> This reminds a lot of what happens with NURBS, Meta or Text
> objects. So one Blenderish approach would be to add a new object type
> that has high level controls and can be converted into meshes when
> needed. It would fit the user workflow 100% and you have other code
> examples to follow.
Yes
Do you mean you are interested in something like this?
Blender 2.59 (sub 4)
build date: wo 05-10-2011
build time: 08:05
build revision: 40796
build platform: Windows
build type: Release
build c flags: -msse2 -msse -pipe -funsigned-char
-fno-strict-
it adds 4mb (zipped), thinking about this and its really only a
problem for the windows installer, every other type package the user
has write access to blender scripts dir.
generating the pyc files could be added into the installer script so
the download size wont be increased.
On Wed, Oct 5, 20
How bigger would it make the release package?
What's the stance on distribution cache files from the Python folks? Is this
something that will come to bite us in the ass later?
Martin
From: Campbell Barton
To: bf-blender developers
Sent: Tuesday, October 4,
At the moment we're not caching scripts for packages we re-distribute
on blender.org.
For most cases its not all that bad, blender just takes a little
longer to startup for the first time + a few ms longer to access lazy
loading modules for the first time.
Worst case is the user who runs blender
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 5:19 AM, Ton Roosendaal wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> As scheduled, today would be a call for the official first release
> candidate!
>
> - Use svn r40790
> - Splash & internal version code will be still 2.59.4
> - Name the build as usual for releases, with 2.60RC in name
> (I can
hi
@ Dalai
i finished translating the 1st milestone in ar.po (~1000 phrase), and i'd like
to update it in the trunk:
the problem is that it is based on pot file which was before the new generated
ar.po
another issue is that this we are re-translating the file from zero,
and the one in the
>
> This reminds a lot of what happens with NURBS, Meta or Text
> objects. So one Blenderish approach would be to add a new object type
> that has high level controls and can be converted into meshes when
> needed. It would fit the user workflow 100% and you have other code
> examples to follow.
Hi all,
As scheduled, today would be a call for the official first release
candidate!
- Use svn r40790
- Splash & internal version code will be still 2.59.4
- Name the build as usual for releases, with 2.60RC in name
(I can rename builds to match it too :)
Put the binaries at ftp.blender.or
Hi,
martin.buerb...@gmx.at (2011-10-04 at 1113.02 +0200):
> Follow up of the "redo operator with last used settings (patch)" thread
> http://lists.blender.org/pipermail/bf-committers/2011-September/033725.html
>
> I propose a new way of handling newly created objects in Blender.
> I'm sure this ma
> It would be simpler to add the missing python wrapper for
> modifiers (if any are missing) than hacking the operator system to do
> something it's not meant to.
>
> Modifying existing python scripts for the new api should be easy.
>
ok i'm not a dev, but couldn't just watch :)
i use maya
This all sounds a lot like what Houdini (http://www.sidefx.com/) does with
its geometry. Basically you have a base mesh and every operation you do
(extrudes etc) are all modifiers that can be altered (via parameters) later.
I believe you can also permanently apply the modifiers.
This mechanism is
This all sounds a lot like what Houdini (http://www.sidefx.com/) does with
its geometry. Basically you have a base mesh and every operation you do
(extrudes etc) are all modifiers that can be altered (via parameters) later.
I believe you can also permanently apply the modifiers.
This mechanism is
Hi,
Probably it wouldn't hurt somebody before 2.60 release, but in the
future i want all developers be more accurate with used strings -- it's
really easy to confuse translators who were ready to upload new
translations.
So my proposal is: don't make "pedantic" changes to ui strings after
bco
It would be simpler to add the missing python wrapper for
modifiers (if any are missing) than hacking the operator system to do
something it's not meant to.
Modifying existing python scripts for the new api should be easy.
Martin
From: ""Martin Bürbaum""
To:
"Αντώνης Ρυακιωτάκης" wrote
> You would need a primitive modifier for every primitive or an
> primitive uber-modifier where you select the primitive and get the
> appropriate setting below(It would get a bit crowded with switch-case
> statements in the C and Python code so maintenance wise it may
Martin Poirier wrote:
> You can add and remove modifiers and change their properties
> as easily as operators.
I'm not sure that we are talking about the same thing here.
What I mean is if we e.g. create a new script that adds a certain
geometry, how easy will it be to add this as a modifier?
Wh
You would need a primitive modifier for every primitive or an
primitive uber-modifier where you select the primitive and get the
appropriate setting below(It would get a bit crowded with switch-case
statements in the C and Python code so maintenance wise it may be
tricky). I think the latter is pre
You can add and remove modifiers and change their properties as easily as
operators.
Martin
From: ""Martin Bürbaum""
To: bf-blender developers
Sent: Tuesday, October 4, 2011 8:04:37 AM
Subject: Re: [Bf-committers] Proposal: Object creation
Martin Poirier wr
Martin Poirier wrote:
> The cleanest way to do that without having to hack anything in the
> operator system is having primitive modifiers.
>
> Modifiers already have all the properties you need and more (being able to
> add more modifiers to the stack without losing your editable properties).
S
The cleanest way to do that without having to hack anything in the operator
system is having primitive modifiers.
Modifiers already have all the properties you need and more (being able to add
more modifiers to the stack without losing your editable properties).
Martin
__
Ok, sounds good!
On 04/10/11 11:50, "Martin Bürbaum" wrote:
>> The appeal of modelling in blender is that it's just so much more
>> immediate than other tools.
>> Having the object locked to only its initial creation parameters when
>> entering edit mode sounds very cumbersome.
>> How will you mak
> The appeal of modelling in blender is that it's just so much more
> immediate than other tools.
> Having the object locked to only its initial creation parameters when
> entering edit mode sounds very cumbersome.
> How will you make it not so?
I _mostly_ agree when it comes to primitives. But
hhmmm would it be possible to animate these parameters then?... just a
thought.
Maybe handle stuff like this as a modifier? (Thats the Softimage way btw...they
call it operator, but it's basically the same)
michael williamson hat am 4. Oktober 2011 um
12:29 geschrieben:
> On 04/10/11 11:
On 04/10/11 11:19, Thomas Volkmann wrote:
> Maybe the sphere wasn't the best example...I'll try another one:
> Torus-knot-addon. You have to decide what it should look like the instant you
> add it to your scene. If you want to change it after you added other stuff,
> you
> have to completly redo
Maybe this could be enabled for certain objects with a flag? This doesn't
make sense for, for example, a plane or a cube. But other objects could
benefit from it.
Davis
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Thomas Volkmann wrote:
> Maybe the sphere wasn't the best example...I'll try another one:
> Tor
Maybe the sphere wasn't the best example...I'll try another one:
Torus-knot-addon. You have to decide what it should look like the instant you
add it to your scene. If you want to change it after you added other stuff, you
have to completly redo it :/
Michael Williamson hat am 4. Oktober 20
As someone who almost never wishes I could go back and change object
parameters because a cube, sphere, pyramid or whatever is only useful
99.99% of the time as some geometry to start editing into something else
I have a couple of questions.
The appeal of modelling in blender is that it's j
Thomas Volkmann wrote:
> +1
> That means for example, that you can change the segmentsnumber of a
> sphere at any later time (as long as you didn't do anything else to it).
> Did I get that correctly?
Pretty much, yes.
Not sure how the needed changes would break existing tools and scripts, thou
+1
That means for example, that you can change the segmentsnumber of a sphere at
any later time (as long as you didn't do anything else to it). Did I get that
correctly?
cheers,
Thomas
"Martin Bürbaum" hat am 4. Oktober 2011 um 11:13
geschrieben:
> Follow up of the "redo operator with last
Follow up of the "redo operator with last used settings (patch)" thread
http://lists.blender.org/pipermail/bf-committers/2011-September/033725.html
I propose a new way of handling newly created objects in Blender.
I'm sure this may not have a high priority right now, but discussion and
planning i
31 matches
Mail list logo
