Re: [Bf-committers] Proposal: Up blender requirements to OpenGL 2.1
Better view-port performance, with wide compatibility is better IMHO then amazing performance no one can use, how hard would it be to have a "High OpenGL build" as a separate entity? 2.1 -> for normal builds 4.4 -> "High end build" would that be much harder to maintain? On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Mike Erwin wrote: > On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 11:16 AM, wrote: > > > This topic leads me to two questions: > > > > - upgrade to OpenGL 2.1: the OpenGL is currently at version 4.5. Is it > > impossible to maintain the same version in blender? > > > > > This would severely limit blender's audience. Only Windows & Linux running > proprietary vendor drivers on *new* graphics cards are able to run GL 4.5. > The laptop I'm using right now says GL 4.4 even with the latest drivers! > 2.1 has been around long enough that it is essentially universal. Yes we'll > miss out on some nice capabilities. We have been using features from later > versions of GL but not always in a consistent way. Part of the project is > eye candy, part is improved performance, and just as important is setting a > higher baseline and making the code consistent and safe. > > - and my endless quest of finding out the relation between OpenGL, GLSL, > > GHOST. Does GHOST uses the OpenGL libraries directly? or does it call > > GLSL. > > > > GHOST sets up OpenGL contexts in platform-specific ways. Other than that > GHOST does not use GL or GLSL for its own purposes. > > > > Thanks for your time. > > > > Regards > > > > Hewi > > > > Mike Erwin > musician, naturalist, pixel pusher, hacker extraordinaire > ___ > 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
Re: [Bf-committers] Proposal: Up blender requirements to OpenGL 2.1
On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 11:16 AM, wrote: > This topic leads me to two questions: > > - upgrade to OpenGL 2.1: the OpenGL is currently at version 4.5. Is it > impossible to maintain the same version in blender? > > This would severely limit blender's audience. Only Windows & Linux running proprietary vendor drivers on *new* graphics cards are able to run GL 4.5. The laptop I'm using right now says GL 4.4 even with the latest drivers! 2.1 has been around long enough that it is essentially universal. Yes we'll miss out on some nice capabilities. We have been using features from later versions of GL but not always in a consistent way. Part of the project is eye candy, part is improved performance, and just as important is setting a higher baseline and making the code consistent and safe. - and my endless quest of finding out the relation between OpenGL, GLSL, > GHOST. Does GHOST uses the OpenGL libraries directly? or does it call > GLSL. > GHOST sets up OpenGL contexts in platform-specific ways. Other than that GHOST does not use GL or GLSL for its own purposes. > Thanks for your time. > > Regards > > Hewi > Mike Erwin musician, naturalist, pixel pusher, hacker extraordinaire ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] Weekly Blender developers meeting minutes - January 18, 2015
As discussed with Ton in IRC I uploaded the current patch for my OpenVDB mesher to d.b.o (easier/faster than setting up a github repo): https://developer.blender.org/D1008 I chose to create a differential for it over a simple patch, as arcanist will put my code in context, including my commit history for the curious, which is cool. Hope it's ok! Cheers, Kévin. Le 2015-01-18 17:40, Ton Roosendaal a écrit : > Hi all, > > Here are the notes from today's 15h UTC meeting in irc.freenode.net > #blendercoders. > > 1) Release targets for upcoming 2.74 > > - People noted that the proposed planning for next release was more than 2 > months. > > - We might need to reserve enough time for Multiview, Viewport, and several > Gooseberry projects to be migrated. But if that's needed has to be figured > out still. > > - Everyone gets one more week to get their projects shortlisted as 2.74 > targets! > > 2) Release 2.73a > > - Meeting decided to go for an 'a' update after all. Minor but important > fixes were done already. > For example: Knife bugs, Cycles has bug (black meshes on certain > circumstances). > > - Monday Sergey Sharybin and Campbell Barton will review and move over the > essential fixes (and mail to this list to verify). If all goes fine, we then > ask for a build on tuesday. > > 3) other projects > > - Kevin Dietrich posted videos with the first OpenVDB particle results: > http://blenderartists.org/forum/showthread.php?357512-Dev-OpenVDB-Based-Particle-Mesher-Modifier > [1] > He'll be in touch with Campbell and Lukas Toenne, to make sure modifier > designs and particle plans are well aligned. > > Thanks, > > -Ton- > > > Ton Roosendaal - t...@blender.org - www.blender.org [2] > Chairman Blender Foundation - Producer Blender Institute > Entrepotdok 57A - 1018AD Amsterdam - The Netherlands > > ___ > Bf-committers mailing list > Bf-committers@blender.org > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers [3] Links: -- [1] http://blenderartists.org/forum/showthread.php?357512-Dev-OpenVDB-Based-Particle-Mesher-Modifier [2] http://www.blender.org [3] http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
[Bf-committers] Weekly Blender developers meeting minutes - January 18, 2015
Hi all, Here are the notes from today's 15h UTC meeting in irc.freenode.net #blendercoders. 1) Release targets for upcoming 2.74 - People noted that the proposed planning for next release was more than 2 months. - We might need to reserve enough time for Multiview, Viewport, and several Gooseberry projects to be migrated. But if that's needed has to be figured out still. - Everyone gets one more week to get their projects shortlisted as 2.74 targets! 2) Release 2.73a - Meeting decided to go for an 'a' update after all. Minor but important fixes were done already. For example: Knife bugs, Cycles has bug (black meshes on certain circumstances). - Monday Sergey Sharybin and Campbell Barton will review and move over the essential fixes (and mail to this list to verify). If all goes fine, we then ask for a build on tuesday. 3) other projects - Kevin Dietrich posted videos with the first OpenVDB particle results: http://blenderartists.org/forum/showthread.php?357512-Dev-OpenVDB-Based-Particle-Mesher-Modifier He'll be in touch with Campbell and Lukas Toenne, to make sure modifier designs and particle plans are well aligned. Thanks, -Ton- Ton Roosendaal - t...@blender.org - www.blender.org Chairman Blender Foundation - Producer Blender Institute Entrepotdok 57A - 1018AD Amsterdam - The Netherlands ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
[Bf-committers] Proposal: Up blender requirements to OpenGL 2.1
This topic leads me to two questions: - upgrade to OpenGL 2.1: the OpenGL is currently at version 4.5. Is it impossible to maintain the same version in blender? - and my endless quest of finding out the relation between OpenGL, GLSL, GHOST. Does GHOST uses the OpenGL libraries directly? or does it call GLSL. Thanks for your time. Regards Hewi > Send Bf-committers mailing list submissions to > bf-committers@blender.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > bf-committers-requ...@blender.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > bf-committers-ow...@blender.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Bf-committers digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > >1. Cloth simulation ( ?) >2. Re: An easy to use damped spline (Ronan Ducluzeau) >3. Re: Revisions for 2.73 (Sergey Sharybin) >4. Proposal: Up blender requirements to OpenGL 2.1 > (Antony Riakiotakis) >5. Re: Proposal: Up blender requirements to OpenGL 2.1 (Mike Erwin) 6. Re: Proposal: Up blender requirements to OpenGL 2.1 > (Martijn Berger) > > > -- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 14:21:14 +0300 > From: ? > Subject: [Bf-committers] Cloth simulation > To: > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" > > Greetings. > I have been modeling in blender recently and tried to simulate some clothes. Maybe i was doing something wrong, but i encountered several problems. First, generally results look nice, but some parts of the cloth > get really messed up over time. Vertices stick out. > Second, I could not make cloth shrink only in one direction. Like if part > of it was elastic in one direction, but not others. (Rubber bands shrink only in one direction since they are essentially a large number of rubber > strings). > Another thing is that it is slow. I think it is single threaded. > > I heard there is a a new cloth sim project. If it is not in late stages, I > would like to write cloth sim for you. But to make some things work I would need edge groups instead of vertex groups. I think I can make it in > several weeks, but I'm not completely sure. I spent yesterday trying to understand how blender source works, but I have not finished yet. > > Also, using the model I have in my head I can easily make cloth tearing. May be useful. There are other physics systems I would like to work on, but first I need cloth to finish my model. > > I have education in physics and some experience with CUDA. > > > -- > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 14:41:21 +0100 > From: Ronan Ducluzeau > Subject: Re: [Bf-committers] An easy to use damped spline > To: bf-blender developers > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > I just want to remind that currently nurbs weights are not working in master since 2.5. > > If someone is interested into improving Blender's nurbs; there is a lot to > do, anyways. > > 2014-12-29 1:47 GMT+01:00 Campbell Barton : > >> Heres a patch on Blender, >> Removed the restriction of power-of-2 curve resolution. >> https://developer.blender.org/P183 >> However I don't see any significant advantage this offers over >> existing nurbs calculation method, even though its quite efficient, it would need to be extended to support different orders (currently hard-coded to order-4), cyclic curves, nurbs weights etc... >> Just posting the patch for reference if anyone likes to check on the code. >> On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 8:03 AM, Campbell Barton wrote: >> > Its available here: >> > http://download.blender.org/ftp/ton/dspline.pdf >> > >> > On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 7:28 AM, joe wrote: >> >> Do you have a link to a paper? >> >> On Sep 28, 2014 10:45 AM, "Fred" wrote: >> >> >> >>> Hi Campbell Barton, >> >>> >> >>> The amount of interpolation dots is 2^i, at the start of the demo i >> = >> >>> 4(16 dots) >> >>> if you change i = 7 (the limit in the demo) than there are 128 interpolation dots. >> >>> >> >>> if I had set the limit in the demo to 10 then 1024 interpolation >> dots >> >>> was possible. >> >>> >> >>> If the spline is used in a 3 dimensional space, >> >>> to compute an interpolated dot position takes: dim * 10 clock >> cycles >> = >> >>> 30 clock cycles. >> >>> I hope that it is fast enough. >> >>> >> >>> If you like to have a curve to the last plotted dot you have to put >> two >> >>> dots on each other at the end. >> >>> You will see that it is symmetrical again. >> >>> >> >>> Please change the number to 7 in the demo and you see a curved line >> in >> >>> stead of dots. >> >>> >> >>> Much more is possible with this spline because the first, second and >> >>> third derivative (parameterized ) of the curve >> >>> i
[Bf-committers] UI-meeting
Hey all, I just wanted to quickly inform you that we've scheduled an UI-meeting for today. Beginning will be right after the normal meeting but not earlier than 17.00 CET (16.00 UTC) and as usual it takes place in #blenderui (not #blendercoders !). Of course everyone is invited to join in. We already decided for the topics in in advance, which will be: 1. Current status/Goals for 2.74 2. Possible goals for 2.75 3. Other projects Hope to see you later! - Julian - ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] Undo limits WAY to low.
I even suggested in a recent post to the mailing list asking, if instead of storing the undo in memory which gets lost when blender closes, the undos are stored on disk, thus allowing undoing even blender crashes and upon reopen, making undo can happen. This should be an option and not by default. In that case, the memory can be freed to attend to other stuff a should the limit be increased. Gigs of memory aren't as high as disks, thus saving the undo to disk will hardly be exhausting for storage. It looks like that message got lost. rexford | google.com/+Nkansahrexford On Jan 18, 2015 11:14 AM, "Knapp" wrote: > I have often found that having only 64 undos is really limiting, especially > when working on lots of little mesh changes. I think we could greatly up > this. > > I have talked to a lot of you and have found that the undo was set at 64 a > really long time ago because having more ate to much memory and could cause > problems. When this was set I think my computers memory was like 2 GB but > now it is sitting at 32 GB, a 16 times increase and of course every 14 > months this doubles. > > I see no reason not to bump this up to at least 1024 as the max, if not > more for future computers. Users still get to set the max themselves and we > could leave the start up value low and let users increase it as they see > fit. Also there is a max memory limit so this should prevent problems too. > Is this correct? Can this undo max be increased without incurring any > problems? > > -- > Douglas E Knapp > > Creative Commons Film Group, Helping people make open source movies > with open source software! > http://douglas.bespin.org/CommonsFilmGroup/phpBB3/index.php > > Massage in Gelsenkirchen-Buer: > http://douglas.bespin.org/tcm/ztab1.htm > Please link to me and trade links with me! > > Open Source Sci-Fi mmoRPG Game project. > http://sf-journey-creations.wikispot.org/Front_Page > http://code.google.com/p/perspectiveproject/ > ___ > 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
[Bf-committers] Undo limits WAY to low.
I have often found that having only 64 undos is really limiting, especially when working on lots of little mesh changes. I think we could greatly up this. I have talked to a lot of you and have found that the undo was set at 64 a really long time ago because having more ate to much memory and could cause problems. When this was set I think my computers memory was like 2 GB but now it is sitting at 32 GB, a 16 times increase and of course every 14 months this doubles. I see no reason not to bump this up to at least 1024 as the max, if not more for future computers. Users still get to set the max themselves and we could leave the start up value low and let users increase it as they see fit. Also there is a max memory limit so this should prevent problems too. Is this correct? Can this undo max be increased without incurring any problems? -- Douglas E Knapp Creative Commons Film Group, Helping people make open source movies with open source software! http://douglas.bespin.org/CommonsFilmGroup/phpBB3/index.php Massage in Gelsenkirchen-Buer: http://douglas.bespin.org/tcm/ztab1.htm Please link to me and trade links with me! Open Source Sci-Fi mmoRPG Game project. http://sf-journey-creations.wikispot.org/Front_Page http://code.google.com/p/perspectiveproject/ ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
