It’s possible that this is already, well, possible, but I think a cool feature to add, especially for texturing, would be the ability to distort just the falloff of a selector. Right now, my process is to use the selector like normal, pipe it into the mask input of a new generator, and then use that as the mask, but this can cause some unwanted artifacts. If anyone knows a better method, let me know, otherwise I think it would be great if the falloff in a selector device had the new spatial parameters (or a similar concept, if the data type of the falloff doesn’t allow for this) available to plug into. And just in general, if selectors could use the spatial parameters, I think that could lead to some really cool results.
Interesting idea to distort the falloff. I haven’t thought of that. Will add it to the experiment queue.
I agree about the falloff being spatial however - that 100% makes sense, and should be very straightforward to add!
I’m having some trouble understanding what you want/mean with distortion. Do you mean distorting like with the
Displacement device? Or do you simply mean adding some variation to the falloff? Or do you mean varying the falloff’s “range”, as you’d probably do with a spatial parameter? I’m curious and eager to help you tackle this problem.
If I understand the request correctly, I’ve considered something very similar for the Shapes device, and it is just waiting for a more thorough pass to implement.
For example using the Shapes device, if you enable shape breakup (distortion), large strength values will move the location of the shape off of its “true” spot. In the concept being discussed, when the shape strength is maximal you don’t distort the location at all; this makes sure the shape stays where you put it. But as the falloff increases, spatial distortion is increasingly applied, swirling the shape/mask away from its naive location/pattern.
Is this roughly what you were suggesting? I had no considered applying it to Selectors, but on reflection they too could certainly benefit.
Yes, that’s exactly what I was (doing a poor job of) trying to say!