On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Sergey Kurdakov <sergey.fo...@gmail.com> wrote:
Alice's thread has already veered way off-topic and I hate to derail it even further, but I feel the need to comment on this for the sake of other students that may be reading: > the applicant must win an application so it should be interesting and > not trivial. This is true, but it doesn't mean that a GSOC proposal must do complicated things or use complex algorithms internally. It's often better for blender to have really well thought out and well crafted simple tools that work really nicely and are achievable in the scope of the gsoc, than it is to attempt to make complicated intensive tools that a) may not even get finished over the summer and/or b) may not be that useful in real world conditions. I don't mean to make a false dichotomy, but designing and creating simple, useful, tools that people love to use can easily be as much work as implementing a complicated algorithm, and can often be more productive for artists in the end. So students, if your proposal is mathematically or algorithmically complicated that's great, but you shouldn't feel discourages if it's not, as either can be challenging in their own way and can both make acceptable GSOC projects. cheers Matt _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
