Hi, That's a nice test :)
Having collections of materials share one .blend is just very practical anyway, allows the maintainer to update and test efficiently too. The way how I envision it to work is that you can create a regular .blend with all the assets in it (so you can review them, edit, render, etc). And an export option to only save out the minimal data as needed. -Ton- -------------------------------------------------------- Ton Roosendaal - t...@blender.org - www.blender.org Chairman Blender Foundation - Producer Blender Institute Entrepotdok 57A - 1018AD Amsterdam - The Netherlands On 16 Jun, 2013, at 17:38, Brecht Van Lommel wrote: > In another discussion about using .blend files for this type of thing, > the big size of .blend files came up, which can be easily 400 kb even > with a single cube in it. This is because it also saves the user > interface and some other things which aren't needed here. For a > library.blend with many datablocks in it the overhead doesn't matter > as much, but if there are many files or some online material library > it could be useful. > > I did a little experiment to see how small you could get a .blend file > with a single datablock in it. By stripping all datablocks except > some specified types, stripping unused DNA data, and using gzip > compression, we can store a simple node material in 4.4 kb. Note 4 kb > is the minimum file size on many file systems. > > Script strip_blend.py: > http://www.pasteall.org/43203/python > > Example terminal output: > http://www.pasteall.org/43212 > http://www.pasteall.org/43211 > > > Brecht. > _______________________________________________ > 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