Re: [Bf-committers] The Future of Blender Projects WAS meeting notes
Am 24.06.2012 01:59, schrieb Campbell Barton:
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 1:29 AM, Matt Ebbm...@mke3.net wrote:
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 12:05 AM, Ton Roosendaalt...@blender.org wrote:
with the evident benefits but also with as danger that it can go out of
control with a huge pile of postponed todo items and issues. :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_debt
This is an issue for blender, and has been for a while. It may not be
as exciting to rally volunteer developers around, but I think
post-2.6, a period of 'paying off these debts' would be very good for
blender users, especially those using it in production.
I think that this isn't just related to short release cycles though, a
lot of it's also due to the open movie projects ('Business pressures'
in that list, I suppose). They certainly have their benefits, but they
also leave a lot of unfinished work in their wake.
One of the original ideas for the open movies was to use a practical
animation project to 'get blender ready for production', however in
the heat of the project, under deadlines and resource pressures, this
becomes more like 'fit in the minimum required to allow this
particular production to get done'.
Using blender in production at the time, I was quite sensitive to this
happening during BBB, with features implemented well enough for the
team's specific purposes, but not so practical for other use cases. It
happened in Sintel (hair dynamics is one example), and it now seems to
be happening in Mango. One example that I'm familiar with right now is
how the render API seems to have been bypassed and all but forgotten,
during the rush to get Cycles in a usable state.
Another issue is that the open project are usually exploring new
territory for the development team - that's often a major reasons for
existence of the projects (eg. 'improve blender's furry hair styling
and rendering' or 'improve live-action vfx compositing'). It's great
to have a focused target, and it's often a good way to get things
done. The danger however is that often the coders and artists involved
have little experience in a particular field that they're exploring,
and the design decisions and implementations may turn out to not be so
good in hindsight, and maybe aren't so good to commit to for Blender.
There's a tendency to think that since a movie project got completed,
then that particular area of functionality is 'solved', eg. BBB got
finished, therefore hair styling and rendering is done, and we can
move on. In reality, Blender users can be left with tools that really
don't work that well outside of the project's specific needs, or tools
that now with the benefit of hindsight and experience, should have
been implemented in a better way. However if developers keep moving on
to newer things, and if this happens across all areas of
functionality, the end result is an application made up of parts which
are all first-draft attempts, which work 'ok' in some situations but
not in others, and never smoothly and elegantly.
One positive example on the other hand was the render branch after
Sintel. The easy thing to do would have been to satisfy the casual
users who want to play with new toys, add it all in, and move on.
After all the development work that was done on it, it was really
commendable to see self-reflection and the willingness to step back,
critique it, and say This isn't right for Blender and its users, it
needs to be done a better way, and throw a lot of it away. In the
end, it led to cycles, which I'm sure most Blender users will be much
happier using in the long term, and is hopefully shaping up to be
something that's actually a great tool to use, not just a 75% done
first-version.
This is also a good argument for doing movie project-specific
development in a separate branch. Adding these things into trunk as
they are coded makes it much more difficult to revert later on.
So! For these open projects to become more effective ways of achieving
the goal of improving Blender as a package, not as a project-specific
tool, there needs to be a period of critique and further work after
each project. I know from experience that at the end of a tiring job
when you just want to forget it all, have a rest, and move on, the
last thing you want to do is go back over it all and re-work it, but
that's the difference between doing this development for that movie
project only, or for Blender in general.
Questions need to be asked - Is this the right way to go? Should we
revise this with better design decisions? What worked and didn't
work well during the course of the project? What hacks did we have
to do to make this work, that we should clean up?. And even if the
design is good, and it worked well, and you wouldn't do it differently
a second time around, it's still very important to ask Is this enough
for general use by other Blender users, not just this open movie team
working on this
Re: [Bf-committers] The Future of Blender Projects WAS meeting notes
In my (naive) view, the Open projects have been chosen to target specific features that were missing or immature in Blender at the time. I would propose that some (every second?) project instead attempt to use *only* features that are already considered relatively usable. A no new features open project could then instead shine light on usability issues, workflow problems, and quality issues. Harley ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] The Future of Blender Projects WAS meeting notes
I really would like to see a stabilizing phase that concentrates on refactoring and documentation, while at the same time fixing various postponed issues. 2.49b was nearly rock stable, 2.5 was a pain at first but got better over time and was quite stable with 2.6.2 or so, even if i have to admit that not all design goals for 2.5 were reached (still a lot of dependency issues). But recently i noticed several new bugs introduced through bloated code (mainly because of various fixes/hacks). The 3D view is a good example. One bug gets fixed two new bugs arise. I would assume that there were to many new big things included at once in a too short time window, while many needed things/fixes moved onto the todo lists. I'm happy that we have cycles now. But at the same time I'm a bit frustrasted because of the dependency: Why would i need a good renderer if several bugs keep me from creating the models and animations needed for a good looking render? Ya, cycles is cool but a major pain to work with at this point. I was trying to paint an image texture with it and you have to save the texture to disk just to get it to show up on the render and that is just plane confusing at first. Then there are a bunch of little bugs and it kept crashing on me as I work but I could not seem to get it to do it consistently and still have not posted a bug yet, just ran into random crashes. I feel that we have reached a point of needing a major smoothing and sanding of blender. Not fun but it has reached the point of not being my fav program to work with because of all these small problems. It is starting to have the feel of Kubuntu, also a former fav until it rotted into a painful experience (This rot also started with a quicker turn around time). -- 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
Re: [Bf-committers] The Future of Blender Projects WAS meeting notes
1.) I'd like to see some improvements for 2.5D creation. Ideally, Blender would work similar to Adobe AfterEffects. Composing movie clips and FX should become very intuitive, especially by a new properties editor, which would support group manipulation (values adjustable simultaneously). It should support easy Fade in / out for clips etc., to be the better alternative to Windows Movie Maker Live (it would be portable!!!) 2.) There could be some sort of class, which IO addons would derive to store per-addon settings permanently. In User prefs Addons, each addon would get its own Settings button to open a preferences dialog. Users would set default paths and stuff here. 3.) IO addons should be able to register their supported import file extensions. Dragging dropping and OBJ onto Blender for instance, would import the dropped OBJ (either directly or showing a popup with import settings first). 4.) TODOS, like image file drag'n'drop to material image and multiple objects (un)parenting in outliner :) 5.) Image editor with repeat setting on should not cap the maximum tiles drawn, but rather fill the entire screen (either faster code, or progressive drawing...) 6.) +1 for investigations on a merged view of all 2D screens (uv, image, movie, mask...) ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] The Future of Blender Projects WAS meeting notes
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 12:05 AM, Ton Roosendaal t...@blender.org wrote:
with the evident benefits but also with as danger that it can go out of
control with a huge pile of postponed todo items and issues. :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_debt
This is an issue for blender, and has been for a while. It may not be
as exciting to rally volunteer developers around, but I think
post-2.6, a period of 'paying off these debts' would be very good for
blender users, especially those using it in production.
I think that this isn't just related to short release cycles though, a
lot of it's also due to the open movie projects ('Business pressures'
in that list, I suppose). They certainly have their benefits, but they
also leave a lot of unfinished work in their wake.
One of the original ideas for the open movies was to use a practical
animation project to 'get blender ready for production', however in
the heat of the project, under deadlines and resource pressures, this
becomes more like 'fit in the minimum required to allow this
particular production to get done'.
Using blender in production at the time, I was quite sensitive to this
happening during BBB, with features implemented well enough for the
team's specific purposes, but not so practical for other use cases. It
happened in Sintel (hair dynamics is one example), and it now seems to
be happening in Mango. One example that I'm familiar with right now is
how the render API seems to have been bypassed and all but forgotten,
during the rush to get Cycles in a usable state.
Another issue is that the open project are usually exploring new
territory for the development team - that's often a major reasons for
existence of the projects (eg. 'improve blender's furry hair styling
and rendering' or 'improve live-action vfx compositing'). It's great
to have a focused target, and it's often a good way to get things
done. The danger however is that often the coders and artists involved
have little experience in a particular field that they're exploring,
and the design decisions and implementations may turn out to not be so
good in hindsight, and maybe aren't so good to commit to for Blender.
There's a tendency to think that since a movie project got completed,
then that particular area of functionality is 'solved', eg. BBB got
finished, therefore hair styling and rendering is done, and we can
move on. In reality, Blender users can be left with tools that really
don't work that well outside of the project's specific needs, or tools
that now with the benefit of hindsight and experience, should have
been implemented in a better way. However if developers keep moving on
to newer things, and if this happens across all areas of
functionality, the end result is an application made up of parts which
are all first-draft attempts, which work 'ok' in some situations but
not in others, and never smoothly and elegantly.
One positive example on the other hand was the render branch after
Sintel. The easy thing to do would have been to satisfy the casual
users who want to play with new toys, add it all in, and move on.
After all the development work that was done on it, it was really
commendable to see self-reflection and the willingness to step back,
critique it, and say This isn't right for Blender and its users, it
needs to be done a better way, and throw a lot of it away. In the
end, it led to cycles, which I'm sure most Blender users will be much
happier using in the long term, and is hopefully shaping up to be
something that's actually a great tool to use, not just a 75% done
first-version.
This is also a good argument for doing movie project-specific
development in a separate branch. Adding these things into trunk as
they are coded makes it much more difficult to revert later on.
So! For these open projects to become more effective ways of achieving
the goal of improving Blender as a package, not as a project-specific
tool, there needs to be a period of critique and further work after
each project. I know from experience that at the end of a tiring job
when you just want to forget it all, have a rest, and move on, the
last thing you want to do is go back over it all and re-work it, but
that's the difference between doing this development for that movie
project only, or for Blender in general.
Questions need to be asked - Is this the right way to go? Should we
revise this with better design decisions? What worked and didn't
work well during the course of the project? What hacks did we have
to do to make this work, that we should clean up?. And even if the
design is good, and it worked well, and you wouldn't do it differently
a second time around, it's still very important to ask Is this enough
for general use by other Blender users, not just this open movie team
working on this project?. Some of these will come out as feedback
from other users during the course of the project. Each time a
response to feedback is: It's not a target for our project, it would
be a
Re: [Bf-committers] The Future of Blender Projects WAS meeting notes
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 1:29 AM, Matt Ebb m...@mke3.net wrote:
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 12:05 AM, Ton Roosendaal t...@blender.org wrote:
with the evident benefits but also with as danger that it can go out of
control with a huge pile of postponed todo items and issues. :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_debt
This is an issue for blender, and has been for a while. It may not be
as exciting to rally volunteer developers around, but I think
post-2.6, a period of 'paying off these debts' would be very good for
blender users, especially those using it in production.
I think that this isn't just related to short release cycles though, a
lot of it's also due to the open movie projects ('Business pressures'
in that list, I suppose). They certainly have their benefits, but they
also leave a lot of unfinished work in their wake.
One of the original ideas for the open movies was to use a practical
animation project to 'get blender ready for production', however in
the heat of the project, under deadlines and resource pressures, this
becomes more like 'fit in the minimum required to allow this
particular production to get done'.
Using blender in production at the time, I was quite sensitive to this
happening during BBB, with features implemented well enough for the
team's specific purposes, but not so practical for other use cases. It
happened in Sintel (hair dynamics is one example), and it now seems to
be happening in Mango. One example that I'm familiar with right now is
how the render API seems to have been bypassed and all but forgotten,
during the rush to get Cycles in a usable state.
Another issue is that the open project are usually exploring new
territory for the development team - that's often a major reasons for
existence of the projects (eg. 'improve blender's furry hair styling
and rendering' or 'improve live-action vfx compositing'). It's great
to have a focused target, and it's often a good way to get things
done. The danger however is that often the coders and artists involved
have little experience in a particular field that they're exploring,
and the design decisions and implementations may turn out to not be so
good in hindsight, and maybe aren't so good to commit to for Blender.
There's a tendency to think that since a movie project got completed,
then that particular area of functionality is 'solved', eg. BBB got
finished, therefore hair styling and rendering is done, and we can
move on. In reality, Blender users can be left with tools that really
don't work that well outside of the project's specific needs, or tools
that now with the benefit of hindsight and experience, should have
been implemented in a better way. However if developers keep moving on
to newer things, and if this happens across all areas of
functionality, the end result is an application made up of parts which
are all first-draft attempts, which work 'ok' in some situations but
not in others, and never smoothly and elegantly.
One positive example on the other hand was the render branch after
Sintel. The easy thing to do would have been to satisfy the casual
users who want to play with new toys, add it all in, and move on.
After all the development work that was done on it, it was really
commendable to see self-reflection and the willingness to step back,
critique it, and say This isn't right for Blender and its users, it
needs to be done a better way, and throw a lot of it away. In the
end, it led to cycles, which I'm sure most Blender users will be much
happier using in the long term, and is hopefully shaping up to be
something that's actually a great tool to use, not just a 75% done
first-version.
This is also a good argument for doing movie project-specific
development in a separate branch. Adding these things into trunk as
they are coded makes it much more difficult to revert later on.
So! For these open projects to become more effective ways of achieving
the goal of improving Blender as a package, not as a project-specific
tool, there needs to be a period of critique and further work after
each project. I know from experience that at the end of a tiring job
when you just want to forget it all, have a rest, and move on, the
last thing you want to do is go back over it all and re-work it, but
that's the difference between doing this development for that movie
project only, or for Blender in general.
Questions need to be asked - Is this the right way to go? Should we
revise this with better design decisions? What worked and didn't
work well during the course of the project? What hacks did we have
to do to make this work, that we should clean up?. And even if the
design is good, and it worked well, and you wouldn't do it differently
a second time around, it's still very important to ask Is this enough
for general use by other Blender users, not just this open movie team
working on this project?. Some of these will come out as feedback
Re: [Bf-committers] The Future of Blender Projects WAS meeting notes
I have an idea, assign devs to help Blender studios around the world, ie:
patazstudio from Costa Rica :D That and limit open movies to 3 min films! :)
cheers!
Daniel Salazar
patazstudio.com
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 5:59 PM, Campbell Barton ideasma...@gmail.comwrote:
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 1:29 AM, Matt Ebb m...@mke3.net wrote:
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 12:05 AM, Ton Roosendaal t...@blender.org
wrote:
with the evident benefits but also with as danger that it can go out of
control with a huge pile of postponed todo items and issues. :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_debt
This is an issue for blender, and has been for a while. It may not be
as exciting to rally volunteer developers around, but I think
post-2.6, a period of 'paying off these debts' would be very good for
blender users, especially those using it in production.
I think that this isn't just related to short release cycles though, a
lot of it's also due to the open movie projects ('Business pressures'
in that list, I suppose). They certainly have their benefits, but they
also leave a lot of unfinished work in their wake.
One of the original ideas for the open movies was to use a practical
animation project to 'get blender ready for production', however in
the heat of the project, under deadlines and resource pressures, this
becomes more like 'fit in the minimum required to allow this
particular production to get done'.
Using blender in production at the time, I was quite sensitive to this
happening during BBB, with features implemented well enough for the
team's specific purposes, but not so practical for other use cases. It
happened in Sintel (hair dynamics is one example), and it now seems to
be happening in Mango. One example that I'm familiar with right now is
how the render API seems to have been bypassed and all but forgotten,
during the rush to get Cycles in a usable state.
Another issue is that the open project are usually exploring new
territory for the development team - that's often a major reasons for
existence of the projects (eg. 'improve blender's furry hair styling
and rendering' or 'improve live-action vfx compositing'). It's great
to have a focused target, and it's often a good way to get things
done. The danger however is that often the coders and artists involved
have little experience in a particular field that they're exploring,
and the design decisions and implementations may turn out to not be so
good in hindsight, and maybe aren't so good to commit to for Blender.
There's a tendency to think that since a movie project got completed,
then that particular area of functionality is 'solved', eg. BBB got
finished, therefore hair styling and rendering is done, and we can
move on. In reality, Blender users can be left with tools that really
don't work that well outside of the project's specific needs, or tools
that now with the benefit of hindsight and experience, should have
been implemented in a better way. However if developers keep moving on
to newer things, and if this happens across all areas of
functionality, the end result is an application made up of parts which
are all first-draft attempts, which work 'ok' in some situations but
not in others, and never smoothly and elegantly.
One positive example on the other hand was the render branch after
Sintel. The easy thing to do would have been to satisfy the casual
users who want to play with new toys, add it all in, and move on.
After all the development work that was done on it, it was really
commendable to see self-reflection and the willingness to step back,
critique it, and say This isn't right for Blender and its users, it
needs to be done a better way, and throw a lot of it away. In the
end, it led to cycles, which I'm sure most Blender users will be much
happier using in the long term, and is hopefully shaping up to be
something that's actually a great tool to use, not just a 75% done
first-version.
This is also a good argument for doing movie project-specific
development in a separate branch. Adding these things into trunk as
they are coded makes it much more difficult to revert later on.
So! For these open projects to become more effective ways of achieving
the goal of improving Blender as a package, not as a project-specific
tool, there needs to be a period of critique and further work after
each project. I know from experience that at the end of a tiring job
when you just want to forget it all, have a rest, and move on, the
last thing you want to do is go back over it all and re-work it, but
that's the difference between doing this development for that movie
project only, or for Blender in general.
Questions need to be asked - Is this the right way to go? Should we
revise this with better design decisions? What worked and didn't
work well during the course of the project? What hacks did we have
Re: [Bf-committers] The Future of Blender Projects WAS meeting notes
+1! And I think one of the problems is documenting all these new tricks. -- 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
Re: [Bf-committers] The Future of Blender Projects WAS meeting notes
Hi all, Cool suggestions all over; will need some time to study it in detail. :) Just coincidentally; this month's ACM Communciations has a nice article about technical debt. It also refers to the currently very popular short release cycles; with the evident benefits but also with as danger that it can go out of control with a huge pile of postponed todo items and issues. :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_debt The issues on this page sound strikingly familiar ;) -Ton- Ton Roosendaal Blender Foundation t...@blender.orgwww.blender.org Blender Institute Entrepotdok 57A 1018AD Amsterdam The Netherlands On 18 Jun, 2012, at 3:16, Bassam Kurdali wrote: absolutely! though I'm not sure still what part is 'big enough' for 2.7/2.8 - it seems like more nodes is! but maybe dependency graph should even be a target for 2.6 series. my observations of 'weaknesses' from experience working on tube and other projects: 1- dependency graph 2- library linking robustness in corner cases, and overrides, and over simplicity. 3- speed is always nice (maybe depgraph helps multithreading) 4*- renderer issues are being fixed by cycles already 5*- mesh issues are being fixed by bmesh and other work. 6- nodal everything ;) at least constraints/modifiers/transforms/relationships. 7- nodal particles 8- hair and fur 9- unified/better physics esp. cloth sim. 10- art-directable sim/ rigid bodies. some of those are probably related to each other. cheers B On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 01:10 +0100, Gianmichele Mariani wrote: Main focus for 2.7/.8 series? A full dependency graph for sure. Possibly bring more nodes into the core of blender (particles, rigging, fx) On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:48 AM, Mike Belanger mikejamesbelan...@gmail.com wrote: I'm really happy about the last few years of Blender development. But I sort of miss the built-like-a-tank stability of 2.4x series. It'd be nice to focus on stability, bug-fixes for a while. I know that isn't as cool as an open-project though :P Mike On 2012-06-17, at 7:33 PM, Knapp wrote: - Ton also invites people to think of post 2.6 projects. A special focus for 2.7x and 2.8x? Suggestion: in all of 2013, BF focus on Blender itself (no open movies!). Could you enplane this a bit more? IMO VERY HO I would like to see a project that pushes fog, clouds, sea, smoke and water effects and unifies them. Perhaps a classic Greek / Roman sailing adventure? Integration of Particles and Array mods could use some work. -- 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 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 mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] The Future of Blender Projects WAS meeting notes
@Patrick Shirkey, please don't request specific features on this thread - this has the effect of turning all planning threads into wish-lists which active devs tend to skip reading not take so seriously. This is a developer list - if you want some specific engine or one feature back from 2.4x you can code it right? What you _could_ suggest is an api for game engines to be more easily integrated - so adding engine support worked better (something Apricot project was supposed to resolve but didn't really). On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 7:09 AM, Patrick Shirkey pshir...@boosthardware.com wrote: On Mon, June 18, 2012 3:16 am, Nahuel Belich wrote: Big plus for those two 1++ some deep interaction of the dynamic sistems and particles will be aprecieted by a great plart of the comunity. Did someone check on http://physbam.stanford.edu/ i didn`t find any info about license so im not sure if this package would be usefull at all An other imoprtant thing its an asset manager, how to keep track on every asset material, texture, link, etc purge unused data blocks it would be usefull to. I would like to see more work done to integrate blender with cube engine. Specifically exporting fully rigged models with the basic set of movements defined. Perhaps that is a usability issue but it is currently a very difficult procedure and I have been using blender for a few years. I recently attempted that with the Big Buck Bunny models and it was a very painful process. -- Patrick Shirkey Boost Hardware Ltd De: Gianmichele Mariani g.mari...@liquidnet.it Para: bf-blender developers bf-committers@blender.org Enviado: domingo, 17 de junio de 2012 21:10 Asunto: Re: [Bf-committers] The Future of Blender Projects WAS meeting notes Main focus for 2.7/.8 series? A full dependency graph for sure. Possibly bring more nodes into the core of blender (particles, rigging, fx) On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:48 AM, Mike Belanger mikejamesbelan...@gmail.com wrote: I'm really happy about the last few years of Blender development. But I sort of miss the built-like-a-tank stability of 2.4x series. It'd be nice to focus on stability, bug-fixes for a while. I know that isn't as cool as an open-project though :P Mike On 2012-06-17, at 7:33 PM, Knapp wrote: - Ton also invites people to think of post 2.6 projects. A special focus for 2.7x and 2.8x? Suggestion: in all of 2013, BF focus on Blender itself (no open movies!). Could you enplane this a bit more? IMO VERY HO I would like to see a project that pushes fog, clouds, sea, smoke and water effects and unifies them. Perhaps a classic Greek / Roman sailing adventure? Integration of Particles and Array mods could use some work. -- 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 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 -- Patrick Shirkey Boost Hardware Ltd ___ 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] The Future of Blender Projects WAS meeting notes
IMHO we have enough work cut out for us stabilising the current bug tracker, recovering from bmesh and tiles branch merges, improving cycles, integrating GSOC branches and making the normal slew of fixes/improvements that pop up during regular development. It'd be great to see work done on cycles/paint/sculpt/modifiers/py-api-integration - but think this will happen without planning for it. Projects to plan for - as suggest could include - depsgraph refactor (including improvements to proxy system we keep talking about but not doing) - lukas-t's pynodes - color management (opencolorIO integration). - bullet/animation system integration (GSOC is doing this but may need blender support to finalise...) - library management (at least resolve having to use a hex editor when things go bad, but room for many useful additions too) On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:33 AM, Knapp magick.c...@gmail.com wrote: - Ton also invites people to think of post 2.6 projects. A special focus for 2.7x and 2.8x? Suggestion: in all of 2013, BF focus on Blender itself (no open movies!). Could you enplane this a bit more? IMO VERY HO I would like to see a project that pushes fog, clouds, sea, smoke and water effects and unifies them. Perhaps a classic Greek / Roman sailing adventure? Integration of Particles and Array mods could use some work. -- 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 -- - Campbell ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] The Future of Blender Projects WAS meeting notes
On Mon, June 18, 2012 8:55 am, Campbell Barton wrote: @Patrick Shirkey, please don't request specific features on this thread - this has the effect of turning all planning threads into wish-lists which active devs tend to skip reading not take so seriously. This is a developer list - if you want some specific engine or one feature back from 2.4x you can code it right? Of course. What you _could_ suggest is an api for game engines to be more easily integrated - so adding engine support worked better (something Apricot project was supposed to resolve but didn't really). I was attempting to make the point that the whole process of exporting a model with an active rig is not obvious. I used cube/iqm as an example but I think it applies across the board. It seems to be an interface/usability issue. From my research it also seems that it is a low priority for developers but I think it would be a very powerful project to have some renewed focus on as blender could be used to spit out whole armies in batch mode. In that regard I am more than willing to discuss some possible improvements but I am not sure that this list is the correct place to discuss such interface issues. An API to integrate games engines more effectively is definitely a good thing(tm). Perhaps they go hand in hand? -- Patrick Shirkey Boost Hardware Ltd On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 7:09 AM, Patrick Shirkey pshir...@boosthardware.com wrote: On Mon, June 18, 2012 3:16 am, Nahuel Belich wrote: Big plus for those two 1++ some deep interaction of the dynamic sistems and particles will be aprecieted by a great plart of the comunity. Did someone check on http://physbam.stanford.edu/ i didn`t find any info about license so im not sure if this package would be usefull at all An other imoprtant thing its an asset manager, how to keep track on every asset material, texture, link, etc  purge unused data blocks it would be usefull to. I would like to see more work done to integrate blender with cube engine. Specifically exporting fully rigged models with the basic set of movements  defined. Perhaps that is a usability issue but it is currently a very difficult procedure and I have been using blender for a few years. I recently attempted that with the Big Buck Bunny models and it was a very painful process. -- Patrick Shirkey Boost Hardware Ltd  De: Gianmichele Mariani g.mari...@liquidnet.it Para: bf-blender developers bf-committers@blender.org Enviado: domingo, 17 de junio de 2012 21:10 Asunto: Re: [Bf-committers] The Future of Blender Projects WAS meeting notes Main focus for 2.7/.8 series? A full dependency graph for sure. Possibly bring more nodes into the core of blender (particles, rigging, fx) On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:48 AM, Mike Belanger mikejamesbelan...@gmail.com wrote: I'm really happy about the last few years of Blender development. But I sort of miss the built-like-a-tank stability of 2.4x series. It'd be nice to focus on stability, bug-fixes for a while. I know that isn't as cool as an open-project though :P Mike On 2012-06-17, at 7:33 PM, Knapp wrote: - Ton also invites people to think of post 2.6 projects. A special focus for 2.7x and 2.8x? Suggestion: in all of 2013, BF focus on Blender itself (no open movies!). Could you enplane this a bit more? IMO VERY HO I would like to see a project that pushes fog, clouds, sea, smoke and water effects and unifies them. Perhaps a classic Greek / Roman sailing adventure? Integration of Particles and Array mods could use some work. -- 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 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 -- Patrick Shirkey Boost Hardware Ltd ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers -- - Campbell
Re: [Bf-committers] The Future of Blender Projects WAS meeting notes
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Patrick Shirkey pshir...@boosthardware.com wrote: On Mon, June 18, 2012 8:55 am, Campbell Barton wrote: @Patrick Shirkey, please don't request specific features on this thread - this has the effect of turning all planning threads into wish-lists which active devs tend to skip reading not take so seriously. This is a developer list - if you want some specific engine or one feature back from 2.4x you can code it right? Of course. What you _could_ suggest is an api for game engines to be more easily integrated - so adding engine support worked better (something Apricot project was supposed to resolve but didn't really). I was attempting to make the point that the whole process of exporting a model with an active rig is not obvious. Could you explain what you mean by this? - for the developer or for the user? What should be changed/improved? I used cube/iqm as an example but I think it applies across the board. It seems to be an interface/usability issue. From my research it also seems that it is a low priority for developers but I think it would be a very powerful project to have some renewed focus on as blender could be used to spit out whole armies in batch mode. In that regard I am more than willing to discuss some possible improvements but I am not sure that this list is the correct place to discuss such interface issues. An API to integrate games engines more effectively is definitely a good thing(tm). Perhaps they go hand in hand? ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] The Future of Blender Projects WAS meeting notes
!! Pipeline interoperability !! Make Im- AND Export work. Collada, FBX, Alembic, Pointcache See my rant on the foolowing bug-report, and twimc check the latest comment... http://projects.blender.org/tracker/?func=detailaid=31089group_id=9atid=498 http://projects.blender.org/tracker/?func=detailaid=31089group_id=9atid=498 otherwise: keep up the awesome work! cheers, Thomas Campbell Barton ideasma...@gmail.com hat am 18. Juni 2012 um 09:08 geschrieben: IMHO we have enough work cut out for us stabilising the current bug tracker, recovering from bmesh and tiles branch merges, improving cycles, integrating GSOC branches and making the normal slew of fixes/improvements that pop up during regular development. It'd be great to see work done on cycles/paint/sculpt/modifiers/py-api-integration - but think this will happen without planning for it. Projects to plan for - as suggest could include - depsgraph refactor (including improvements to proxy system we keep talking about but not doing) - lukas-t's pynodes - color management (opencolorIO integration). - bullet/animation system integration (GSOC is doing this but may need blender support to finalise...) - library management (at least resolve having to use a hex editor when things go bad, but room for many useful additions too) On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:33 AM, Knapp magick.c...@gmail.com wrote: - Ton also invites people to think of post 2.6 projects. A special focus for 2.7x and 2.8x? Suggestion: in all of 2013, BF focus on Blender itself (no open movies!). Could you enplane this a bit more? IMO VERY HO I would like to see a project that pushes fog, clouds, sea, smoke and water effects and unifies them. Perhaps a classic Greek / Roman sailing adventure? Integration of Particles and Array mods could use some work. -- 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 -- - 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] The Future of Blender Projects WAS meeting notes
On Mon, June 18, 2012 9:47 am, Campbell Barton wrote: On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Patrick Shirkey pshir...@boosthardware.com wrote: On Mon, June 18, 2012 8:55 am, Campbell Barton wrote: @Patrick Shirkey, please don't request specific features on this thread - this has the effect of turning all planning threads into wish-lists which active devs tend to skip reading not take so seriously. This is a developer list - if you want some specific engine or one feature back from 2.4x you can code it right? Of course. What you _could_ suggest is an api for game engines to be more easily integrated - so adding engine support worked better (something Apricot project was supposed to resolve but didn't really). I was attempting to make the point that the whole process of exporting a model with an active rig is not obvious. Could you explain what you mean by this? - for the developer or for the user? What should be changed/improved? From a Developer perspective it seems to be a bit hard to program for the exporter API when someone like Eihrul has troubles with getting the iqm exporter to work cleanly. That suggests to me that the learning curve for getting things right is a bit steep. From a users perspective it's really quite difficult to export a skinned and rigged model correctly. So that suggests the interface is too complex or abstract. Perhaps there needs to be a wizard that steps through the process. From an advanced user perspective I see no good reason apart from no one has had the time/money that it is not possible to apply a set of standard (preset) movements to any mesh (or mesh type). That would allow very quick prototyping of potential models for game engines and virtual 3d environments. arm, finger, leg, toe, head, eye, mouth These are rig configurations that are essential to exporting 3d models and it seems like a glaring omission that Blender doesn't provide some sane and well tested defaults which can be quickly applied by a normal user. If they are already there then they are well hidden or abstracted. I used cube/iqm as an example but I think it applies across the board. It seems to be an interface/usability issue. From my research it also seems that it is a low priority for developers but I think it would be a very powerful project to have some renewed focus on as blender could be used to spit out whole armies in batch mode. In that regard I am more than willing to discuss some possible improvements but I am not sure that this list is the correct place to discuss such interface issues. An API to integrate games engines more effectively is definitely a good thing(tm). Perhaps they go hand in hand? ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers -- Patrick Shirkey Boost Hardware Ltd ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] The Future of Blender Projects WAS meeting notes
Another small thought: give us more tools to organize bigger scenes one we have a proper dep graph. The outliner is really crippled and could use a lot of love, together with proper group containers. Gian ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] The Future of Blender Projects WAS meeting notes
+1 for Bassam Kurdali and Gianmichele Mariani 1. Dependency graph 2. Nodes 3. Unified physics 4. Hair and fur. Groundwork for primitives system, feathers, grass, leafs and so on? 5. Editors tasks that are a bit overlooked: texture bakeing, uv editing, texture painting and probably something else that also can be pointed out. ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] The Future of Blender Projects WAS meeting notes
+1 for Bassam Kurdali and Gianmichele Mariani + long-term: plugin system El 18/06/2012 11:56, Przemyslaw Golab escribió: +1 for Bassam Kurdali and Gianmichele Mariani 1. Dependency graph 2. Nodes 3. Unified physics 4. Hair and fur. Groundwork for primitives system, feathers, grass, leafs and so on? 5. Editors tasks that are a bit overlooked: texture bakeing, uv editing, texture painting and probably something else that also can be pointed out. ___ 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] The Future of Blender Projects WAS meeting notes
I would also like to see basic physics for armatures based on rigid bodies integrated in the normal workflow without the hack to record IPO/FCurve inside the game engine. If that comes along with an improved Dependency Graph I'm more then happy. Additionally i would like to see better shapekeys. Currently every created shapekey creates a full copy of the mesh, even so only one vertex is actually modified/moved. Am 18.06.2012 12:14, schrieb José Ricarte: +1 for Bassam Kurdali and Gianmichele Mariani + long-term: plugin system El 18/06/2012 11:56, Przemyslaw Golab escribió: +1 for Bassam Kurdali and Gianmichele Mariani 1. Dependency graph 2. Nodes 3. Unified physics 4. Hair and fur. Groundwork for primitives system, feathers, grass, leafs and so on? 5. Editors tasks that are a bit overlooked: texture bakeing, uv editing, texture painting and probably something else that also can be pointed out. ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] The Future of Blender Projects WAS meeting notes
1, For Ocean Modifier, I hope there will be a better way to simulate the water interaction with boat or something above the wave. The currently fake workflow just pain for more details. FYI: http://www.blendernation.com/2012/03/20/ocean-dynamic-paint-particles/ 2, Improved Outline System, sometimes it will be better to get a clean button to re-organize the linked source or unused texture, action, materials etc. Now I have to click each linked path and press X to clean them. And a reload button will be cool to refresh the linked objects, reopen is not the best way to save the time. 3, A better Muscle System? Shrinkwrap is not the best fake way to do this job. 4, And for PO translator, a real time translation env will cheers us to check the result immediately. 5, A better support for UTF-8 will be cool! If I compiled blender source code in a Chinese operation system, some system date var issue will throw me exception to finish the build process. And if I open browser in Blender to check my files, all the Chinese character will show cubes there. That is not cool. So much for today, thanks for all! :) *罗聪翼/Ethan Luo* congcong...@gmail.com *M: (86)139-8210-2445(GMT+8)* ***@congcong009 #twitter/facebook/**新浪围脖* ***BlenderCN**中文社区**(**www.blendercn.org**)* On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 6:59 PM, Campbell Barton ideasma...@gmail.comwrote: On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Patrick Shirkey pshir...@boosthardware.com wrote: On Mon, June 18, 2012 9:47 am, Campbell Barton wrote: On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Patrick Shirkey pshir...@boosthardware.com wrote: On Mon, June 18, 2012 8:55 am, Campbell Barton wrote: @Patrick Shirkey, please don't request specific features on this thread - this has the effect of turning all planning threads into wish-lists which active devs tend to skip reading not take so seriously. This is a developer list - if you want some specific engine or one feature back from 2.4x you can code it right? Of course. What you _could_ suggest is an api for game engines to be more easily integrated - so adding engine support worked better (something Apricot project was supposed to resolve but didn't really). I was attempting to make the point that the whole process of exporting a model with an active rig is not obvious. Could you explain what you mean by this? - for the developer or for the user? What should be changed/improved? From a Developer perspective it seems to be a bit hard to program for the exporter API when someone like Eihrul has troubles with getting the iqm exporter to work cleanly. That suggests to me that the learning curve for getting things right is a bit steep. Exporting armatures is tricky - but I don't think the API has bad, more that we could use better docs, examples and possibly add some helper functions (get the bone relative rest/pose in different spaces - its a common problem that different formats expect this data in different spaces). Note that we already worked on this area docs/helpers api functions at least... but could do more. see: http://www.blender.org/documentation/blender_python_api_2_63_release/info_gotcha.html#editbones-posebones-bone-bones http://www.blender.org/documentation/blender_python_api_2_63_release/bpy.types.Bone.html#bpy.types.Bone.vector also x_axis, center, children_recursive ... are helpers to make the api easier to use. However I think converting between different rig representations is also inherently difficult - especially when the format has for example, bones that dont have a length - or the length moves along a different axis then in blender. From a users perspective it's really quite difficult to export a skinned and rigged model correctly. So that suggests the interface is too complex or abstract. Perhaps there needs to be a wizard that steps through the process. From an advanced user perspective I see no good reason apart from no one has had the time/money that it is not possible to apply a set of standard (preset) movements to any mesh (or mesh type). That would allow very quick prototyping of potential models for game engines and virtual 3d environments. arm, finger, leg, toe, head, eye, mouth These are rig configurations that are essential to exporting 3d models and it seems like a glaring omission that Blender doesn't provide some sane and well tested defaults which can be quickly applied by a normal user. If they are already there then they are well hidden or abstracted. Have you used rigify? Sounds like this should do what you want. I used cube/iqm as an example but I think it applies across the board. It seems to be an interface/usability issue. From my research it also seems that it is a low priority for developers but I think it would be a very powerful project to have some renewed focus on as blender could be used to spit out whole armies in batch mode. In that regard I am
Re: [Bf-committers] The Future of Blender Projects WAS meeting notes
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Ethan Luo congcong...@gmail.com wrote: 1, For Ocean Modifier, I hope there will be a better way to simulate the water interaction with boat or something above the wave. The currently fake workflow just pain for more details. FYI: http://www.blendernation.com/2012/03/20/ocean-dynamic-paint-particles/ 2, Improved Outline System, sometimes it will be better to get a clean button to re-organize the linked source or unused texture, action, materials etc. Now I have to click each linked path and press X to clean them. And a reload button will be cool to refresh the linked objects, reopen is not the best way to save the time. 3, A better Muscle System? Shrinkwrap is not the best fake way to do this job. 4, And for PO translator, a real time translation env will cheers us to check the result immediately. Bastien Montagne made an addon so we can edit translations within blender recently, not sure if this is what you are referring to. 5, A better support for UTF-8 will be cool! If I compiled blender source code in a Chinese operation system, some system date var issue will throw me exception to finish the build process. And if I open browser in Blender to check my files, all the Chinese character will show cubes there. That is not cool. Are you sure this is still a problem? bpy.app.build_date bpy.app.build_time are now bytes, not strings, so there should be no encoding issues. ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] The Future of Blender Projects WAS meeting notes
eh ehm... hi about the utf-8 support in paths Are you sure this is still a problem? bpy.app.build_date bpy.app.build_time are now bytes, not strings, so there should be no encoding issues. though you can use utf-8 paths in blender but it only works when changing the UI to the same language meaning that if i want to use the English interface there are no utf-8 recognition from the paths! Regards Yousef Harfoush ba...@msn.com ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] The Future of Blender Projects WAS meeting notes
Thanks Mont for the update, I will check on that. And regarding the compile issue, I will try once later too. :) Coming to the UTF-8 support in Blender. For some language which are not full translated, these steps will just cost times for users. And check path and characters are not the only cases. If I wanna type some words into Text object for example in Chinese, I have to type it first in a notepad.exe and then save with encoding UTF-8. Then next I will paste it into Blender to get it working properly. I used to face bugs like saving obj under Chinese path, and this file will not be possible to be imported back into blender.( This issue was fixed already, forget the bug tacker id :( ) But I'm not sure if this will happen anytime in the future, it is quite confusing for some new learners. Cheers, *罗聪翼/Ethan Luo* congcong...@gmail.com *M: (86)139-8210-2445(GMT+8)* ***@congcong009 #twitter/facebook/**新浪围脖* ***BlenderCN**中文社区**(**www.blendercn.org**)* On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:57 PM, Yousef Hurfoush ba...@msn.com wrote: eh ehm... hi about the utf-8 support in paths Are you sure this is still a problem? bpy.app.build_date bpy.app.build_time are now bytes, not strings, so there should be no encoding issues. though you can use utf-8 paths in blender but it only works when changing the UI to the same language meaning that if i want to use the English interface there are no utf-8 recognition from the paths! Regards Yousef Harfoush ba...@msn.com ___ 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] The Future of Blender Projects WAS meeting notes
- Ton also invites people to think of post 2.6 projects. A special focus for 2.7x and 2.8x? Suggestion: in all of 2013, BF focus on Blender itself (no open movies!). Could you enplane this a bit more? IMO VERY HO I would like to see a project that pushes fog, clouds, sea, smoke and water effects and unifies them. Perhaps a classic Greek / Roman sailing adventure? Integration of Particles and Array mods could use some work. -- 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
Re: [Bf-committers] The Future of Blender Projects WAS meeting notes
I'm really happy about the last few years of Blender development. But I sort of miss the built-like-a-tank stability of 2.4x series. It'd be nice to focus on stability, bug-fixes for a while. I know that isn't as cool as an open-project though :P Mike On 2012-06-17, at 7:33 PM, Knapp wrote: - Ton also invites people to think of post 2.6 projects. A special focus for 2.7x and 2.8x? Suggestion: in all of 2013, BF focus on Blender itself (no open movies!). Could you enplane this a bit more? IMO VERY HO I would like to see a project that pushes fog, clouds, sea, smoke and water effects and unifies them. Perhaps a classic Greek / Roman sailing adventure? Integration of Particles and Array mods could use some work. -- 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
Re: [Bf-committers] The Future of Blender Projects WAS meeting notes
Main focus for 2.7/.8 series? A full dependency graph for sure. Possibly bring more nodes into the core of blender (particles, rigging, fx) On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:48 AM, Mike Belanger mikejamesbelan...@gmail.com wrote: I'm really happy about the last few years of Blender development. But I sort of miss the built-like-a-tank stability of 2.4x series. It'd be nice to focus on stability, bug-fixes for a while. I know that isn't as cool as an open-project though :P Mike On 2012-06-17, at 7:33 PM, Knapp wrote: - Ton also invites people to think of post 2.6 projects. A special focus for 2.7x and 2.8x? Suggestion: in all of 2013, BF focus on Blender itself (no open movies!). Could you enplane this a bit more? IMO VERY HO I would like to see a project that pushes fog, clouds, sea, smoke and water effects and unifies them. Perhaps a classic Greek / Roman sailing adventure? Integration of Particles and Array mods could use some work. -- 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 mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] The Future of Blender Projects WAS meeting notes
absolutely! though I'm not sure still what part is 'big enough' for 2.7/2.8 - it seems like more nodes is! but maybe dependency graph should even be a target for 2.6 series. my observations of 'weaknesses' from experience working on tube and other projects: 1- dependency graph 2- library linking robustness in corner cases, and overrides, and over simplicity. 3- speed is always nice (maybe depgraph helps multithreading) 4*- renderer issues are being fixed by cycles already 5*- mesh issues are being fixed by bmesh and other work. 6- nodal everything ;) at least constraints/modifiers/transforms/relationships. 7- nodal particles 8- hair and fur 9- unified/better physics esp. cloth sim. 10- art-directable sim/ rigid bodies. some of those are probably related to each other. cheers B On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 01:10 +0100, Gianmichele Mariani wrote: Main focus for 2.7/.8 series? A full dependency graph for sure. Possibly bring more nodes into the core of blender (particles, rigging, fx) On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:48 AM, Mike Belanger mikejamesbelan...@gmail.com wrote: I'm really happy about the last few years of Blender development. But I sort of miss the built-like-a-tank stability of 2.4x series. It'd be nice to focus on stability, bug-fixes for a while. I know that isn't as cool as an open-project though :P Mike On 2012-06-17, at 7:33 PM, Knapp wrote: - Ton also invites people to think of post 2.6 projects. A special focus for 2.7x and 2.8x? Suggestion: in all of 2013, BF focus on Blender itself (no open movies!). Could you enplane this a bit more? IMO VERY HO I would like to see a project that pushes fog, clouds, sea, smoke and water effects and unifies them. Perhaps a classic Greek / Roman sailing adventure? Integration of Particles and Array mods could use some work. -- 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 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] The Future of Blender Projects WAS meeting notes
Big plus for those two 1++ some deep interaction of the dynamic sistems and particles will be aprecieted by a great plart of the comunity. Did someone check on http://physbam.stanford.edu/ i didn`t find any info about license so im not sure if this package would be usefull at all An other imoprtant thing its an asset manager, how to keep track on every asset material, texture, link, etc purge unused data blocks it would be usefull to. De: Gianmichele Mariani g.mari...@liquidnet.it Para: bf-blender developers bf-committers@blender.org Enviado: domingo, 17 de junio de 2012 21:10 Asunto: Re: [Bf-committers] The Future of Blender Projects WAS meeting notes Main focus for 2.7/.8 series? A full dependency graph for sure. Possibly bring more nodes into the core of blender (particles, rigging, fx) On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:48 AM, Mike Belanger mikejamesbelan...@gmail.com wrote: I'm really happy about the last few years of Blender development. But I sort of miss the built-like-a-tank stability of 2.4x series. It'd be nice to focus on stability, bug-fixes for a while. I know that isn't as cool as an open-project though :P Mike On 2012-06-17, at 7:33 PM, Knapp wrote: - Ton also invites people to think of post 2.6 projects. A special focus for 2.7x and 2.8x? Suggestion: in all of 2013, BF focus on Blender itself (no open movies!). Could you enplane this a bit more? IMO VERY HO I would like to see a project that pushes fog, clouds, sea, smoke and water effects and unifies them. Perhaps a classic Greek / Roman sailing adventure? Integration of Particles and Array mods could use some work. -- 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 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] The Future of Blender Projects WAS meeting notes
On Mon, June 18, 2012 3:16 am, Nahuel Belich wrote: Big plus for those two 1++ some deep interaction of the dynamic sistems and particles will be aprecieted by a great plart of the comunity. Did someone check on http://physbam.stanford.edu/ i didn`t find any info about license so im not sure if this package would be usefull at all An other imoprtant thing its an asset manager, how to keep track on every asset material, texture, link, etc purge unused data blocks it would be usefull to. I would like to see more work done to integrate blender with cube engine. Specifically exporting fully rigged models with the basic set of movements defined. Perhaps that is a usability issue but it is currently a very difficult procedure and I have been using blender for a few years. I recently attempted that with the Big Buck Bunny models and it was a very painful process. -- Patrick Shirkey Boost Hardware Ltd De: Gianmichele Mariani g.mari...@liquidnet.it Para: bf-blender developers bf-committers@blender.org Enviado: domingo, 17 de junio de 2012 21:10 Asunto: Re: [Bf-committers] The Future of Blender Projects WAS meeting notes Main focus for 2.7/.8 series? A full dependency graph for sure. Possibly bring more nodes into the core of blender (particles, rigging, fx) On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:48 AM, Mike Belanger mikejamesbelan...@gmail.com wrote: I'm really happy about the last few years of Blender development. But I sort of miss the built-like-a-tank stability of 2.4x series. It'd be nice to focus on stability, bug-fixes for a while. I know that isn't as cool as an open-project though :P Mike On 2012-06-17, at 7:33 PM, Knapp wrote: - Ton also invites people to think of post 2.6 projects. A special focus for 2.7x and 2.8x? Suggestion: in all of 2013, BF focus on Blender itself (no open movies!). Could you enplane this a bit more? IMO VERY HO I would like to see a project that pushes fog, clouds, sea, smoke and water effects and unifies them. Perhaps a classic Greek / Roman sailing adventure? Integration of Particles and Array mods could use some work. -- 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 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 -- Patrick Shirkey Boost Hardware Ltd ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
