Re: [Bf-committers] GSoC 2016 Preliminary proposal to optimize the memory usage of mesh undo

[Joe Eagar]

Editmode undo is different than global undo, remember.

This, people, is an awesome idea.  I've used Blender's tool operator
in three major projects (one of which is commercial) and I made
exactly this modification.  Why should the transform tool copy the
whole mesh?  Or the select tool?  It's not necessary. Here's the
source code for my design:

https://github.com/joeedh/fairmotion/blob/master/src/core/toolops_api.js

Here's one of the comments in that file:
/*
basic design of tool ops:
inspired by Blender's tool system. each tool has
a list of parameters, and are also passed a Context struct (a sort of
bundle of common tool parameters).
The main difference is that undo is implemented on top of this system.
Tools that do not implement undo callbacks will trigger a complete copy
of the data state. This is to get new tools up and running quickly;
all tools should eventually get their own, faster callbacks (or at least
inherit from super-classes with faster defaults, like SelectOpAbstract).
Note that for some tools, serializing the app state prior to undo is
unavoidable.

RULES:

1. Tools must store all (non-undo) state data in slots.
2. Tools cannot access ANYTHING RELATED TO THE UI within exec.
This is to ensure tool repeatability, and maintain the integrity
of the undostack (which doesn't store things like viewport pans).
3. ToolProperty subclassess MUST NOT STORE REFERENCES (except to basic
types like
strings, ints, etc). Rather, they must store a value to lookup an object:
* DataRef structures for DataBlocks (ASObject/Mesh/Scene/etc)
* integers for Mesh element subtypes (Vertex/Edge/Loops/Face).
*/




On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Campbell Barton  wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 8:19 PM, Ounan Ding  wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am Ounan Ding(IRC: TheBusyTypist).
>> I am interested in Blender and willing to contribute to our community in
>> the coming GSoC 2016.
>>
>> Here is my preliminary proposal to optimize the memory usage of mesh undo:
>>
>>
>> https://github.com/thebusytypist/gsoc-2016-doc/raw/master/proposals/mesh-undo-memory/mesh-undo-memory.pdf
>
> Checked over the document, one thing which isn't quite correct is the
> statement that...
>
>   "The current strategy is that the whole mesh data get duplicated and 
> restored
> on the undo command"
>
> ... in fact each chunk of memory is compared and only stored if there
> are differences,
> though this is inefficient when making destructive changes to the mesh
> (subdivision for example),
> it does mean changing selection won't have to store  UV's, weights,
> shape-keys etc.
>
> One possible optimization would be to implement binary diffing, so
> minor differences to large allocates don't have to store the entire
> block each time.
>
>> (and I put it on wiki.blender.org as well:
>> http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/User:TheBusyTypist/GSoC2016-Mesh-Undo-Memory
>> But I suggest to read above pdf version since it has better typesetting)
>>
>> I have a review of current implementation here:
>> http://blender.linearconstraints.net/2016/02/28/notes-on-undo.html
>> It helps me form this proposal.
>>
>> I also have some notes and practice on the Blender Operator system:
>> http://blender.linearconstraints.net/2015/03/28/write-first-blender-operator.html
>> http://blender.linearconstraints.net/2015/04/01/analyze-primitive-cube-add-operator.html
>> which lead me to the design in my proposal.
>>
>> Currently I am still working on more strategies for specific Operators.
>> I am also looking forward to commends and critiques from you.
>>
>> Thank you.
>> ___
>> 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
___
Bf-committers mailing list
Bf-committers@blender.org
http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers

Re: [Bf-committers] GSoC 2016 Preliminary proposal to optimize the memory usage of mesh undo

[Campbell Barton]

On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Ounan Ding  wrote:
> Hi Campbell,
>
> Thank you for your clarification.
>
> I just re-check the code but I am afraid I cannot confirm what you said.
>
> If I understand the code correctly, the actual assembling of UndoElem
> happens in undo_editmode_push.
> Then it steps in editbtMesh_to_undoMesh through:
>
> curundo->undodata = curundo->from_editmode(editdata, obedit->data);
>
> In the editbtMesh_to_undoMesh, I see verts, edges, loops are duplicated in
> the function BM_mesh_bm_to_me.
>
> I failed to find any difference checking code in BM_mesh_bm_to_me.
> It just iterates verts, edges, loops and copy the data.
> I am also aware of the member elem_index_dirty in BMesh. But I do not see
> it is used to avoid unnecessary copying.
>
> Please correct me if I am wrong.

No, your right, was thinking of global undo but re-read the code here
and it does store entire mesh for each undo step.

> BTW, could you also put some comments on another proposal on Solidify
> modifier I wrote a day before?
> http://lists.blender.org/pipermail/bf-committers/2016-March/046915.html
> It is not hurry. But I really like to collect ideas and make some
> improvements before the final proposal submission date.
>
> Thank you.
>
> On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Campbell Barton 
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 8:19 PM, Ounan Ding  wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I am Ounan Ding(IRC: TheBusyTypist).
>> > I am interested in Blender and willing to contribute to our community in
>> > the coming GSoC 2016.
>> >
>> > Here is my preliminary proposal to optimize the memory usage of mesh
>> undo:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> https://github.com/thebusytypist/gsoc-2016-doc/raw/master/proposals/mesh-undo-memory/mesh-undo-memory.pdf
>>
>> Checked over the document, one thing which isn't quite correct is the
>> statement that...
>>
>>   "The current strategy is that the whole mesh data get duplicated and
>> restored
>> on the undo command"
>>
>> ... in fact each chunk of memory is compared and only stored if there
>> are differences,
>> though this is inefficient when making destructive changes to the mesh
>> (subdivision for example),
>> it does mean changing selection won't have to store  UV's, weights,
>> shape-keys etc.
>>
>> One possible optimization would be to implement binary diffing, so
>> minor differences to large allocates don't have to store the entire
>> block each time.
>>
>> > (and I put it on wiki.blender.org as well:
>> >
>> http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/User:TheBusyTypist/GSoC2016-Mesh-Undo-Memory
>> > But I suggest to read above pdf version since it has better typesetting)
>> >
>> > I have a review of current implementation here:
>> > http://blender.linearconstraints.net/2016/02/28/notes-on-undo.html
>> > It helps me form this proposal.
>> >
>> > I also have some notes and practice on the Blender Operator system:
>> >
>> http://blender.linearconstraints.net/2015/03/28/write-first-blender-operator.html
>> >
>> http://blender.linearconstraints.net/2015/04/01/analyze-primitive-cube-add-operator.html
>> > which lead me to the design in my proposal.
>> >
>> > Currently I am still working on more strategies for specific Operators.
>> > I am also looking forward to commends and critiques from you.
>> >
>> > Thank you.
>> > ___
>> > 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
>>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Bf-committers] GSoC 2016 Preliminary proposal to optimize the memory usage of mesh undo

[Ounan Ding]

Hi Campbell,

Thank you for your clarification.

I just re-check the code but I am afraid I cannot confirm what you said.

If I understand the code correctly, the actual assembling of UndoElem
happens in undo_editmode_push.
Then it steps in editbtMesh_to_undoMesh through:

curundo->undodata = curundo->from_editmode(editdata, obedit->data);

In the editbtMesh_to_undoMesh, I see verts, edges, loops are duplicated in
the function BM_mesh_bm_to_me.

I failed to find any difference checking code in BM_mesh_bm_to_me.
It just iterates verts, edges, loops and copy the data.
I am also aware of the member elem_index_dirty in BMesh. But I do not see
it is used to avoid unnecessary copying.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

BTW, could you also put some comments on another proposal on Solidify
modifier I wrote a day before?
http://lists.blender.org/pipermail/bf-committers/2016-March/046915.html
It is not hurry. But I really like to collect ideas and make some
improvements before the final proposal submission date.

Thank you.

On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Campbell Barton 
wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 8:19 PM, Ounan Ding  wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am Ounan Ding(IRC: TheBusyTypist).
> > I am interested in Blender and willing to contribute to our community in
> > the coming GSoC 2016.
> >
> > Here is my preliminary proposal to optimize the memory usage of mesh
> undo:
> >
> >
> >
> https://github.com/thebusytypist/gsoc-2016-doc/raw/master/proposals/mesh-undo-memory/mesh-undo-memory.pdf
>
> Checked over the document, one thing which isn't quite correct is the
> statement that...
>
>   "The current strategy is that the whole mesh data get duplicated and
> restored
> on the undo command"
>
> ... in fact each chunk of memory is compared and only stored if there
> are differences,
> though this is inefficient when making destructive changes to the mesh
> (subdivision for example),
> it does mean changing selection won't have to store  UV's, weights,
> shape-keys etc.
>
> One possible optimization would be to implement binary diffing, so
> minor differences to large allocates don't have to store the entire
> block each time.
>
> > (and I put it on wiki.blender.org as well:
> >
> http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/User:TheBusyTypist/GSoC2016-Mesh-Undo-Memory
> > But I suggest to read above pdf version since it has better typesetting)
> >
> > I have a review of current implementation here:
> > http://blender.linearconstraints.net/2016/02/28/notes-on-undo.html
> > It helps me form this proposal.
> >
> > I also have some notes and practice on the Blender Operator system:
> >
> http://blender.linearconstraints.net/2015/03/28/write-first-blender-operator.html
> >
> http://blender.linearconstraints.net/2015/04/01/analyze-primitive-cube-add-operator.html
> > which lead me to the design in my proposal.
> >
> > Currently I am still working on more strategies for specific Operators.
> > I am also looking forward to commends and critiques from you.
> >
> > Thank you.
> > ___
> > 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
>
___
Bf-committers mailing list
Bf-committers@blender.org
http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers

Re: [Bf-committers] GSoC 2016 Preliminary proposal to optimize the memory usage of mesh undo

[Campbell Barton]

On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 8:19 PM, Ounan Ding  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am Ounan Ding(IRC: TheBusyTypist).
> I am interested in Blender and willing to contribute to our community in
> the coming GSoC 2016.
>
> Here is my preliminary proposal to optimize the memory usage of mesh undo:
>
>
> https://github.com/thebusytypist/gsoc-2016-doc/raw/master/proposals/mesh-undo-memory/mesh-undo-memory.pdf

Checked over the document, one thing which isn't quite correct is the
statement that...

  "The current strategy is that the whole mesh data get duplicated and restored
on the undo command"

... in fact each chunk of memory is compared and only stored if there
are differences,
though this is inefficient when making destructive changes to the mesh
(subdivision for example),
it does mean changing selection won't have to store  UV's, weights,
shape-keys etc.

One possible optimization would be to implement binary diffing, so
minor differences to large allocates don't have to store the entire
block each time.

> (and I put it on wiki.blender.org as well:
> http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/User:TheBusyTypist/GSoC2016-Mesh-Undo-Memory
> But I suggest to read above pdf version since it has better typesetting)
>
> I have a review of current implementation here:
> http://blender.linearconstraints.net/2016/02/28/notes-on-undo.html
> It helps me form this proposal.
>
> I also have some notes and practice on the Blender Operator system:
> http://blender.linearconstraints.net/2015/03/28/write-first-blender-operator.html
> http://blender.linearconstraints.net/2015/04/01/analyze-primitive-cube-add-operator.html
> which lead me to the design in my proposal.
>
> Currently I am still working on more strategies for specific Operators.
> I am also looking forward to commends and critiques from you.
>
> Thank you.
> ___
> 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

Re: [Bf-committers] Interest for testing online manual editing? (cross-post)

[Campbell Barton]

On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 4:14 AM, homac  wrote:
> Getting Started Section is a dead link. Is it just still missing?
>
> It refers to: https://www.blender.org/documentation/contribute
>
> Holger

Corrected (that page was moved to version control).
___
Bf-committers mailing list
Bf-committers@blender.org
http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers

[Bf-committers] Thanks

[Daniel McNeela]

Thanks to Mike, Jacob, and Campbell for replying to my previous post. I
have Intel HD 4000 graphics, so I think I should be good, though I'll try
building Blender tonight and see if I run into any issues.

Also, apologies for not submitting this as a reply to my original thread. I
was trying to do so, but based on what limited knowledge I have of mailman
this can only be done by creating a custom mail header with the previous
message id, and I don't believe that's possible in gmail. If anyone knows
of a workaround, please let me know.

Thanks,

Daniel
___
Bf-committers mailing list
Bf-committers@blender.org
http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers

[Bf-committers] GSoC 2016: User Coordinate Spaces (UCS)

[Valeriu Prodan]

Hi,
I am Valeriu Prodan and I am a student at The Faculty of Automatic Control and 
Computers, University Politehnica of Bucharest, Romania. I would like to help 
you with GSoc 2016 'User Coordinate Spaces (UCS)' given that I used blender in 
the past and I think I know what this project is about. I already compiled the 
blender source code and I would like some help with understanding the code. If 
anyone can help me I am looking forward to getting an answer!
 __

Valeriu Prodan.

___
Bf-committers mailing list
Bf-committers@blender.org
http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers

Re: [Bf-committers] Google Summer of Code 2016 - Adding CAD functionality to Blender

[Jaume Bellet]

I agree with the main purpose proposed as it would benefit users in general
and should be a first objective.

I do not think using other applicatons like inscape it's a good solution to
get drawings, because you lose any relationship wich is important for
manufacturing as you need to get drawings that could be changed and reused
efficiently. Also for technical docs.

I also think not all people using blender they use every parts of it.
El dia 05/03/2016 17.19, "Ton Roosendaal"  va escriure:

> Hi Duarte,
>
> Thanks for the insight, I fully agree to keep focus on Blender as a
> creative tool.
> A lot of architects use Blender. Not for CAD, but as free design and
> visualization tool.
>
> I also want to point students here at FreeCAD and other open source CAD
> projects.
>
> BRL-CAD is an umbrella vor 6 CAD projects even:
> http://brlcad.org/wiki/Google_Summer_of_Code/Project_Ideas
>
> Please support them! We really need good open source specialized CAD
> programs!
>
> It's well possible to draw a line between what's CAD and what's 3D
> modeling and visualization (and animation etc). We can make sure our
> programs work well together, rather than having Blender to add a CAD module
> that makes you to not need to learn or support FreeCAD.
>
> Why not streamline I/O with the popular CAD tools?
>
> In Blender: better precision modeling tools (to make buildings or
> industrial designed objects) are very welcome, provided it works together
> in harmony with creative real-time tools as we have now.
>
> My 2 cents,
>
> -Ton-
>
> 
> Ton Roosendaal  -  t...@blender.org   -   www.blender.org
> Chairman Blender Foundation - Producer Blender Institute
> Entrepotdok 57A  -  1018AD Amsterdam  -  The Netherlands
>
>
>
> > On 5 Mar, 2016, at 5:08, Duaret Ramos Sapo  wrote:
> >
> > As an architect and a frequent Blender user doing precision modeling and
> > CAD like work daily, I believe such an editor for 2D layout our paper
> > space page work is a bit overkill and unnecessary in Blender.
> > It is very different from what Blender currently does, won't properly
> > fit in with current tools or workflow and will easily feel out of place.
> > Page layout is such a complex area covering so many different subjects
> > and tools that I fear it will always feel incomplete or lacking in
> > features compared to established dedicated tools (like say Inkscape, or
> > Scribus, or LibreOffice).
> > Blender already outputs renders in the form of images or even vector
> > graphics (SVG) with FreeStyle that can easily be set up as isometric
> > views and then used elsewhere in a dedicated page layout software and I
> > believe that is enough.
> >
> > I would much rather see efforts invested on areas where CAD workflow is
> > actually lacking in Blender, like say precision modeling tools for
> > better object snapping (more precise, more responsive, tracking points
> > like midpoints, edge extension, etc.), better transforms tools (base
> > points for moving, reference points for rotations, etc) CAD like tools
> > like trimming and extending, offsetting, fillet, chamfering, especially
> > for curve objects where such tools are severely lacking.
> >
> > This item in ideas page
> > <
> http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Dev:Ref/GoogleSummerOfCode/2016/Ideas#Improvements_for_Bezier_Curves
> >
> > details some of the things that need some work at least in the area of
> > bezier curves, and above all Justas Ingelevičius amazing work
> >  in his patch in the tracker which
> > is a much much needed improvement for Blender CAD-like workflow that
> > needs to be made in a way that can safely be merged to trunk.
> >
> > On 04-03-2016 15:20, Jaume Bellet wrote:
> >> I of course agree that blender is not cad tool, but imho lots of
> >> cad-utilities and workflows will improve it, and i think this should be
> the
> >> purpose.
> >>
> >> In my field of application as you said blender nowadays can be used on
> >> finals steps, to get renders and visualization purposes. Could be used
> in
> >> early steps for concepts, but lacks of tools. The whole idea should be
> the
> >> availability to go from beginning to the end, and this should include
> the
> >> availability to get drawings in a 2D space (let's say paper space), that
> >> could be used to get formal drawings for production if needed, or for
> >> technical documents.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 2016-03-04 15:52 GMT+01:00 matmenu :
> >>
> >>> Maybe contact Campbell, as he will work on custom editors for 2.8. But
> >>> I'm not sure this is something the users and the BF wants in Blender.
> >>>
> >>> What would be the advantage of such an editor over the normal quad
> >>> 3Dview or a normal orthogonal view? I may be wrong, but many users,
> even
> >>> architects and engineer know that Blender isn't a CAD program. What we
> >>> are looking for is not really to make a CAD program out of Blender (32
> >>> bit precision

Re: [Bf-committers] Submisison of °Ideas from sub-organization for Gsoc

[Ton Roosendaal]

Hi,

Groups or organizations cannot submit projects to GSoC. Only individual 
students can.
Ideas for projects will only be added on our list when supported by active 
contributors.

-Ton-


Ton Roosendaal  -  t...@blender.org   -   www.blender.org
Chairman Blender Foundation - Producer Blender Institute
Entrepotdok 57A  -  1018AD Amsterdam  -  The Netherlands



> On 5 Mar, 2016, at 18:04, Italian Mars Society  
> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 
> 
> is it possible for an organizzation to submit  a project for Gsoc  to
> Blender Foundation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We would like to develop a project based on Blender, including it in Gsoc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inform me about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks 
> 
> 
> 
> Antonio
> 
> ___
> 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] Interest for testing online manual editing? (cross-post)

[homac]

Getting Started Section is a dead link. Is it just still missing?

It refers to: https://www.blender.org/documentation/contribute

Holger


On 03/03/16 00:04, Campbell Barton wrote:
> Recently I wrote to the bf-docboard, checking if others are interested
> to test online editing, using gitlab.
> (to support contributing to the manual without having to download or
> install anything).
>
> While there hasn't been an overwhelming response (positive or
> negative), the bf-docboard mailing list is fairly quiet,
> so cross-posting here in case others are interested.
>
> For details see:
> http://lists.blender.org/pipermail/bf-docboard/2016-February/005029.html
>
> Also, Dalai uploaded some screenshots to give a quick overview of how
> this works.
> http://dalaifelinto.com/images/manual-gitlab/
>

___
Bf-committers mailing list
Bf-committers@blender.org
http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers

Re: [Bf-committers] Interest for testing online manual editing? (cross-post)

[homac]

Good idea. Bookmarked for later use :)



On 03/03/16 00:04, Campbell Barton wrote:
> Recently I wrote to the bf-docboard, checking if others are interested
> to test online editing, using gitlab.
> (to support contributing to the manual without having to download or
> install anything).
>
> While there hasn't been an overwhelming response (positive or
> negative), the bf-docboard mailing list is fairly quiet,
> so cross-posting here in case others are interested.
>
> For details see:
> http://lists.blender.org/pipermail/bf-docboard/2016-February/005029.html
>
> Also, Dalai uploaded some screenshots to give a quick overview of how
> this works.
> http://dalaifelinto.com/images/manual-gitlab/
>

___
Bf-committers mailing list
Bf-committers@blender.org
http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers

[Bf-committers] Submisison of °Ideas from sub-organization for Gsoc

[Italian Mars Society]

Hi,

 

is it possible for an organizzation to submit  a project for Gsoc  to
Blender Foundation?

 

 

We would like to develop a project based on Blender, including it in Gsoc.

 

 

Inform me about.

 

 

Thanks 

 

Antonio

___
Bf-committers mailing list
Bf-committers@blender.org
http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers

[Bf-committers] GSoc (2016) - Package Manager (for add-on’s and possibly other resources)

[Nikhil R]

Hi,My name is Nikhil. R and I am an undergrad at BITS Pilani, India. I have 
experience in Python and more info about me can be found here[1].  I am 
interested in contributing to Blender as part of GSoc 2016. Particularly I am 
interested in: Package Manger for addons. Is this a confirmed project ?(It was 
under "Various Ideas" sub section). I found this page[2] where they discuss 
about the possibility of an addon manager in Blender and the feature set 
involved with it. I am willing to discuss further on the same project and want 
to know where to get started. 

Regards,Nikhil. R
[1]: http://rnikhil275.github.io/assets/Nikhil. R- Resume.pdf[2]: 
http://blenderartists.org/forum/showthread.php?382144-Idea-Blender-Add-on-manager-quot-UPDATES-quot-panel-and-Blender-cloud-accounts
  
___
Bf-committers mailing list
Bf-committers@blender.org
http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers

Re: [Bf-committers] Google Summer of Code 2016 - Adding CAD functionality to Blender

[Ton Roosendaal]

Hi Duarte,

Thanks for the insight, I fully agree to keep focus on Blender as a creative 
tool.
A lot of architects use Blender. Not for CAD, but as free design and 
visualization tool.

I also want to point students here at FreeCAD and other open source CAD 
projects. 

BRL-CAD is an umbrella vor 6 CAD projects even:
http://brlcad.org/wiki/Google_Summer_of_Code/Project_Ideas

Please support them! We really need good open source specialized CAD programs!

It's well possible to draw a line between what's CAD and what's 3D modeling and 
visualization (and animation etc). We can make sure our programs work well 
together, rather than having Blender to add a CAD module that makes you to not 
need to learn or support FreeCAD.

Why not streamline I/O with the popular CAD tools?

In Blender: better precision modeling tools (to make buildings or industrial 
designed objects) are very welcome, provided it works together in harmony with 
creative real-time tools as we have now.

My 2 cents,

-Ton-


Ton Roosendaal  -  t...@blender.org   -   www.blender.org
Chairman Blender Foundation - Producer Blender Institute
Entrepotdok 57A  -  1018AD Amsterdam  -  The Netherlands



> On 5 Mar, 2016, at 5:08, Duaret Ramos Sapo  wrote:
> 
> As an architect and a frequent Blender user doing precision modeling and 
> CAD like work daily, I believe such an editor for 2D layout our paper 
> space page work is a bit overkill and unnecessary in Blender.
> It is very different from what Blender currently does, won't properly 
> fit in with current tools or workflow and will easily feel out of place. 
> Page layout is such a complex area covering so many different subjects 
> and tools that I fear it will always feel incomplete or lacking in 
> features compared to established dedicated tools (like say Inkscape, or 
> Scribus, or LibreOffice).
> Blender already outputs renders in the form of images or even vector 
> graphics (SVG) with FreeStyle that can easily be set up as isometric 
> views and then used elsewhere in a dedicated page layout software and I 
> believe that is enough.
> 
> I would much rather see efforts invested on areas where CAD workflow is 
> actually lacking in Blender, like say precision modeling tools for 
> better object snapping (more precise, more responsive, tracking points 
> like midpoints, edge extension, etc.), better transforms tools (base 
> points for moving, reference points for rotations, etc) CAD like tools 
> like trimming and extending, offsetting, fillet, chamfering, especially 
> for curve objects where such tools are severely lacking.
> 
> This item in ideas page 
> 
>  
> details some of the things that need some work at least in the area of 
> bezier curves, and above all Justas Ingelevičius amazing work 
>  in his patch in the tracker which 
> is a much much needed improvement for Blender CAD-like workflow that 
> needs to be made in a way that can safely be merged to trunk.
> 
> On 04-03-2016 15:20, Jaume Bellet wrote:
>> I of course agree that blender is not cad tool, but imho lots of
>> cad-utilities and workflows will improve it, and i think this should be the
>> purpose.
>> 
>> In my field of application as you said blender nowadays can be used on
>> finals steps, to get renders and visualization purposes. Could be used in
>> early steps for concepts, but lacks of tools. The whole idea should be the
>> availability to go from beginning to the end, and this should include the
>> availability to get drawings in a 2D space (let's say paper space), that
>> could be used to get formal drawings for production if needed, or for
>> technical documents.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 2016-03-04 15:52 GMT+01:00 matmenu :
>> 
>>> Maybe contact Campbell, as he will work on custom editors for 2.8. But
>>> I'm not sure this is something the users and the BF wants in Blender.
>>> 
>>> What would be the advantage of such an editor over the normal quad
>>> 3Dview or a normal orthogonal view? I may be wrong, but many users, even
>>> architects and engineer know that Blender isn't a CAD program. What we
>>> are looking for is not really to make a CAD program out of Blender (32
>>> bit precision will avoid it anyway), but more to make operations that
>>> are often required in the sketching (=concept phase) and rendering (=
>>> final phase) process easier. And many of those addition, like better
>>> snapping, benefit many users (people doing hard surface modelling, cars,
>>> etc...). An editor only for CAD user sounds a bit to specific?
>>> 
>>> Maybe you could explain with images better what would be the benefit of
>>> such a new editor over the 3D view? If your work goes in the direction
>>> of preparing for custom editors, then I guess it would awake much more
>>> interest from users and programmers :) Your ISO parts editor co

Re: [Bf-committers] Google Summer of Code 2016 - Adding CAD functionality to Blender

[Johnny P.]

Good afternoon,

I am also interested about the integration of CAD module in Blender. Now I
work on a project with other 2 engineers to integrate CAE module in
Blender. From the point of view of what users of CAD and CAE need must be
the principal target of modules.
Because I have 10 years experience in simulations and mechanical designer
engineer, I think I can contribute with my experience also in CAD module.

Also, before to start it is very important that to be know who know Blender
as the programming level, who have experience as mechanical designer
engineer, construction engineer, architects for test the modules.

I waiting your feedback regard to creation of CAD and CAE module.

Keep in touch.
Best regards.
___
Bf-committers mailing list
Bf-committers@blender.org
http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers

Re: [Bf-committers] GSoC 2016 Preliminary proposal to optimize the memory usage of mesh undo

[Ton Roosendaal]

Hi Ounan,

That's been a lot of work, thanks for showing your commitment! I only had time 
to check it quickly.
The Mesh team will go over it as soon as possible.

A quick remark about undo optimize: it will be interesting to examine 
alternative ways too. like partial undo storage and compressing. But I admit I 
haven't checked this code for a while, who knows it's already there!

-Ton-


Ton Roosendaal  -  t...@blender.org   -   www.blender.org
Chairman Blender Foundation - Producer Blender Institute
Entrepotdok 57A  -  1018AD Amsterdam  -  The Netherlands



> On 5 Mar, 2016, at 10:19, Ounan Ding  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I am Ounan Ding(IRC: TheBusyTypist).
> I am interested in Blender and willing to contribute to our community in
> the coming GSoC 2016.
> 
> Here is my preliminary proposal to optimize the memory usage of mesh undo:
> 
> 
> https://github.com/thebusytypist/gsoc-2016-doc/raw/master/proposals/mesh-undo-memory/mesh-undo-memory.pdf
> 
> (and I put it on wiki.blender.org as well:
> http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/User:TheBusyTypist/GSoC2016-Mesh-Undo-Memory
> But I suggest to read above pdf version since it has better typesetting)
> 
> I have a review of current implementation here:
> http://blender.linearconstraints.net/2016/02/28/notes-on-undo.html
> It helps me form this proposal.
> 
> I also have some notes and practice on the Blender Operator system:
> http://blender.linearconstraints.net/2015/03/28/write-first-blender-operator.html
> http://blender.linearconstraints.net/2015/04/01/analyze-primitive-cube-add-operator.html
> which lead me to the design in my proposal.
> 
> Currently I am still working on more strategies for specific Operators.
> I am also looking forward to commends and critiques from you.
> 
> Thank you.
> ___
> 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] Google Summer of Code 2016 - Adding CAD functionality to Blender

[João Araújo]

thank you very much for the feedback :) . I will try to contact Howard
Trickey and discuss the bezier curves improvements with him.

2016-03-05 4:08 GMT+00:00 Duaret Ramos Sapo :

> As an architect and a frequent Blender user doing precision modeling and
> CAD like work daily, I believe such an editor for 2D layout our paper
> space page work is a bit overkill and unnecessary in Blender.
> It is very different from what Blender currently does, won't properly
> fit in with current tools or workflow and will easily feel out of place.
> Page layout is such a complex area covering so many different subjects
> and tools that I fear it will always feel incomplete or lacking in
> features compared to established dedicated tools (like say Inkscape, or
> Scribus, or LibreOffice).
> Blender already outputs renders in the form of images or even vector
> graphics (SVG) with FreeStyle that can easily be set up as isometric
> views and then used elsewhere in a dedicated page layout software and I
> believe that is enough.
>
> I would much rather see efforts invested on areas where CAD workflow is
> actually lacking in Blender, like say precision modeling tools for
> better object snapping (more precise, more responsive, tracking points
> like midpoints, edge extension, etc.), better transforms tools (base
> points for moving, reference points for rotations, etc) CAD like tools
> like trimming and extending, offsetting, fillet, chamfering, especially
> for curve objects where such tools are severely lacking.
>
> This item in ideas page
> <
> http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Dev:Ref/GoogleSummerOfCode/2016/Ideas#Improvements_for_Bezier_Curves
> >
> details some of the things that need some work at least in the area of
> bezier curves, and above all Justas Ingelevičius amazing work
>  in his patch in the tracker which
> is a much much needed improvement for Blender CAD-like workflow that
> needs to be made in a way that can safely be merged to trunk.
>
> On 04-03-2016 15:20, Jaume Bellet wrote:
> > I of course agree that blender is not cad tool, but imho lots of
> > cad-utilities and workflows will improve it, and i think this should be
> the
> > purpose.
> >
> > In my field of application as you said blender nowadays can be used on
> > finals steps, to get renders and visualization purposes. Could be used in
> > early steps for concepts, but lacks of tools. The whole idea should be
> the
> > availability to go from beginning to the end, and this should include the
> > availability to get drawings in a 2D space (let's say paper space), that
> > could be used to get formal drawings for production if needed, or for
> > technical documents.
> >
> >
> >
> > 2016-03-04 15:52 GMT+01:00 matmenu :
> >
> >> Maybe contact Campbell, as he will work on custom editors for 2.8. But
> >> I'm not sure this is something the users and the BF wants in Blender.
> >>
> >> What would be the advantage of such an editor over the normal quad
> >> 3Dview or a normal orthogonal view? I may be wrong, but many users, even
> >> architects and engineer know that Blender isn't a CAD program. What we
> >> are looking for is not really to make a CAD program out of Blender (32
> >> bit precision will avoid it anyway), but more to make operations that
> >> are often required in the sketching (=concept phase) and rendering (=
> >> final phase) process easier. And many of those addition, like better
> >> snapping, benefit many users (people doing hard surface modelling, cars,
> >> etc...). An editor only for CAD user sounds a bit to specific?
> >>
> >> Maybe you could explain with images better what would be the benefit of
> >> such a new editor over the 3D view? If your work goes in the direction
> >> of preparing for custom editors, then I guess it would awake much more
> >> interest from users and programmers :) Your ISO parts editor could hen
> >> be an example of such a custom editor, written in python on top of your
> >> new API?
> >>
> >> On 04/03/2016 13:11, João Araújo wrote:
> >>> Your work is amazing Jaume! I guess that it kills a few points from my
> >>> initial list (assuming you are going to merge your code with the
> Blender
> >>> master).
> >>>
> >>> Still, I would like to ear some opinions on the first topic of my list
> >>> (editor that would allow the user to make ISO-compliant drawings of
> >>> individual parts), which I consider the most important. I can implement
> >> the
> >>> other points as a python add-on.
> >>>
> >>> Does anyone have some suggestion as to who I could contact personally
> >> that
> >>> could possibly be interested in being a mentor for this?
> >>>
> >>> I will avoid blenderartists for a while, at least until I have more
> solid
> >>> ideas.
> >>>
> >>> 2016-03-04 11:53 GMT+00:00 Jaume Bellet :
> >>>
>  https://vimeo.com/user2228784/videos
> 
>  Here are some videos of work done in a separate repo from bf official
> >> one.
>  Work there is still in progress, not f

Re: [Bf-committers] Blender 2.77 Release Candidate 2 AHOY!

[Sergey Sharybin]

Aaron, such requests should not be a part of build AHOY discussion, but a
part of backport list discussion.

In any case, rc2 builds are up and ready with the following sums:

7a4d5b220f4bd64abea052cce47c5bc0  blender-2.77-rc2-OSX_10.6-x86_64.zip
36f57438c0560f2e85b25c0a78f8206a
 blender-2.77-rc2-linux-glibc211-i686.tar.bz2
4a999801d85ba748e73a5f1841af889e
 blender-2.77-rc2-linux-glibc211-x86_64.tar.bz2
3b90a201fe5d7cd70b4ec0a0ceefb466  blender-2.77-rc2-windows32.msi
f7a150326e0b8ffca017b757f6f1bad7  blender-2.77-rc2-windows32.zip
61c828380bac5bc0763d9beb4167587d  blender-2.77-rc2-windows64.msi
1c70589e4cd36cd050662a9e613c218d  blender-2.77-rc2-windows64.zip



On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 4:59 AM, Aaron Carlisle 
wrote:

> It would be nice for the final release to have the latest addons because I
> committed some link fixes since then.
>
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 12:12 PM, Sergey Sharybin 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > We still do have some issues reported, but we need to process with RC2 to
> > provide more stable build for tests.
> >
> > Information for platform maintainers:
> >
> > - Branch: blender-v2.77-release
> > - Branch hash: 1e1118e7e7133ef48b0bea2892d4de4027058ba0
> > - Locale hash: d2b8d0ed8de89d7e22084ac317c6cc3b660d399b
> > - Addons hash: 1736c5cf882b2f2ffa2896a4e34aba9b7eda5615
> >
> > Suggested name: blender-2.77-rc2-
> >
> > Please provide md5 sums of the builds, we'll start keeping this
> information
> > since this release. Some extra details about this will be mailed later.
> >
> > P.S. Tagging will happen after it's clear we don't do re-AHOY.
> >
> > --
> > With best regards, Sergey Sharybin
> > ___
> > 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
>



-- 
With best regards, Sergey Sharybin
___
Bf-committers mailing list
Bf-committers@blender.org
http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers

[Bf-committers] GSoC 2016 Preliminary proposal to optimize the memory usage of mesh undo

[Ounan Ding]

Hi,

I am Ounan Ding(IRC: TheBusyTypist).
I am interested in Blender and willing to contribute to our community in
the coming GSoC 2016.

Here is my preliminary proposal to optimize the memory usage of mesh undo:


https://github.com/thebusytypist/gsoc-2016-doc/raw/master/proposals/mesh-undo-memory/mesh-undo-memory.pdf

(and I put it on wiki.blender.org as well:
http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/User:TheBusyTypist/GSoC2016-Mesh-Undo-Memory
But I suggest to read above pdf version since it has better typesetting)

I have a review of current implementation here:
http://blender.linearconstraints.net/2016/02/28/notes-on-undo.html
It helps me form this proposal.

I also have some notes and practice on the Blender Operator system:
http://blender.linearconstraints.net/2015/03/28/write-first-blender-operator.html
http://blender.linearconstraints.net/2015/04/01/analyze-primitive-cube-add-operator.html
which lead me to the design in my proposal.

Currently I am still working on more strategies for specific Operators.
I am also looking forward to commends and critiques from you.

Thank you.
___
Bf-committers mailing list
Bf-committers@blender.org
http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers