That is exactly what i'm constantly asking myself - "where is current behaviour useful?" :] I don't think i ever used triplanar in conjunction with displacement, because of that limitation. Personally for me, current implementation makes very little sense.
I remember that the use case mentioned by Maru years ago was displaced terrain on which it makes sense to project afterwards. But even that scenario doesn't really fit well in my head since such terrains are displaced as baked-in from large-scale but not detailed height-map and tiled micro-displacement is used afterwards for further detail.
It really makes sense imho for 95perc. to make it opposite, and always align displacement with rest of textures in triplanar projection. Textures come in sets and displacement is almost always part of the whole PBR set and should match.
The Vray option is really nice ! Solves the problem completely.
Guys, I am not sure if you are trolling me or not, but I am not asking where the current solution does not make sense, but where the new solution would make sense. Do you have some specific examples of using triplanar + displacement where you would like to see this new behavior?
Some of the previous examples show things like bricks or tiles. While the result looks incorrect indeed, I do not see any reason why a brick texture would use triplanar mapping instead of the regular UVW mapping.
I would just like to see some practical examples where using the new method would help.
