Hy Campbell, and sorry again for this late reply… Now that I’m back to « work » ;) , I’ve committed the changes you suggested (I agree that as we do not allow out-of-range weights, all mapping& clamping can now be done with the curve control…). I only commented out the code for now, though – and let the DNA structure untouched, to allow « old » files to load correctly !
On Tue, 9 Aug 2011 14:35:56 +1000, Campbell Barton<ideasma...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Bastien, once you have the range clamping in I'd like to go over a > final review, take time to understand the use case for some of the > settings, this wasn't clear to me without range clamping but I got the > impression some were redundant or gave very similar functionality but > I could be wrong. > > Having a curve, a multiplier and clamp settings may not be needed - > the curve on its own should be enough? > > On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 11:06 PM, Bastien Montagne<montagn...@wanadoo.fr> > wrote: >> Ok, so I?ll commit (later today, I hope?) modifiers with clamped values >> (and min/max mapping for distance)? Once that will be done, I think we >> might consider VGroupModifiers as mergeable (unless Campbell sees other >> things to fix?). >> >> But, IMHO, if we want to keep vgroups this way, we*really* need more >> general-purpose cdata layers, for vertices as well as edges and faces, >> with ways to ?convert? them into vgroups/crease/whatever more specific >> cdatas might be needed. And tools that can use any values (like e.g. >> some modifiers, Wave, Displace, etc.) should then use those generic >> CData layers, instead of vgroups ones? >> >> Cheers, >> Bastien >> >> PS : I?m really sorry for my big lack of reactivity, but I?m currently >> in ?vacations? curing birds, and have nearly no time for anything else? >> Should be back in a week ! >> >>> Message: 11 >>> Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 10:00:29 +0200 >>> From: Lukas T?nne<lukas.toe...@googlemail.com> >>> Subject: Re: [Bf-committers] Weights range in vgroups >>> To: bf-blender developers<bf-committers@blender.org> >>> Message-ID: >>> ? ? ?<canhmeoia-mnnb41ax4okzdxr7j7_kdnjgh1krgftqya1yod...@mail.gmail.com> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 >>> >>>> I don't think I expressed any "opinion", the functionality is useful >>>> but probably not the*place* ?for this since vgroups are by definition >>>> a 0.0-1.0 value. Blender has custom vertex data available in the C >>>> API, but everything is so hardcoded that.. good luck using that in a >>>> modifier or anywhere else. I keep looking forward to the nodetree and >>>> for now I'll go with not enabling this where it doesn't belong. >>> Good point! >>> I think using vertex groups to store calculated results is a bit of an >>> abuse: They are primarily user-defined inputs for modifiers and as >>> such should be easily accessible (which includes 0-1 range as Campbell >>> pointed out). Even more important might be that modifiers and other >>> users of vgroups*expect* ?them to be in 0-1 range, which would make >>> them ignore out-of-range values in the best case or simply go crazy by >>> extrapolating. >>> >>> Calculated values with unlimited range should instead be stored in >>> custom vertex data, but as noted by Daniel these "custom" data layers >>> are actually hardcoded - there is no way to add really new data layers >>> for things like this, let alone access them anywhere. Nodes would >>> unlock that beast, but until then i think it's best to keep them >>> inside range limits. >> _______________________________________________ >> Bf-committers mailing list >> Bf-committers@blender.org >> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers >> > > -- - Campbell _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers