confusing to edit, slower to generate the heightfield, it'll require more documentation, and be more difficult to maintain, not to mention consume development time in messing around to find a suitable noise algorithm (should one exist). The cost vs. benefit ratio is, to me, poor. There are better prospects for the use of my (sadly scarce) development time.
Anyway, we've been through this in the other thread. I'm not convinced, but you're perfectly welcome to try. You may be able to get the effect you want by making a different noise algorithm in ZeoScript (slower) or by using a plugin (faster, needs MSVC), but you'll have to judge that cost vs. benefit ratio for yourself.
nicethugbert wrote:Is this an issue of local variance?
Yes, in part.
nicethugbert wrote:Can we have some local variance control type stuff?
'Feature scale' and 'Noise strength' principally determine local variation in height. For more
localised local control, there are [cue broken record] brush tools.
nicethugbert wrote:Noise Strength is Noise Amplitude?
Yes.
nicethugbert wrote:Is noise strength both the frequency and the amplitude of the noise equation?
No. The range and proportion of spatial noise frequencies is invariant with the noise amplitude. Higher frequency noise just makes the map look jagged, and lower frequency noise usurps the role of the elevation layer in the design map. Noise fills in that middle ground.
nicethugbert wrote:EDIT 0: How local is local? What's the radius or unit measure of the noise equation, or other equations?
For peak noise, using the 64x ratio for HF/DM, the distribution of peak radii works out as being is between 12.8 and 153 output heightfield pixels. Of greater significance than the limits are that the distribution is skewed heavily towards the lower-frequency peaks (#peaks is inversely proportional to the square of the peak radius).
For fractal noise, it's not possible to define a radius or distance metric. Fractal noise is present at all scales.
...and, saving the first for last:
nicethugbert wrote:I'll be old, gray, and spewing death bed confessions before I finally develop brush skills
That just comes across as defeatist. I'm no artist either, and I don't like using manual brush tools, but when I need to use an editor, I do, or else the work just doesn't get done. Really, what's the alternative?
Regards,
Aaron.