- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 10:05:25 -0700
- To: Erik Dahlstrom <ed@opera.com>
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 1:57 AM, Erik Dahlstrom <ed@opera.com> wrote: > On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 18:51:32 +0200, David Dailey <ddailey@zoominternet.net> > wrote: >> I know you all found the concepts of declarative randomness a bit >> distasteful (we're giving a talk on it at the conference in Switzerland, >> soon) and given the history of society's reaction to randomness, one can >> perhaps understand if not appreciate that reaction. >> >> >> However, I wondered if thought has been given to Simplex noise in addition >> to Perlin noise[1]? > > > Some thought has gone into that[2], but there's no concrete proposal for it > yet. It's listed as issue 15 in the filter draft [3]. > > I would like to see a more hardware friendly noise algorithm in the spec, > e.g simplex noise (or something with the same characteristics), but if we > want existing content to look the same we can't just switch the algorithm in > feTurbulence since the algorithm in the spec and the simplex algorithm > generate slightly different results. But, it may well be that the > differences are small enough that it would be acceptable, anyhow I think > that needs to be investigated. > > What do other people think? The computational cost of the noise algorithm in > SVG 1.1 is fairly high, and that does limit what you can use it for in > practice. If we chose to go for a new noise algorithm I would also like to > be able to animate the noise continously (I think this means we'd need the > 3d version of the algorithm). That is, I'd like to simulate say fire or > smoke, and link the z dimension in the noise algorithm to the time dimension > so that the animation is continous (without strange gaps and without it > looking like the result is scrolled along either or both of the x and > y-axis). I *strongly* suggest that we make this decision in concert with relevant browser devs, so we can get something that's legitimately implementable by them. I definitely support a decent-quality, fast noise algorithm, because I desperately want noise usable in CSS. ^_^ (While we're at it, though, we should pay attention to how it would be possible to do declarative randomness in properties. Marrying a stateful RNG with a nominally stateless language is hard. :/ ) ~TJ
Received on Friday, 31 August 2012 17:06:19 UTC