Jason, I just sent you a PM, I'm taking already too much space here. BTW, just wanted to add that what I'm advocating for is not a replacement solution but an additional option integrated in Blender's menu system. Static and procedural checkers can coexist.
-- Paolo Ciccone www.preta3d.com www.paolociccone.com On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Jason van Gumster < ja...@handturkeystudios.com> wrote: > > Paolo Ciccone <phcicc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I think that we are getting too worried for just a few added kilobytes. > > That's hardly "bloating" the install. A few of grids in JPEG. In this day > an > > age we should not worry so much for such size. > > I've been following this thread and it occurs to me that you're choosing > the > wrong topic to bring up an issue of user friendliness. Perhaps I'm missing > something, but this seems like a gigantic non-issue. There's nothing > stopping > you from using any image you'd like as your custom UV test grid. > Procedurally > generated grids save space and provide greater flexibility to users (like > you > and me) to arbitrarily set the grid size to anything we want. Now, there > may be > an argument for providing preset size values for common UV map sizes that > can > be generated, but I fail to see how reducing the flexibility (that users > want) > of UV grid creation while simultaneously increasing the download size > (however > marginally) of Blender is step toward user friendliness. > > You raise some interesting and valid points about usability, but I'm really > struggling to see how your original suggestion is supporting those points. > > If I'm missing something, please clarify it for me. > > -Fweeb > _______________________________________________ > Bf-committers mailing list > Bf-committers@blender.org > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers > _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
