Parameter Size suggestion

With the introduction of the new “parsize” parameter we’re finally able to do stuff like limiting a pointcloud or add noise offset only on a specific axis / apply said changes differently on each of the XYZ axes which is a great and welcomed addition.

One thing I (personally at least) would like would be if when expanding the parameter size from 1 to 3 the other two parameters copied the first one when they “spawn”.

Something to take into consideration is that this would only need to be done the first time the new parameters are added to the node since otherwise this would mess up a custom higher parameter size that is brought back to a lower size and then later on back to a higher one.

Maybe a setting could be added under the Preferences tab so that one could personally decide whether to use such a setting or not?

Hello @Papacci20
I’m writing down your suggestion. We’ll discuss it among the team.
Thanks!

1 Like

Do you see it copying the expressions/exports/binds as well, or just the constant value?

Hi @rob thanks for making me think about such case scenario.

Yes, think about it this way:

Let’s say you have a sphere of points and you’re applying a noise to it where the amplitude is linked to an lfo, it would be nice if once I extend the parameter size from 1 to 3 it brought the same expression to the “newly” (I imagine them not to be new but rather the “uncompressed” version of when you have a parameter size of 1) created parameter and I was able to quickly write an extra “*2” or “/2” or whatever else I might need after the expression that I already had in there.

By the way as I was writing this same answer that you are reading I have found some odd behaviour where if I export a chop value to a parameter that has been extended to a higher size (and exported to all of them, of course), then bring back the size to 1 and then bring it up again the export won’t “latch” onto the parameters that it is supposed to do so unless I toggle the export from the CHOP off and on again.

Thanks again for looking into these further developments and I’ll look forward to how you will decide (if that happens) to implement them.