Proposal to Remove Features before 2.6
Brecht van Lommel, full-time Blender developer at the Blender Institute, is proposing to remove a number of rarely used functions from Blender. The idea is to make it easier to stabilize Blender for the 2.6 release. It will also clean up the user interface. Brecht needs your input: if you see something on the list that you really do need for your work, let him know by posting a comment below.
It’s all good…
Just, instead of removing “Pin Floating Panels”, we should add floating panels…
You’re right FreeMind, we’ll still miss the Floating Panels.
i agree!
Though I could live without a few of the items on both lists, I ABSOLUTELY NEED Edge Rendering!
If it has to be made into a comp-node, that is totally fine, AS LONG AS IT LOOKS THE SAME as it does now.
I use FreeStyle, have been since its first builds, however I either use it on conjunction with the current edge-rendering style, or dont FreeStyle at all for certain project IN FAVOR of the blender built-in edge rendering method, as its much preferred in MANY CASES. I REALLY REALLY enjoy the built-in blender lines, even though I’ve been a FreeStyle user for YEARS.
I had to fight to get edge-rendering back in 2.5 initially, I created a thread, and had to draw up support for it, and I hope I dont have to again. Please Brecht, PLEASE, dont take out edge-rendering. Make it a comp node if need be, just have it look the same as it does now. please, please, please
optimal display for multires and subsurf enabled by default – but i hope there will be still a way to turn in off
edge rendering – it’s a nice way to speed up your work and i use it quite often. would be a pity if it was removed
I use this four from the controversial list
Dupliframes
Irregular Shadow Buffer
Shadow Render Pass
Particle Line/Path/Billboard rendering
quite often in my workflow
would nice to have them in blender
I use Blender for TV but I never use field rendering.
I assume this would be important when importing interlaced footage into a progressive project. However when progressive frames are put into a interlaced project I simply have twice the info. It’s not necessary.
I do have one tool that I miss more than any other however…. I go crazy without the “w” bevel tool. I know it’s available as a modifier but it applies to the entire object. The way I use it is more like chamfer.. this a very fast way to soften hard edges by applying in recursively.
great work on everything Brecht! and of course kudos to all the developers!
I absolutely need edge rendering too! It’s essential for artwork which I render 3D components for. However – does anyone still use Radiosity? I recall I used to use it to achieve AO effects, but now that blender has AO… maybe it means something else now…
I can’t enter the link… and blender.org seem to be down or its only me?
@Nicknamz: Yes, it’s down for me too. I checked it with http://www.downforeveryoneorjustme.com
Well it’s up now.
I can’t do without sticky textures! It’s what I use for camera mapping! The UV project modifier never seems to work as well as sticky textures.
mmm, yes… I agree…
Just the floating panel I want to save.
also what means: “3D view lock to object”
do you mean the center of the object?
example:sometime I need to sculpt the hands of a character and if the view is locked o the center of the character, is impossible di rotate around the hand. So I would have an opion for rotate around the cursor :)
thankyou!
Brecht,
have you thought about adding a Blender User Stat module into Blender 2.6?
It would allow the Blender Foundation to collect stats on functions usage in Blender.
By default it would be on but only send (anonymous) data to the BF with users permission.
And if the user wanted to, they could turn this module off in User Preferences and no participate.
Or they could leave it on without sending the data for personal/business training purposes or whatever.
The benefits are quite obvious – yourself and other developers would have a strong indication of what features are used.
And you could publish this data to the wiki or elsewhere to give everyone insight on future functionality planning.
I know this isn’t a priority at this time, but just another idea from me. Hopefully one that makes developing Blender easier!
Thanks for the choice at this time. I agree with others above – edge rendering has been a much needed tool – please keep it.
> Curves in the image editor: replace by exposure slider.
Curves are pretty powerful, so I hope they don’t disappear. Sliders don’t cover all of the abilities of a single curve.
> Dupliframes
Please leave this in! It’s useful in unexpected circumstances.
> Environment Map texture
Used all the time to fake reflections. Please do not kill this.
I second keeping Sticky Textures. There are many uses for them, too.
~ K
I don’t like the new window-split i hate it or at least bring the old windows-split back too
Thank You
Hmmm … interesting suggestion, and certainly one I support in principle. In principle.
From the first list, what is “texture mesh”? Is that the same thing as “noise” where one uses a texture to deform the actual mesh? I use that from time to time and haven’t been able to find it in 2.5. If not, then I don’t mind seeing it gone since I didn’t know what it was in the first place.
And I can see why the second list is more controversial. There are several things there I use, and I’ve seen edge detect used often. Blend sky, dupliframes, sequencer glow effect … wow. I can’t be the only one using these!
But let’s say you folks did rip out some of the underused features for a more stable version 2.6 … what happens when one tries to load an older file that has World Stars activated, for example? Does Blender 2.6 crash, ignore the extra settings, and/or flag the extra settings in the console? When re-saved are those old settings retained?
If you’re going to pull some of this functionality, a tiny fraction of your audience is then going to be forced to switch back and forth between the latest version of the software and 2.49 or earlier.
Blend Sky – I use it all the time for fast previews that my customers need to decide on “overall look”.
Environment Map texture – It’s a must, I fake everything I can to get fast, reliable results, this one has to stay.
Shadow Render Pass – Much needed, otherwise my whole comp pipeline with Nuke is down the drain.
+1 good point, losing shadow render pass would really mess up my compositing workflow too. I would have to waste a lot of time to try to reproduce such a pass, if even I could. A shadow render-pass can be invaluable when compositing, ask any Maya user(who uses compositing) ;-)
Hello Brecht van Lommel,
Remove functions to alleviate the codes, great.
but add additional function is that possible?
Especially in the game engine, as has often arises
a lot of question that is left in fear by
developers of Blender Institute.
To wait 10 years for a new breath.
To get a sense of questions that we
challenge in the process of our work I
cordially invites you to visit these few page:
http://blenderartists.org/forum/showthread.php?t=123320&page=9
–
Bonjour Brecht van Lommel,
Enlever des fonctions pour alléger les codes, super.
mais ajouter des fonction supplémentaires est ce possible?
Surtout dans le game engine, comme souvent ont se pose
pas mal de question en redoutant qu’il soit oublié par
les développeurs du Blender institut.
D’attendre 10 ans pour un nouveau souffle.
Pour vous rendre compte des interrogations qui nous
interpellent dans le processus de notre travail je
vous invite cordialement à visité ces quelques page:
http://blenderartists.org/forum/showthread.php?t=123320&page=9
I use these from the controversial list, and quite frankly I’m amazed that one would even CONSIDER removing them:
* Animateable object layers
* Blend Sky (no horizon/zenith, just one color)
* Bounds draw types for objects
* Cubic interpolation material option
* Curves in the image editor:
* Dupliframes
* Environment Map texture
* Fresnel diffuse shader
* Grid mesh primitive
* Invert Z Depth material option.
* Irregular Shadow Buffer
* Particle grid emission distribution
* Particle Instance Modifier
* Particle jittered Particle/Face option and Jittering amount options.
* Particle Line/Path/Billboard rendering
* Particle “Parent” option for rendering offset.
* Sequencer Glow effect
* Shadow Render Pass
I agree with JSvard. Everything else I don’t use.
ok..
jus tremove the “selectable” features, like “instance for render” or “show all edges” would be romoved…
but meabe I’ll keep the features like “textures coordinates types” or “shadow channel”.
:)
I need the Shadow Render Pass very often!
Please, don’t remove it …
>Animateable object layers
yes i use this feature , it’s very usefull for me … ,
maybe u can remove this feature if blender can animate hide unhide object
>Bounds draw types for objects
we still need this ..,
* Environment Map texture
This commonly used in gamedev. Do not kill it. :)
I think the VertexCOL and VertexLight functions must be texture types.
3D view lock to object – not used much, but can be helpful
Blend Sky – MUCH used, very nice feature
Fresnel diffuse shader – funky, but definitely used occasionally
Shadow Render Pass – Controversial? Seems pretty basic compositing stuff, no?
.
..
Keep up the good work!
While I might agree with the initial concept of this idea, even a cursory amount of contemplation brings to mind more problems than it would fix. Most of them have already been pointed out on here (Backwards compatibility, the small subsection of the population that relys on even the smallest of these features etc. etc.). And frankly I’m amazed at some of the things that have been suggested to be removed (Shadow render pass especially, that’s a major key ingredient in a professional compositing workflow).
So basically my input is, if you do actually follow through with this you are going to be angering a lot of long time blender users who will probably demand that they be reinstituted, removing a ton of very useful features (That I’m sure some dev spent a lot of time writing) which in terms of advancing a piece of software seems like a few steps in the negative direction.
Basically although it might seem like a good way to cut some corners right now, all you’ll be doing is shooting yourself in the foot right now but eventually that wound is going to get infected (It may take some time, but IT WILL happen) and then you’ll end up losing more than it was worth.
Just my 2 cents.
* Vertex Normal Flip: how to make double sided rendering then?
* Texture mesh: Whats that?
* Edge Rendering: I use that too, its only a shame that you cant control the thickness.
* Blend Sky: Its a nice and useful feature for previews.
* Bounds Drawing: Useful for physics or game environment modelling.
* Environment Map texture: Dont know whats meant but i like the option to create a cube-map from the scene and use it.
It would be useful to decide this kind of stuff using a brainstorm website like Ubuntu has.
There was Blenderstorm (http://www.blenderstorm.org/) but JesterKing says he’s working on it to get it back…
The idea is good in theory, and I agree on much remove or change proposals, but :
– I use Egde rendering very much ! It’s particularly useful for some technical volumes presentations, or for NPR rendering.
If Freestyle integration is finished and integrated by default, you may remove Edge rendering, but you can’t if it isn’t !
3D is not only about realistic rendering…
– Sequencer plugins are the only way to obtain complex video transition in Blender, and Blender is the only good open source video editor I know. In my opinion it shouldn’t be plugins (it’s always a pain to set it up), but included in core. Same rational for the glow effect. For texture I had never used plugins, and core already give a great freedom.
for the Controversial List I use :
* Animateable object layers
* Blend Sky (no horizon/zenith, just one color)
* Cubic interpolation material option
* Curves in the image editor (who still use exposure sliders ?)
* Environment Map texture
* Fresnel diffuse shader
* Grid mesh primitive
* Invert Z Depth material option.
* Irregular Shadow Buffer
* Particle grid emission distribution
* Particle Instance Modifier
* Particle jittered Particle/Face option and Jittering amount options.
* Particle Line/Path/Billboard rendering
* Particle “Parent” option for rendering offset.
* Sequencer Glow effect
* Shadow Render Pass
Thanks for your work by the way !
Some of the features that are proposed are still required and I would hate to miss them.
Field rendering:
This is still required even for HD that supports both progressive scanning and interlaced scanning. If blenders implementation of fields is not supported for the compositor then the solution would be to start support for it, not drop fields al together. I’m not sure how “specialized tools” would fit into this pipeline. It seems to me that it would mean rendering at double framerates (50 fps instead of 25 fps interlaced) and then using a video editor to create interlaced frames from the 50 fps footage, quite a lot of overhead.
Controversial list features I use:
– Environment maps
Still the best way to get quick reflections for background objects. Its also handy for getting quick blurry reflections. Removing environment maps wouldn’t be such a problem if you could use other image textures for Cmir like you can with an environment map texture. Non environment map textures just effect the Ray traced color reflection, environment map textures actually provide texture based reflections.
– Dupli frames
I use it for similar puposes as the array modifier, only you have more control with the vertices. If this could be merged somehow with the array modifier I would be fine with it.
– Animatable object layers.
This is basicly used by me as animating visabillity of objects.
– Bounds draw types for objects
I only use the Box drawtype for empties that are used for mapping textures.
Some times
“All edges option for meshes ”
is the only way to to locate a vertex while weight painting.
As in pinning for cloth simulation.
I think, texture/sequence plugins should not just be removed. What has always made me mad is the way I enabled them. I.e. for textures I select type ‘Plugin’, then I’m provided with a file selection dialog where I first must go to the directory where the texture plugins are and there I must painfully guess from dll’s file name the plugin i need for my purpose. Definitely this is mega-stupid workflow!
What I think is there should be a standardized way to enable plugins (e.g. in the config) and, once enabled, they immediately appear in the texture type selection menu. Naturally, plugins appear in the configuration interface, once the plugin’s dll file is placed into corresponding directory (which may be specified in the config too and may be more than one i.e. other directories added). Even more there should be well documented plugin API, so 3-rd party developers could write their own plugins, which is common practice in (e.g.) Autodesk.
Also it would be super if there were plugin API for nodes and modifiers!
+1 on keeping
*edge rendering,
*shadow pass and
*blend sky.
Thanks.
*All edges option for meshes – I use blender more often for modelling, version 2.4x disappointed me that you can not see all the edges in the object mode. And when this option was implement in trunk, I immediately switch to 2.5, and use it for now, do not remove this option.
*Bounds draw types for objects – I use blender for render and some models have a very large number of polygons, viewport often works slowly, and this option allows me to a quick navigation in the viewport.
Oh my gosh! Finally I can ask for something to be removed that REALLY bugs the heck out of me.
When you ‘Quit’ Blender, an irritating dialog box now pops up in 2.5 that asks “Are you sure?”
YES I’M SURE!! That’s why I choose ‘Quit’. Why is it constantly asking me every time. I’m sure. I’m sure. I’m sure… to infinity and beyond! And to grind our noses further into it, the default button focus is not on ‘OK’, which could then easily be dismissed by hitting enter. No, now we have to grab the mouse and navigate up to the box to confirm that we wanted to Quit. I’m sure. Really sure.
I used to love the implicit understanding of an earlier Blender that knew I was competent, that I understood the meaning of the word ‘Quit’. I felt a warm glow of being treated as an adult, with an instantaneous vanishing of the program, Ahhh, it was so refreshing, so quick and easy.
Now, I understand the logic, (sort of…) of trying to hold the hands of the newcomer, but why do ALL of us have to suffer this annoyance forever? If others want this dubious feature, fine. But can’t the option of turning it off be set in User Preferences? Please?
Thanks for listening Brecht. I’m done now. I’m sure. No really, I’m sure. I’m sure. Seriously…. I’m sure…
:)
Yes Field rendering and related operations have not worked for a while and it has been a pain. I had to de-field something in aftereffects recently so I could get a reasonable output in blender. Also I tried to render something with fields and had it confirmed to me that it didn’t work.
Fields are part of the TV spec and having stuff moving at 50fps is a treat. If you were to tell a games player they had to play at 25fps they’ed go balistic.
If Blender wants to be used for Compositing and Editing it has to support fields.
Secondly, Sky Blend. Not sophisticated but I use it all the time.
Dupliframes useful.
FileBrowser – I like the current setup and filters in 2.5. Its a real shame that the Filebrowser settings aren’t saved in the blend. If they were you could use them like bins for the sequence editor.
Edge rendering- I have used it and it would be a pain any other way.
Many thanks
L
I use the sticky texture for camera mapping and find it great, I would be disappointed to see it removed.
World stars can be useful for newbies that just want to have a quick look at blender and get something rendered quick. That I think can help to get them hooked to blender before learning how tu use textures efficiently.
I use from the “List”:
*World stars (in my opinion they can look good if used very carefully)
*Edge Rendering (Not ideal I know.,, But this also can look good enough for certain project if used well, At least it’s better than nothing!)
Please don’t assume anyone can just simply go and use a graphicall.org (e.g. a Freestyle build) – most graphicall builds *never ever* work *at all* for me (simply won’t load e.g. under Hardy and the Terminal unfortunately is still not something I use easily without a detailed how-to step by step guide).
I also use from the Controversial List:
* Blend Sky (This works quite nicely together with the World Stars I think!)
* Sequencer Glow effect. This one is extremely useful and works really well!!! It makes sense to have that option in the VSE as long as one needs to export/import footage for use the Compositing Nodes…
*Shadow Render Pass: I sometimes use it for a toon look! Can be very nice!
I understand that one should not hold on to old things if there are alternatives that make more sense in the long run. Just please don’t remove anything useful without implementing a working and documented (!) alternative if that is somehow possible. Thanks!
Hi Brecht,
I work for many French TV channels using Blender and I absolutly need field rendering. When i work with interlaced textures, i have to render my images in this way. Broadcasters and channels TD are always really impressed by Blender. Field rendering is one of the features that give to Blender a “Professionnal look” for broadcasters. ;o)
I recently Produced stereoscopic jingles for world cup soccer for French TV Canal+ in Full HD. Done 100% in Blender ! Including side-by-side rendering. I just finished an article about Stereoscopic images in Blender for the upcoming “Blender Art Mag 28” to explain how to. My jingles are broadcasted in loop when no soccer is broadcasted … so around 18 hours per day … ;o) Can you imagine … 18 hours of Blender images per day on a worldwide network ? Funny, isn’t it ?
OK, that’s the only thing i really need for the first list. But, in the second list :
– Cubic interpolation material option : I way be wrong but, is not this option make the model look smoother ?
– Curves in the image editor: replace by exposure slider : Curves could provide a good way to display an image using a LUT. Really usefull if you have to visualize your render on some specific display or have to report your render on specific 35 mm Film (like some Kodak film). But maybe the further Color management features will be replace curves ?
– Dupliframes : I use it so many time ! Just an exemple : I use it to generate a Tron Light Cycle wall only using the movement of the motorcycle. Sort faces using the Sort faces feature (recently back in 2.5) and add a build modifier to bluid the wall according the motorcycle movement
Please, just take a look at this page on my blog (in french, but you probably easily google translate it) :
http://coyhot.blogspot.com/2010/05/sceance-de-ratrapage.html
All you see on this page is done using Blender (except the 3 last images from Photoshop) for some articles i wrote for French Edition of “Computer Arts Magazine”. Run to the Tron Legacy Part and you’ll how i use it … ;o)
– Environment Map texture : I may be wrong but, is this not used by Environement Lightning in Render Branch ?
-Irregular Shadow Buffer : if raytrace shadows are fastest as Irregular in Render Branch, maybe … if not, irregular could be usefull. ;o)
– Particle grid emission distribution : In the same page as “Tron” on my blog, you can see a part named “Lego land”. Using Grid distribution, i find a way to convert an Object into a lego version of this model … completely automaticaly, converting texture into lego color ! Funny,isn’t it ? A good way to create an animation using Pixel Art in 3D too … ;o)
– Particle Line/Path/Billboard rendering : Please don’t remove Billboard rendering ! Using sprite, i create smoke, explosion, water splash and so many thing ! I using it at least each week for my particles work !
– Particle Instance Modifier : I often use it to quickly visualy increase the number of particles. But that’s not the most important for me … ;o)
– Shadow Render Pass : So usefull to fake blurry shadow at compositing or blend them using Blending mode (Overlay for instance).
Hope this short list and explainations will help you see how i can use all there features.
Once again, thanks for your great work my Friend !
François “CoyHot” Grassard
Website : http://www.coyhot.com
Blog : http://coyhot.blogspot.com
Mail : [email protected]
From the first list I support removing pin floating panels, snap always, outline/origins etc to preferences, the file browser and optimal display defaults.
I have tried to use some texture plugins with pre 2.5 without any luck. It is something I would like to have working and would only support removing it if a new improved plugin system for 2.5 was to replace it.
The other items I have no strong opinion on.
I absolutely agree with Brecht van Lommel and think that the blender community will create better tools for the same propose in the future. Sometimes we need some sacrifice for a better future.
Hi,
I must give thanks for your work, Brecht and other developpers, but I think that this approach is completely wrong, at least from the POV of a long time Blender user. What I like in Blender is it’s flexibility. For example, I never used professionally the Fields rendering option, but ever feel comfortable knowing that it was here for the day when I’ll need. It’s useful not only for broadcast TV, it’s useful for whatever video that should go out of a computer!!!
I think you’re approaching this issue with a so tin POV. An architecht told me, for example, that seeing the color of objects in the 3D display was useful for him, since it makes easy to classify objects by material/type, no matter the actual color of this material. Why I should only rely on groups for that, for example? This need is probably distant from the needs of an animator, but both profiles find answers to those in Blender features. With this cur of features, you will turn Blender in a “one way only way” to do things. Simply, you (and me, and no one) are unable to imagine and realize the different usages of Blender features, so if these are here is because that solves something to someone.
So, if you ask for removal or not, it will be all the time someone that needs that or that other feature. Perhaps is a better approach to consider what features are REALLY needed to remove because another added that conflicts with or shifts the first one. And then, simply remove it, without asking to the world.
Simplify the interface?…. ummhh, 2.49b interface was perfectly fine for me, if 2.50 changes focused, among other things, in interface, simplify it isn’t remove features. It is, well, simplify. “Would this feature be a good thing to add if it wasn’t there yet?” for World Stars, for example… I don’t know if it would be a good enough thing to add…. what it matters for me is that is here and I like it.
What come to your mind when yout thought to remove Dupliframes? sincerely, I’m a little affraid with the way Blender is evolving in some aspects (there is no doubt that is evolving, and should do…).
Personally, few among your two lists are features that I agreed we could live without. Agreed in the issue of sequencer and texture plugins and perhaps another one or two.
Thanks for your work,
Raimon
I use:
* Blend Sky (no horizon/zenith, just one color)
* Cubic interpolation material option
* Dupliframes
* Environment Map texture
* Shadow Render Pass
Ciao,
Ricky
Cubic interpolation material option
I use it for every material. Should be active on default. Only delete this function if there is a better one. I remember when Ton came up with this feature. It `s hackish, but sooo useful….
Maybe each feat that you remove can be replaced by another way of doing things, and that must replaced.
+1 for gathering anonymous and PUBLIC data on usage. (send log files by http once in a while, reporting function usage (and accces smethod – keypress, menu, ..) , but also sequence of to extract patterns from them)
Edge rendering : a great tutorial just has been deliverey in blendercookie.com using it : it is used ! But it’s more logical to put in a comp. node
Layer animation : I use it (or would like to) to make objects appear. give me a better solution are it might be ok.
Texture and sequencer plugins: ok.
World stars: you should use a texture : OK, but How ? You can fake parallax, but it’d be quite complicated. Maybe a volumetric preset ? I currently use it
Fields rendering: can be useful, alternative is to render twice the data & throw it away at encoding
Classical shadow buffer: always use Classical-Halfway.
Pin Floating Panels: can be useful !
Relative paths user preference and Remap Relative option for save operator: YES
File browser should hide hidden files and filter types by default. : YES +1. Or maybe a non issue if current value are saved across sessions.
I use :
Animateable object layers (to make an object appear in a animation : how do you do that without it ?)
Blend Sky : i use it, with envmap texture.
Curves in the image editor: replace by exposure slider : no, please keep it as curves
* I use animateable object layers very often to let objects suddenly appear/disappear in Animations.
Frequently doing broadcast stuff for PAL TV, I can’t live without an interlaced render. Do you ever watch a non interlaced flying logo on TV? It’s so choppy. HD LCD and Plasma TV aren’t yet popular enough in europe, broadcasting is still mainly intelaced SD.
#1sequencer plugins: I strongly object cos I use most of them all the time! If they are removed how/when are they going to be replaced? Also, some of the plugin effects are not easily accomplished through compositing.
#2. relative paths && hiden files: they are easily customizable so I don’t mind
#3. curves in image editor: curves afford more control than sliders
#4. sequencer glow effect: consider this: if someone wants to use Blender as a video editor then such effects are a must. No novice will learn the compositor to produce a simple glow effect.
I understand that from a programming point of view maintaining old code is more troublesome than rewriting it from scratch, but removing features without a clear plan for replacements is a recipe for disaster.
Just my 0.2 $
Hi everyone.
First of all i think it’s a great idea – blender was waiting for such step a long, long time :)
Now my opinion:
– from the initial list – I 100% agree
– from controversial:
+ animatable object layers is a good tool for switching models during an animation, so if this feature will be deleted, there should be implemented something instead of it,
+ blend sky was useful, but if it seems really need-to-be-out, then ok, do justice,
+ there is some (only a few, but still) effects that can be achieved with dupliframes and can’t be achieved with array modifier, but if you remove this option it’s really possible, that no one will cry
+ grid mesh wasn’t too bad. It needn’t be implemented in core code, maybe it can be accessible by python script – anyway it would be good to have a way to generate this primitive automatically.
+ particle instance modifier… hmm… – i believe this can be replaced by visualizating particles as “Object”. If it will work fine with instancing, then agreed.
+ i can see, that actual render shadow pass is not useful as it should be, but there must some easy way to extract shadows from render. If it will be, then I will not cry for old shadow pass.
Vertex normal flip – it is useful dont remove it !!!
don’t remove edge render, but make it a node for compositing *****
* Animateable object layers
Curves in the image editor: replace by exposure slider. <— yes do please change!!
Fresnel diffuse shader <– please leave.
The “t_terrain PlugIn” enables Blender to give a terrain vegetation and/or snow in dependence of slope and altitude. It’ s easy to use and there is no real alternative in Blender with any node setups or stencil. Last Time I had the hope of an improvement for this plugin, with more options of procedural textures like musgrave, not only “clouds”. And now it should be removed. Please don’t do that!
Improve it, and it will be the solution for the still missed feature to generate realistic looking terrains with snow and different vegetation in Blender.
Would it be another possibility to bring the code of the plugin from “c” to “python” and restart it as an addon?
I’ m not a coder.
Have a look and many thanks
Bernd
— comment removed, user banned permanently for threatening content–
– Fields rendering: is anyone actually using Blender to produce content for TV with this option?
Yes, we are at the MOMENT not at a point where all is progressive. Interlaced animations still look better on conventional TVs, and also many hobby users still use DV Cams and also record andimations (back) on them.
– Dupliframes: not only usefull for Animation but can also be used as modelling tool, I used it often in my 10 years of Blender and surely will in future
Carsten
I am actually not a big fan of removing features at all. They were once added because people need them or people found them to be useful. I understand you want to clean up some code, but this seems like the wrong way to me. These are the ones I want to save for sure:
World stars + Edge Rendering: Cheesy as they may seem, I use both of them regularly for toony renders. Granted, they’re not perfect, but you don’t always want to go through the hassle of creating a perfect render. Freestyle might give nicer results on the edges, but (to new users) it’s also more confusing, more work and it takes longer to render.
B-bone Rest: Didn’t know this existed. It seems as something that could be quite useful in some situations. (I’d also keep it in the UI.)
Optimal display for multires and subsurf enabled by default: Yes and no. I can see why some people would want that, but I personally always leave it off so I can see how dense my mesh is getting. Maybe make it a User Preference?
File browser should hide hidden files and filter types by default: Agreed, but keep optional please.
I’ll save you the trouble of copying most of the controversial list, but why were Shadow Render Pass and Blend Sky even on there? o.O
Also, I wasn’t sure on what you meant with Texture Mesh and Object Color. Could anyone please explain?
-Patrick
I think somehow this has to be done. Blender now, seems to be made of pieces (Frankenstein-like). Dont know much about the code but this is not good either for the user. It is dificult to find some features, for instance. And at some point Blender must get rid of those pieces that make no sense. And probably the 2.5 version is the best point to make the change.
The good news is that no matter what they remove, the old versions of Blender are still there, isnt it? I’m still using 2.48… and if you need an old feature you can run it in an old version…
While talking about removing features, we also have a list of features which were never ported and SOME of them are quite usefull:
http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Dev:2.5/Source/Development/Status/MissingFeatures#Features_missing_in_2.5x_from_2.49
Carsten
•Sticky texture coordinates: some video game and Blender exporter use sticky (UV per vertex and not per faces)
•Classical shadow buffer: they produces better result than Classical-Halfway on some scene. Example :
•Optimal display for multires and subsurf enabled by default : ok by default but dont remove this option (not optimal is usefull to show distribution of dense mesh.
•Object Color: ?? this is vertex color ? if right, vertex color is usefull not only in game mode, particulary for some mesh visualization and operation in viewport.
All present things in controversal list is very useful in my point of view .
It will be a drama for people who cannot use a render farm if you remove old stuff like environnement map, fresnel shader or world stars.
Even if the result is not fantastic for a one shot render, tweaking this result with node editor can give great results with a low render time.
Although render time falls down with render branch’s work.
Dupliframes are not functionnal in my build. And it makes me sad. It is really a unique feature with a really different purpose than onion skin. Don’t let the newbies convince you that it is the same.
Particle Instance Modifier is a totally different feature than object visualization for particle. Don’t let the newbies convince you that it is the same.
World Stars is easier, and so faster, than setting up a particle system. I encourage you to improve it. It coulb be a great feature, if we could add an halo material to stars instead of a colnoise.
2.5 grid mesh primitive operator has a different behavior than in 2.49. In 2.49, dimensions change when you increase x or y subdivisions.
It would be better to restore this 2.49 behavior for grid mesh and create X and Ysubdivisions for plane primitive.
Relationship lines should stay a display option. I would like to enable/disable it quickly. It could be better if it was a per object option.
Object Color could be a great help for a a better comprehension of the scene if it was easier to set up. We need to unwrap mesh and then select faces, and then enable object color, and then pass in textured display. I am sure that it will be more often used if it was as simple as adding a texture with drag and drop.
In the most of 3D software, you just have to change color in a slot to see it changed in the 3D view.
In blender, it is faster to add a material. But if a lot of objects must be rendered with the same material, you can use color to make your 3D view more understandable.
So please, if you remove it; try to add a better way to color object’s display.
comeinandburn is not the only one to use fields rendering for TV.
We need something able to map objects with Particle Instance Modifier to create animations like Benjamin Button generic. I am not sure that sticky coordinates can be replace by UVproject in this kind of case.
No matter if it becomes an option but there is no doubt that sticky coordinates are used.
What is also used and i did not see it back in the svn is grab and size texture space. Again, it is really easier to set up an orco mapping in others 3d software which adapts gizmo display to tube, sphere, plane mapping. It is why Blender newbies are using UVmapping in all cases.
Brecht,
Looks like it’s time for the Blender Foundation to put up (another) donation challenge meter thingy… and invite every Blender user here to donate to hire another coder or 3 to keep these features in 2.6.
Great to see more users come out of the woodwork and validate how important Blender is to them and explain how they use Blender.
Ton,
how many Euro would we need to raise to make 2.6 feature complete for all these users?
Well, since they’re rarely used, it’s better to remove them.
Do not remove “Flip Normals”.
Boolean modifier produces wrong results with complex objects. Flipping normals and usage of Boolean modifier in reverse brings good results.
I use sticky textures for camera mapping so it would be a shame to see that go :(
Hello… with virtual egg on my face….
I complained earlier about the ‘Quit’ dialog box. I just realized that this ‘feature’ seems to be only on the Mac version of Blender 2.5.
I just ran Blender 2.5 for the first time using Windows 7 on Oracles’ Virtual Box, and the “Are you sure?” dialog box didn’t show up when I quit.
Am I wrong here, or am I missing something?
Edge rendering, please keep it!
It’s not perfect, but some times it gives great results. I usualy use it with Camera ClipStart to 0 (default is 0.1) to get nice thin outlines.
Example: http://www.noeol.de/blender_249_edge_rendering.png
(you don’t get this with an extern tool)
But ‘make this a compositing node’ sounds good, if the result is the same.
— comment removed —
I use sticky for camera mapping animation to, it’s a great feature please dont remove it
Actually, the things on the “controversial list” aren’t so rarely needed. I actually use all of them, some more often, some rarely – but they do have their points. The other things are ok for me to remove, but please keep the controversial list, as long as there are no alternatives.
Thanks, keep up the great work!
Texture Mesh tutorial
http://www.telusplanet.net/public/kugyelka/blender/tutorials/texmesh/texmesh.htm
All is great!
BTW… Brecht for President ;)
** Bounds draw types for objects **
This object specific setting has real value for complex, static library items.
it’s useful for keeping scenes with very high poly and object counts usable and interactive. For example some corporate work I’ve done, particularly award ceremonies, may have 900 set tables, thousands of pieces of detailed cutlery, cloth, glassware and flowers, hundreds of lights, lots of truss etc…; even if fragmented across multiple layers, the UI can easily descend to non-interactive frame-rates with wireframe view.
For the above example, when composing a shot, or when positioning and animating, I just need to know where the objects are and their approximate size, not exactly what they look like, whilst seeing the rest of the design environment in some detail.
By keeping the main 3D draw mode as solid/textured I can see the fine geometry that matters, limit that which is less important by using bounds draw types for objects within libraries, and maintain a usable, responsive UI.
After all, not everyone has a cluster of SGI Prisms to design on :-)
i use from the controversial list:
Fresnel shader, great for metal (please don’t remove it) and definitively leave the the shadow pass, it is absolutely helpful (necessary) in compositing when you build a large/complicated scene and need control.
AGREED with most of the things except with
“Texture and sequencer plugins:”
** If could be replaced by something else as openFX OFX :) **
———————————————
“Fields rendering”
** don’t know exactly what it does cover, but can be important with imported footage **
———————————————
“Object Color”
** don’t care about it, but if we could have an object color in the 3d viewport, so for instance we can specify different color for several empties. in my matchmove case empty are used for tracking feature in 3d space. I wish to have a object color (which does not render) but works differently as now. and for any kind of objects.
———————————————
“File browser should hide hidden files and filter types by default”
Hidden file feature on windows is specified in windows settings, should work with OS settings no ?
———————————————
“shadow pass” as rendering passes ? please keep it !
Removing any from the “controversial list” would be an act of madness, I use practically all of them regularly. Especially animatable object layers, the sequencer glow effect and dupliframes – these are fantastic features. I’d feel restricted to current versions of Blender if they were gone. I mean, seriously… remove animatable object layers ?!?! No ! Don’t do that ! Bad Brecht !
I would also keep the texture and sequence plugins – I use the old warp plugin quite often, amongst others. Maybe there are now better ways, but it works for me. I’m not clear from the description whether these are intended to be removed completely or integrated in some new way, but I’d miss them quite badly if they were gone.
Blenders world stars should not be removed, rather they need an upgrade. Trying to create star fields that don’t flicker horribly when animated is a nightmare : “but if you want something that actually looks good, you should use a texture” – you can’t if you want to rotate the camera much. If we had proper star fields we could create better things than 80’s space animations…
It’s not April the 1st is it?
I thought the UI redesign of Blender was to rethink the organisation of features, not get rid of them all and end up with Google Sketchup.
I’ve been saying for yonks that certain tools could be improved (the most outstanding being the bevel tool – bring back a bevel that doesn’t triangulate mesh corners!!!). I would way prefer the dev time spent on fixing those areas than clearing the bench to come up with new stuff.
@Zavigny I’ve always used Windows and I have never been asked if I want to quit. I didn’t even know the feature existed. I’ve wanted to have it for a long time though. Maybe as an option so everyone doesn’t have to use it, but I would really like to have it.
Too many times have I closed Blender by mistake when I haven’t saved recently. The most annoying is when I’m surfing while using blender and the browser by some reason isn’t fullscreen, so the cross is a few pixels away from the top corner. Then when I try to close the browser I close Blender instead. -.-‘ This has happened several times and is not fun at all…
Anyways, my point is that if we have this as an option, everyone can choose. If they want it, they can have it and if they don’t, they don’t. To me it doesn’t seem like a hard thing to do, especially as it already exists on Mac.
pls dont drop stickytexture feature in 2.6.
i often used it for camera mapping.
Hi,
-I absolutely need Billboard Rendering for Particles! Please don’t remove…
– The shadow render pass is also important to me.
-Also I find “3D view lock to object” very useful at times.
– Fresnel shader comes in handy once in a while.
I regularly use:
* Blend sky
* Edge render
* Object layer animation
* Shadow render pass
These all provide very simple ways to get basic, but commonly used, effects. I am surprised you think people don’t use them!
Hopefully I am not just repeating said things from above (probably so) .
Most of the stuff from the controversial list have been very usefull to me. The environment map texture can be quite handy, also the Particle Grid emission distribution, the sequencer glow effects and especially the Particle instance Modifier are very useful. I don’t see also why I shadow render pass should be removed? The invert Z Depth seems to be the only option right now to draw solid/wireframe meshes, isn’t it?
I have been using the sticky textures a lot and would think that something else, as easy to use, would be good too. But this feature is just great for ‘groundwork’ e.g. for and in cameramappings.
Things from the controversial list that I think could be removed:
Particle Line/Path Rendering
Particle Jittered Particle/Face option and jittering amount options.
Particle “Parent” option for rendering offset.
Sticky textures is a great feature that I have used recently.
http://www.blenderguru.com/camera-mapping/
I also use “blend sky” and “particle instance” regularly
I agree with the list: make all the suggested changes…EXCEPT:
“Blend Sky (no horizon/zenith, just one color)”.
The two color option is useful to add interest to otherwise sterile technical product visualizations – we’re not all using Blender for fluffy character animation! You see many technical catalogues using two color blended backgrounds for visualizations of nuts, bolts, electronic components, etc.
It seems to me that a lot comments are written by hobbyists.
I work with Blender since 10 years, and since 5 years professionally, because there are lot useful features.
Other professional 3D applications add features that seem to be useless (just because only few people can use ), and you remove them??!! How can you decide when a feature is used or not in a workflow?
Remove them it seems to be a very stupid thing.
For example:
– Replace Curves with exposure slider? Could you talk with a professional photographer before making a proposal like this? With curve manipulation you have a control and a range of results that you could never achieve with mere exposure!
– “Fields rendering: is anyone actually using Blender to produce content for TV with this option?”, OF COURSE WE USE THIS OPTION! Do you know what are you talking about??!!
– Sticky textures are the only way to achive a good result in a fast way for camera mapping.
– Object color is very useful to keep the scene organized, to create placeholders for materials to assign, once modeling is completed.
– Blend sky is useful and fast for previews with customers, same thing for world star, your suggestion about using a texture is silly!
?- Environment Map texture is usefull to fake reflections in a fast way.
– Removing shadow render pass??!! It’s one of the most incomprehensible things i’ve read in your proposal! It’s one of the most used things in compositing!!
– Fresnel diffuse shader is very useful too, and it’s very nice to see!
In the end, i think it’s better, before doing something so drastic and controversial, ask to people who use Blender professionally, (NOT HOBBYISTS!) to know exactly what is useful, what is not, and what it’s better to leave where it is, even though it’s rarely used.
I understand the Point of view of Brecht, it’s the point of view of a developer, but Blender users are not necessarily developers, and they have others needs.
And, Hey, I’m a supporter!
Do not get rid of edge rendering. I do use it, and have pulled off some pretty convincing toon effects with the new edge renderer. And not all of us as that good with the compositor as to do it in the nodes. Freehand is unstable and doesn’t give me what I need. I don’t have an issue with everything else but please do not get rid of edge rendering
It seems to me that a lot comments are written by hobbyists.
I work with Blender since 10 years, and since 5 years professionally, because there are lot useful features.
Other professional 3D applications add features that seem to be useless (just because only few people can use ), and you remove them??!! How can you decide when a feature is used or not in a workflow?
Remove them it seems to be a very stupid thing.
For example:
– Replace Curves with exposure slider? Could you talk with a professional photographer before making a proposal like this? With curve manipulation you have a control and a range of results that you could never achieve with mere exposure!
– “Fields rendering: is anyone actually using Blender to produce content for TV with this option?”, OF COURSE WE USE THIS OPTION! Do you know what are you talking about??!!
– Sticky textures are the only way to achive a good result in a fast way for camera mapping.
– Object color is very useful to keep the scene organized, to create placeholders for materials to assign, once modeling is completed.
– Blend sky is useful and fast for previews with customers, same thing for world star, your suggestion about using a texture is silly!
?- Environment Map texture is usefull to fake reflections in a fast way.
– Removing shadow render pass??!! It’s one of the most incomprehensible things i’ve read in your proposal! It’s one of the most used things in compositing!!
– Fresnel diffuse shader is very useful too, and it’s very nice to see!
In the end, i think it’s better, before doing something so drastic and controversial, ask to people who use Blender professionally, (NOT HOBBYISTS!) to know exactly what is useful, what is not, and what it’s better to leave where it is, even though it’s rarely used.
I understand the Point of view of Brecht, it’s the point of view of a developer, but Blender users are not necessarily developers, and they have others needs.
And, Hey, I’m a supporter!
I wouldn’t remove any of all these features, besides maybe the World Stars (really ugly but it should be replaced by something more functional), I used almost all of them and sometimes they also saved the day…
Shadows Render Pass is basic to compositing, why to remove it? Besides the fact that it doesn’t seem to work properly, I mean (but maybe the problem is more in the multiply option of nodes).
And why to remove the sequencer Glow effect?
Dupliframes: the only way to quickly model a spine with every vertebra different from the other.
Field rendering was always buggy with some lights and I always had to do a workaround, now please please DO NOT remove field rendering, specially now it’s been fixed.
My keep list ‘because I actually use them in production’
* Cubic interpolation material option
* Environment Map texture
* Fresnel diffuse shader
* Invert Z Depth material option.
* Irregular Shadow Buffer
* Sequencer Glow effect
**** Shadow Render Pass ?!
* Field rendering
World stars?! I actually did use them a production once believe it or not, but it’d be no great loss to lose that one!
Thanks for the feedback, we’ll take it into account, I don’t have time to respond to all the individual points here. Also, people seem to be complaining about e.g. Particle Instance modifier or Dupliframes even though it wasn’t on the list anymore when this article was posted..
I would like to point out though that in the bigger picture, poorly implemented or little used features do take a lot of time. I’ve spent months debugging and investigating problems related to these kinds of things, time that could be spent elsewhere improving other areas or adding new features. In working on the render engine for example, the quantity of code and poorly implemented features has been the main thing that makes it difficult to make improvements.
That said, don’t take the second list too seriously, as written on the page, I didn’t expect these to get a lot of support, so they’re unlikely to get removed.
Isolate code but not remove references. Make the deprecated/unloved menu entries bright pink/magenta as reminders. See if the functionality is actually missed, remove the references a couple of versions down the line. The useage stats counter alluded to earlier could be used in conjunction with this.
@brecht. :D I was wondering what was happening there. The field rendering isn’t a deal breaker thinking more on it more. :)
When I was a beginner I used them all, it made Blender interesting.
3 years later…I still use them all.
Blender would not be blender to me if they are removed.
The autosmooth function in mesh normals panel could be removed too. Since Edgesplit Modifier i never used it anymore. Especially because autosmooth has no preview in the 3D Window.
ALL this is a must have for me:
Vertex Normal flip
Animateable object layers
3D view lock to object
Particle grid emission distribution
Particle Line/Path/Billboard rendering
Shadow Render Pass
Particle “Parent” option for rendering offset.
Also I don’t understand why 2.5 is going to have MUCH less options and tools than 2.4x… you already kill many features from 2.4x and now you want to rip more of them, what a shame…
brecht,
the second list went to a different page.
The updated list is here:
http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Dev:2.5/RemovingFeatures
I like Dorro’s suggestion. IMHO, some of the features could be re-implemented, even if they’re not removed. Code quality in Blender keeps increasing over time, becoming more modular and easier to understand. Some of the features that have been hanging around for a long time look shocking by comparison. Try to see if you can find the code responsible for “Feature X”, and then see if you can understand it without wading through a huge pile of spaghetti.
Please don´t remove EDGE RENDRING I use it alot, it´is a neat tool, I have been using blender since 1999, for work. This is very frightening that very useful tools are going to be taken away from us.
I’m really really scared by this idea.
Except if they are in conflict with really important functions, no features sould be removed. Each user, and mostly professionals use Blender for some specific reasons in their pipeline. Remove useful features, and you will loose users.
For artists earning few money it will be a drama, because they will not be able to purchase an other software to replace the missing functions. I know what I’m speaking about !
I use all of these features quite often :
* Sticky textures coordinates
* Edge rendering
* Dupliframes
* Irregular Shadow Buffer
* Shadow Render Pass
* Particle Line/Path/Billboard rendering
* Worlds Stars
* Environment Map texture
* Fresnel diffuse shader
* Irregular Shadow Buffer
* Sequencer Glow effect
* Shadow Render Pass
* Field rendering
* Mesh Texture
* Blend Sky
* Texture and sequencer plugins
* Particle grid emission distribution
Please, DO NOT remove them :o[
Ajax Edit still doesn’t work…
I forgot to add “Flip Normals”, really useful to fix some problems, with dense imported meshes for example.
This is a great idea. Most of the first list can go IMO. I only have an opinion on one of the features in the second list.
I would like the following two features to remain:
Sticky textures–the UV methods don’t work well, even in 2.4x
Environment Map Textures. Great for faking reflections.
Thanks!
This was always going to be a controversial topic, but seriously… stars?
Are you kidding me?
What, do you need them as a background for your extruded chrome logo animation?
What is this, 1993?
Yeesh!
Maybe someone should write a 90s retro-cheese plugin for Blender to satisfy the users who want that stuff.
Whoa! Already that many reactions!
OK, one of the most obscure functions is Mesh Texture. It’s clunky to setup and use, but I really would like this implemented otherwise/ more logically. This is for textures what shape keys are for meshes. Just like for meshes, the absolute and relative vertex thing got refactored to shape keys, so could Texture Mesh undergo the same treatment?
With the resources and time available, getting blender to a clean and stable point seems to be the priority, particularly as it has undergone such a radical ground-up change. If a lot of old features need to be re-written anyway to fit comfortably in the new version, then I guess they will be done depending on real need in new code. They may be needed, but for the moment, the basics are important, and particularly stabilty and consistency to encourage greater take-up professionally.
On the subject of basics, for my money, the internal renderer has benefitted from a really decent speed bump in 2.5, but I personally would like to see the speed of rendering refraction pushed to compete with the likes of the Maya internal renderer. For this one feature (and perhaps also a vital hypergraph scene node editor and a component editor (they would utterly transform Blender for professional use)), I would migrate from Maya fully. The refraction rendering speed is still a deal-breaker in my opinion. One can always use an external renderer for this I suppose, but they can be fussy to use if a job’s got to be out of the door in a hurry.
I think that removing virtually any of the features from the “Controversial list” is akin to making Blender commit virtual suicide. A LOT of people are going to get angry at that, and personally I would be – I use most of those features rather often, and I love the simplicity they allow for, especially at the earlier stages of modeling (things like Blnd Sky, Animatable Object Layers, Edge Rendering or Environment Map Texture).
Blender 2.5 (2.6?…) already sacrifices quite a lot of functionality for the purpose of a better future (I mean the modeling tools which are pending for recode or update until BMesh is included, which, given that BMesh author was employed with Durian, is probably not going to be soon either). The point is, sacrificing more functionality from different areas of Blender without a clear plan for a replacement (it’s unclear when and how any of those features are going to be reimplemented) for the sake of simplifying the interface has one really big issue with it – we’re going to end up with a perfectly moddable, customizable, easy to use interface with no real power behind it (which would be the opposite of 2.49b – sorry 2.4x fans – where the power was amazing but the interface got in the way of that power way too often and complicated things being not flexible and customizable enough).
Right now those subtle, if rarely used, functions are of big help to whoever is using them, even if not on a daily basis. Without them and with no easy way to achieve the same effect, Blender will become clumsier and more difficult to use for professionals even if (possibly) easier to get a grip on for beginners.
To be perfectly honest, those things on the *main* list that you considered for removal are mostly either unused by or unknown to me, with one notable exception of the plugins which are a must have, in my opinion (though I agree that a better system may be created for 2.5, perhaps better integrated with the new API). So, I wouldn’t miss much if anything on the main list was temporarily or permanently removed, but touching anything on the “controversial” list would lead to way too much trouble in the long (and possibly short) run.
Just my $0.02, of course.
I do a lot of architectural visualization in my work and so one of the reasons for using Blender is that it provides fast results in the initial phases where I’m able to produce sketches very quickly for the client. The beauty is that, while I’m still working in the same application, I can go on further to produce the final, high quality result without messing around with too many other applications in the pipeline.
* World stars:
– I wouldn’t cry if it was removed but on the other hand, stuff like this is a very good way to impress and convince a newcomer/hobbyist that Blender actually does enable impressive renders with little hassle. The good thing is that the stars actually *behave like particles* in that it’s not just a background. As the camera moves through space, the stars move too. I have previously used them for an underwater scene too but actual particles are better for this.
* Object Color:
– I didn’t know the purpose of this until now. I’ve got a high number of chairs that would need slightly different coloring according to the customers graphical profile. This solves that issue. Thanks!
* Edge Rendering:
– A “must have” in arcviz! A compositing node for this wold certainly be useful. Along with compositing nodes for wireframe rendering. It can not be removed, however.
* Snap always for Translate/Rotate/Scale:
– I *never* do any arcviz without this switched on. Should be kept as a user preference.
* Relative paths user preference and Remap Relative option for save operator:
– I guess this can be switched on by default. I never use anything but relative paths.
* File browser should hide hidden files and filter types by default.
– Agreed. (The *horizontal* scrolling with short list display of files is just lacking, though. The total number of files should be divided by the number of columns that could fit horizontally inside the file browser. Then allow normal, vertical scrolling of all columns at the same time. Like in 2.5 but just vertically.)
Controversial List
* 3D view lock to object
– I work very much with non-organic objects and so I very frequently need to align the viewport to a window frame, a desk a ledge or some other detail to be able to use vertex tools properly.
* All edges option for meshes.
– I use “Edge Lenght here. It literally wouldn’t be possible to use Blender for any dimensionally dependent stuff without this.
* Animateable object layers.
– I use it to make furniture appear/disappear.
* Blend Sky (no horizon/zenith, just one color)
– I use it for the reasons mentioned by others.
* Bounds draw types for objects
– I’m actually using this right now. Working on a large floorplan I’ve set the general Draw Mode to BoundBox for all the furniture on the floor while keeping all walls as Wire to see what I’m doing while keeping it all running snappy and nice.
* Curves in the image editor.
– For tweaking nice results.
* Environment Map texture
– I’m use this for fast glass or metal.
I’ll donate more, though to keep up the good work :)
Cheers, Jarl
I agree with few itens of the list, but there are another some things wich is so usefull for many people. For sample, i work on games and put subsurf by default sounds like terrible news!…plsss… long live to LOWPOLY jobs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sds,
Berk
“It seems to me that a lot comments are written by hobbyists.”
Really? I’m a professional Blender user so that’s a blanket statement if ever there was one. and even if it did come from hobbyists, so what? Does that make us Pro’s any more entitled?
by the look of all these replies, the contraversial list is definately important. I think at some point we have to accept that blender is getting bigger. culling features isn’t the best idea IMHO. though I do realise that taking of a few features makes it easier on both users(clutter) and devs(maintainance effort).
the features I would like to see go are or defulted are:
>Instances option for raytracing: we can just enable this by default
>Pin Floating Panels: there aren’t any, so option should not be there
>Outline Selected, All Object Origins and Relationship Lines in the 3d view should become user preferences
>File browser should hide hidden files and filter types by default
>Sequencer Glow effect: seems out of place.
infact this is probably highly contraversial but I’ve always felt the idea of trying to have a full featured sequencer within blender is very out of place. same with the game engine. I would rather managed forks of blender that are dedicated to game or sequencing functionality. (i.e. a gamedeveloper version of blender without a render engine,sequencer or unrelated tools. infact maybe inclusion of new tools to help specifically with game development.). but as I say highly contraversial!
LOL…
“Does anybody use field rendering?” Well… Does anybody use Blender … ??? LOL.
Why not remove everything, that’s the most easy to maintain, and has 100% no bugs.
How come a developer is allowed to ask these questions anyway? Is that an OpenSource thing?
People invest time into learning a tool and then get features taken away. Bad.
I’m sure that some features are really lame and just take space and brake the system.
Specialy when jumping from 2 to 2.5.
My advice is to keep everything and start thinking about 3.0. Have a really really good idea to whom you are aiming the tool. If its a tool for hobbiest programmers then add and remove features whatever.
Better to remove the sequencer and node based color correction ( just silly to rerender 3d for 2d correction ).
Have user based “Modes” : Model Mode, Color/Texture Mode, Rig Mode, Animation Mode, Scene Mode, Director Mode ( reference other files for shot creation ), Render Mode, Post Mode.
Anyway…
* Texture and sequencer plugins:
Maya has it. But plugins is a renderfarm hell. Better would be to glue code to the file.
* World stars: for 80ies space animations this may be useful, but if you want something that actually looks good, you should use a texture.
The 80’s do look good. Maybe it does not end up in the final render, but some parts of the work is testing ideas.
* Fields rendering
Field rendering save 50% of the rendertime. But 720P or 1080P seems to be the new standaard.
Then again, 1080i takes loads of rendertime, specialy with the proposed rendering of 1080p and deleting 50% of the pixels. ( real silly idea in my opinion ). So yeah, if its buggy, fix it.
Maya has no field rendering that works, but Maya has a nice motion blur, so… hmm…
* Object Color: for games this is useful, but otherwise I think it’s a bad feature, so I propose to only show it in game engine mode.
I
dont think anybody uses painted objects. Shaders and maps seems the way to go. I doubt people use full color objects in games. Vertex color baking seems to exist in Maya but I think everybody goes for lightmaps.
Some people use colors to organize their scene. I rather use layers.
* Edge Rendering: this is nice in theory, but you can’t actually create good looking toon renders with this. A proper NPR engine like freestyle is much better. We can also make this a compositing node, I have a patch for this I wrote some time ago, though not sure if it is worth having at all.
Yeah, its not very good. But removing stuff because its not very good… hmm…
* Classical shadow buffer: always use Classical-Halfway.
If it has the same result, remove it.
* B-Bone Rest: at least remove from the UI, and perhaps even the code.
Never use it, so I dont know.
* Sticky texture coordinates: doubt this is much used in practice. Corrected perspective interpolation however is useful, could be added back as an option for UV’s.
Maya has it, its often used for matte effects. The blender version is far better than the Maya one.
But a UV over multiple objects projected from camera could work to. Again, the Projection Object as Maya has could be a valued add to blender, But UV’s have the advantage of reusing a single shader on multiple objects.
* Pin Floating Panels: there aren’t any, so option should not be there.
Well no, there should be floating panels, but I get your point.
* Snap always for Translate/Rotate/Scale: seems not necessary, just enable snap in the 3d view header if you always want to snap.
No idea what this is.
* Some Time Offset features: the time offset value itself it still useful, but do we need the Edit/Particle/Parent options?
Need is such a weird word. I think in general features in blender where added for a use. Maybe I’m wrong and blender got a programmers hobby with feature just for coders fun?
Time tools are very important to animators who work for clients and are under time pressure.
Being able to change an animation to clients wishes quick are ver valueble. Blender misses bunches of these tools. Most of the time its even better to start over after a meet with a client. Being able to have time lattices and bake the results would make blender an animation tool and not just a nice poly modeler.
* Outline Selected, All Object Origins and Relationship Lines in the 3d view should become user preferences.
Agree. And also added visual adds to 3d space would help loads of users. As realtime shadows.
And a real depth selection tool ( not that crappy z buffer box that makes backface culling possible but creates a crappy selection tool )
* Relative paths user preference and Remap Relative option for save operator: can we just enabled these two by default? These two combined should make relative paths work completely automatic quite well, or are there cases that this doesn’t cover?
No idea what this is about. Maya has project based paths. Sort of depends if you work in groups or not and if settings are scene, file or project based. Also, I dont know much studios or people who work with versioning. I understand bI works with svn, I wonder how other studios handle versioning.
* File browser should hide hidden files and filter types by default. Every file browser does this, and it just seems to be what you want nearly always anyway. Especially on mac/unix hidden files are really in the way in the home directory. (recommend hidden by default Ctrl+H to show hidden)
Yep.
* Optimal display for multires and subsurf enabled by default.
Yep. ( Not a code maintanance issue, a GUI/UI issue ).
controversial List
* 3D view lock to object
To be removed? Why? For newbies its handy.
* All edges option for meshes
The inverse- faster draw thing? Blender can draw some wrong meshes pretty bad that render okay, this forces a complete draw which saves time on fixing the object just to get a good view in wire mode.
Also, it usefull when rendering wires and you want all wires.
* Animateable object layers
Light linking is rather dodgy in blender. Also, not everybody has a renderfarm and turning layers off can speed up rendering. So I’d say lets get this to work properly, with an understandable interface.
Maya even has drawmodes for layers, so one can use multiply or add for a layer. Then again, in maya everything is animateable.
* Blend Sky (no horizon/zenith, just one color)
Mental Ray in maya uses this for physical sky. I think Blender uses it for AO?
But yeah,… just remove it, nobody makes outdoor scenes with blender.
* Bounds draw types for objects
Why? Sometimes its the only way to get blender animation realtime. Specialy with nobody caring for interface drawing speed and gettign slugier per release.
* Cubic interpolation material option
Old fashioned, loads of buttons could use result names instead of technic-used names.
* Curves in the image editor: replace by exposure slider.
Sounds like less control for the artist to me.
* Dupliframes
Blender as the filmstudio tool with only character animation? Hmm… I doubt it.
For infographics dupliframes makes animated dotted lines a breeze. Blender is the only package in the world that makes it a breeze, so yeah, remove it, no other package has it.
* Environment Map texture
Clunky implemented. Specialy for animated textures its a horror. Raytracing made it sort-of obsolete.
Maya still has this shader option, but no options to create the texture, only the mapping type.
* Fresnel diffuse shader
Yeah, remove all shaders except the mia… o wait, blender does not have the mia. :P
* Grid mesh primitive
Maya has an option to select in how many subdivs I want my added plane added. Handy if I want a plane with a hole. Add a 3×3 and remove the middel face.
* Invert Z Depth material option.
What? Nobody making Esher animations?
* Irregular Shadow Buffer
Maya has it.
* Particle grid emission distribution
* Particle Instance Modifier
* Particle jittered Particle/Face option and Jittering amount options.
* Particle Line/Path/Billboard rendering
* Particle “Parent” option for rendering offset.
No idea. Never use them.
* Sequencer Glow effect
Sequencer in a 3d package? Split it of, or start an OS, but dont try to be everything.
* Shadow Render Pass
Was this a start to have everything into a render pass and failed? Than remove it.
If its a start then start adding other render passes. Depth and AO seems to be standard on other packages.
My 50 cents.
Main List:
– Object Color; As long as it is shown as an option in the game engine, I’m okay with removing it from the main material options.
Controversial List:
– Animateable object layers; If it is removed, we will need another way to animate hide and showing objects.
– Blend Sky; I use this ALL the time.
– Image Editor curves; Curves are much more powerful than exposure sliders.
– Particle Billboard Rendering; It’s possible to replace with object particles and planes with track-to constraints, but the billboard option is nice.
These have all been mentioned before, but I want them to be there for sure :)
– Blend Sky can be easily done with nodes (with more options like more colors gradient).
– I agree with putting ‘Edge rendering’ in nodes
– Also Glow effect in Sequencer should be in nodes (correct me if I am wrong)
– I am for removing Stars from world tab -> you can make stars with particles or halo meshes
– I like the All Edges and Optimal Draw (subsurf) options on meshes, because with that you can clearly see your model wireframe with variable level of subdivision
– also keep Curves in Image editors – slider panel is not enough
– without shadow render pass, how can you composite the image externally?
By the way, removing shadow pass? Did Brecht eat bad shrimps or something at the BI?
Another vote for edge rendering.
I use Freestyle and edge a lot for engineering sketches and diagrams. Freestyle is great, but there is no standard equivalent to edge rendering (with progressively darker lines for sharp angles and the ability to quickly tweak its sensitivity and colour). If TK and the rest can come up with an equivalent style module for edge, then that would help, but edge is *significantly* faster (in use and rendering) and more stable than Freestyle at present.
Things I surely need:
* “All edges” option – that’s the only way to see object’s geometry outside of the editing mode
* Fresnel diffuse shader – how am I supposed to fake that?
This I might need:
* Edge Rendering
* Blend Sky
* Environment Map texture
Don’t remove texture baking. Please. It’s really usefull to make rendes times shorter. I realised that just yesterday…
And by the way:
“Vertex normal flip – it is useful dont remove it !!!”
Wouldn’t you mind to explain me what actually does this option except for crippling all normals across lowpoly mesh? Definitely should be removed or at least disabled by default.
I use many of them, but i think i could do without the most of them.
Anyway, please, do not remove shadow render pass! Separate render passes are very important, in professional use of Blender. If there are problems with the current implementation, it would bee good to fix them instead of removing.
wouldn’t a poll of that list have been the quickest way to find out what people want to keep. Right now its a bit of a mess because opinions are flying about all over the place.
If you have a sufficiently big user base every feature, as exotic as it my be, will be needed by at leas one user. That’s why you should hesitant *adding* features. If you remove a feature later, you will be hated (see KDE 4).
I agree with Brecht that some flaky/outdated/incompatible functions could be removed. But I totally disagree with the likes of Benjamin Kay a few posts earlier! Especially as the idea of separate forks is not a very realistic one. The beauty of Blender is that it’s so versatile, that you can make a whole movie or a whole game without touching any other software. I hope his view is an isolated one.
@Sherminator: I don’t think texture baking has not been suggested for removal
I’m not experienced with Blender enough to know if every feature you suggested would be removed. I do know that Cinema 4D had a much better edges render tool, but I could see using the Blender edges for specialized projects. It was nice to have this feature. I’m also with most here – don’t remove shadow render passes. There are many who use blender to export out to say – After Effects, and being able to composite in another program with various render passes is critical. In fact most of the suggest removals seem to be based on the fact that “you” don’t use them. And as you can see from the comments, there are a lot of people that do. What makes Blender nice – is that it was feature rich (and you lived with the bugs because it’s open source). But if you’re going to dumb it down to nothing….hmmm I’m thinking it’s not going to be such a feature rich tool and maybe I need to look to another software tool that actually has pros from the industry determining the features (Maya? 3DMax?). At least then I’m not going to be surprised when a bunch of critical features find the waste bin.
Actually, the more I think about it, your entire list sort of bites and I have to echo joeri67 and say: “Why not remove everything, that’s the most easy to maintain, and has 100% no bugs.” Little used features doesn’t mean valuable and powerful features.
looks to me most of the stuff he wants to remove because there’s other ways to do it now. But, the things he wants to remove are also things that let you get things done faster vs the “new” way, even if it’s not as good.
I use:
*world stars (an image doesn’t take in to account the cameras position. Question: how exactly WOULD you make a space image if the 3d app doesn’t help? You’d have to get another program or make your own space, which would mean you’d need to do composting, more render time, etc. & then it wouldn’t be dynamic in relation to the camera)
*field rendering. Works just fine when I export for use in Vegas. I don’t feel like buying another program like AE to get my CG in to fields, or use a script that could break when Blender gets updated. Not working with composting is something that should be fixed.
*blend sky. Same as world stars: why add an image that doesn’t react to camera when blender has something built in that looks good?
*env map texture: just because raytrace is better doesn’t mean it’s faster!
Those are what I use most of the time, the others iffy.
Why not remove some of the new stuff that’s added after 2.49 & release it with 2.8? Some of that stuff people got along with for years & another year or so wouldn’t hurt. Then things people used all the time wouldn’t be removed. IE there’s a big push for sculpting but there’s many other sculpting apps out there but sculpting is an insisted tool in blender, but field rending or world stars aren’t because they could be done in another app or though another part of blender? Seems more like the big bullet points that draw headlines are more important than practicality.
Please keep the edge rendering, it’s funny for me. To clean up the user interface, I think the easiest way is adjust the font size because most panels are too big for small computers.
Hello
Irregular Shadows are MUCH FASTER than raytracing ( old computers still exist and do the job)
To me, you can remove all 2.5 UI…too much bling bling!
Bye and thank you for your work and effort!
A 3D program without fields render?
It’s for sure that it don’t work properly with compose nodes, it’s better to create a node for that (wich I think that is the best approach) than just take it off.
And don’t forget that a lot of people render their images with Blender then composite them under another compositing program, such as After FX.
@ josh clark
Nothing wrong in being an hobbyist, i’ve been an hobbyist for a long time, we all begin as hobbyists, and no, we (pro) are not more entitled.
But when i read :”YEAH, remove them all!”, and things like this, i think that person doesn’t know the importance a feature may have in a professional workflow, especially if that feature it’s been used for a long time and it may be difficult to replace it in other ways.
Sorry for the misunderstanding Josh.
Cheers!
Sensitive topic… I advise to leave it all in 2.5x dev build and reintroduce whatever in latter 2.6x release when it’s all stable for production. I think of Blender’s dev nowadays like Linux’s kernel releases.
Other than that, I have worked on a project and I ended up using 2.49b because of the lacking features in 2.5 release. Take for example, Extra: Time the Loop function in the Particle System and the PAttr in the Map to can be used with nodes. Now, we know the color management is way much better in 2.5 already.
Still some 2.49b features haven’t been ported to the forthcoming release. I still use the external Texture and sequencer plugins for video sequence editor, kindly keep this one unless you can introduce nodes for video sequence editor. Hmmm… Nodes for video sequence editor sounds – AWESOME!
Also, the particles attribute a.k.a PAtrr and the Time in the Extra’s Particle System Tab mentioned here http://blenderartists.org/forum/showpost.php?p=1575087&postcount=141 I still use it in 2.49b because of it.
More comments to come.
Also, are people commenting about this in the blenderartist forum? Please post link.
I would like to give a firm backing to Brechts idea of pruning some unmanageble code. What I miss in the comments at large is a full appreciation of the job the developers are facing. Take another look at the recent post describing Matt Ebb’s reasons to pull back. Losing developers harms us more then losing a few users i.m.o. Blender should be fun for developers too. Moreover, when the code becomes unwieldy devellopment of Blender eventually will come to a grinding halt.
The least we, users, can do is looking more seriously at the tradeoffs involved. Are we prepared to sacrifice feature x,y or z and get a beter renderer in return or a quicker imlementation of much anticipated features like N-gons? It is a bit too easy just stating what you can’t miss, especially when there are serious alternatives in Blender. So, please take another serious look at Brechts proposal. The developers deserve it.
Field rendering is not a post process.
At time frame 1 the fields show the odd lines of the frame and at frame 1.5 the fields show the even lines of the frame.
Or, the other way round. On an interlaced image of frame 1 the odd lines will show time 1 and the even lines will show time 1.5. Ergo: making 50 (half) images per second ( in PAL and 60 in NTSC ). A far much smoother motion than 25 or 30 progressive images.
The even lines are not on the same Y as the odd lines, so rendering double the amount of half height images will NOT do the trick. The even lines need to be slightly under the odd lines, exactly half way between to be excact.
If blender no longer supports field rendering and you want fields for TV then the only thing left to do is render 50 frames per second ( in PAL, 60 in NTSC ) and remove the odd lines on odd frames and even lines on even frames and interlace that. Twice the amount of rendertime .
Maybe the Blender Institute movies make them think Blender is the #1 app in Movie world? Or maybe they wanna be.
Most of the work I see made with blender is images, and that does not need fields, so I guess that has ground to remove it. And isnt TV dead? Replaced by vimeo, youtube and other web stuff. Fields are horrid on a computer display.
But if it wants to take ground on TV animation I would leave it in and fix the bugs.
Brecht seems to be more practicle to ask who is using it now rather than what does he wants the app to be able to handle. Is he going to siggraph?
Unfortunately… this sounds like more a list of bugs that someone doesn’t want to work on… vs features that aren’t usefull.
I use and will continue to use a good number of those features. They weren’t added without reason. Because one person doesn’t use them or understand them, doesn’t mean they should be removed or disabled.
AAAAHH!! :) The console window!!! Please, removel it!!!
replying to my post @pawel said “the idea of separate forks is not a very realistic one”
-really?
i cant say your wrong but i cant say your right either… you may have to back that statement up as to why you think so.
Just to add the idea was one I got from how Linux is distributed… lots of ditributions have a server, desktop, netbook version etc (different app packages really). And I though that now since the blender interface is generated through scripts it would now would be the matter of just having different ‘versions’ of blender with a *slightly* different packages (scripts). It’s all still the same Blender code though… I hope I’m making sense[some anyway].
Another thing that has been very useful for me (as a pro worker) is the flip normal option.
Especially when making complex shapes, ex characters, if I extrude, I sometimes get wrong normals. The same happens when i model the parts separately, for example to reuse them. Whe I import or append, let’s say, a head from a file and some other parts (hands, feet, tails or whatever) from different files, and quickly readapt the mesh and stitch all together, i often get strangely messed up normals too. In some case the “recalculate normals outside” is completely useless and in this case manual fipping of messed up faces is the only choice. In a professional environment, stitching stuff toghether can happen very often and you usually have very limited time to deliver the work.
So, + 1 for keeping the flip normal button!
I’d say… drop them for now, to stabilise Blender. Then, re-implement them or replace them with a better alternative in Blender 2.7x series.
-Broken_sword
AGREED 100%
Go ahead, Brecht. The panicked people around should trust one of the few people who understand Blender to the extreme.
I like Curves in the image editor. Glow effect come to Node editor or glow material.
One function that he should remove is Xsort. What does it do??????????
great!
very interesting, the whole conversation/interaction
Don’t really dare to add a line in such a long list of comments, sorry Brecht, but as Silence I use sticky textures for camera mapping quite a bit and would miss it when it’d go. Other than that, great idea to clean things up! And thanks for all your good and hard work so far!
I use Blend Sky all the time. I would really miss it if it were gone.
This has epic fail written all over it. This is so bad, it seems like it’s a joke of some sort.
This seems like it hasn’t been thought through well enough. Posting an article on Blendernation to create your pool of opinions to guide you in such a serious move is not even remotely sufficient. How many opinions do you expect to get from this…200, 300, 600? How do you qualify the value of those opinions (are they hobbyists, semi-pro, pretend-pro, real professionals, fanboys that agree with anything, passers-by, etc.)?
What about the overwhelming majority of users that won’t even see this article, or how about the huge numbers of users that don’t speak English?
What about the idea that these next releases of Blender are supposed to attract a lot of new, more experienced professionals from other apps? How will these feature removals effect their more rigorous and varied needs/workflows?
How can you determine what’s needed or not needed when the environment in which these features might be useful isn’t even finished? For example, the particles system. There are quite a few things unfinished in the particles system, and quite a few new features. How can you surmise the relevance of things like billboards and lines in a yet-to-be-completed system? The fact that billboard visualizations might be considered unnecessary speaks volumes, you’ve got to be kidding me! The reason you don’t see a lot of billboard particles use is because it’s never been fully implemented as found in other apps! This really is the crux of the issue with most of the things listed for potential removal.
This is a very premature move. Finish this version of Blender, let the crowds flock to it, get a much richer and more experienced crowd using the software (Blender is a very young community compared to most others), see the unexpected creative ways the new and older tools get used, get on-going feedback, THEN begin to start considering what’s needed or not.
You don’t have nearly enough information, and you won’t get it with this article posting. Please, seriously reconsider this move. It’s not good, and it’s driven by the wrong reasons.
@Freen Please don’t judge badly about people who use a feature you don’t like yourself. It’s great for toony renders in my case, and I’m sure there are other uses as well.
It amazes me how developers are in the stage or removing extra stuff when former and useful features in the animation system are working totally erratic. I notice that most of the feedback comes from modeling and texturing. What about the animation system? It looks abandoned since builds from many months ago.
A quick look of erratic behavior:
1. Ability to create and move markers in Dopesheet,Action Editors, F-curves windows. The command is there but it does not work.
2. Keying Armature’s bone channels are placed in the action editor “wherever” ! Then there is not command to bring channels up or down. I might have arm.L at the top and then arm.R 200 channels bellow! If I need to shift keys in between there is not way to hide those 200 extra channel to display only Arm.L and Arm.R ! The arrow icon only allows you to display “only one channel” no very useful if you need to see other channels as reference.
3. Bone Groups, what do I need bone groups for is they do not show in the ActionEditor-Dopesheet? Expanding bone groups in the Action Editor IS A really speedup.
4. No way to hide unneeded bone’s channels. Do we have to work with all 200 bones at the same time? and all disorganized with no command to re-arrange them?
5. Selecting channels in the Action Editor should select the respective bone in the 3D view and viceversa. Well it works erratic. Also besides the bone groups issue, when displaying or hiding bone’s layers they become hidden in the 3D view but are still shown in the Editor !
NOTICE THAT ALL ABOVE ARE NOT REQUESTED FEATURES ! THOSE WERE ALREADY IMPLEMENTED IN 2.49B AS A BIG “SPEEDUP TIME FEATURES”, MANY OF THESE COMMANDS ARE IN THE MENUS BUT USELESS…IT DOES NOT SEEM TO BE A WORK AROUND TO ACCOMPLISH THE SAME IN 2.5.
“We’re having problems meeting a deadline so we’ve decided to remove features instead of fixing the deadline because deadlines are more useful than features.”
Did the Blender Foundation turn into Innotech with the developers spending more time on TPS reports than actual work?
Anyway, joeri67 has a good summation of how dumb this move would be, anything else I have to add would be considered inflammatory.
Do away with all of them on the list (even controversal) My opinion is…
1. It will clean it up drastically.
2. if needed will be re-implemented in a more robust manner….now that blender has a better set of standards, AND code in general has improved since these
functions(or modules) were first implemented…
I could easily live without most of these features.
But here’s the list of things that I would like to stay.
*Edge Rendering. Could be better but ease of use is a key here. Lastly used with this: http://niko40.deviantart.com/gallery/#/d2j9j7f )
* Outline selected… I’m a bit confused, you mean the orange line around the selected object? That should definitely stay on by default, it’s much more harder to see what objects are selected without it.
* Optimal display on by default. I support this but it messes the orange outline quite well. Fix?
* Bounds drawtype. Well if there’s like 5000 flowers in a field and more than 50 million vertices and you quickly need to see where those are… I haven’t really needed this but I have some big scenes I plan to make, could be useful.
* Cubic interpolation material option… Using this most of the time and last time in here: http://niko40.deviantart.com/art/Renamon-3D-walkcycle-167998190 Unless there’s a better option, I would really use it.
* Fresnel shader. More weird ass basic shaders would be nice, they don’t all need to be realistic. How about this with hair http://c2.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/43/l_dd1b66a864f4484c8b4fe4665b00bec5.jpg
* Shadow render pass is handy from time to time though I hardly need it.
Some people will not understand the need to clean it up a bit but I’d be glad to see it happen. And it’s a good thing you asked first.
What I personally would like to see gone is all the effects in the sequence editor and replaced by a compositing solution, you could add a composite line and manually build the effect using compositing nodes like in the materials, select a composite line and the node editor will show that lines nodes.
A feature I’d like to be added is the 2D shaders or composite shaders in viewport and game engine. If you enter a GLSL mode, the shaders are applied to the viewport too… I put up a video to demonstrate better what I mean. In here. http://cid-453250ef602d0083.office.live.com/self.aspx/.Public/Proposals/Proposal%5E_GLSL%5E_with%5E_nodes%5E_in%5E_the%5E_viewport.avi
I use regularly:
Irregular Shadow Buffer.
Fresnel Shader. > If its not a shader, move it to other place, but do not remove it. Please. =)
Particle Line render. > Its useful! Improve it instead.
Shadow render pass. > Improve it, its basic compositing pass.
Environment Map texture. > No WAY. Its to useful. Improve it (I’m seeing more and more Car games with awesome reflections… and thats not raytracing)
Thanks for the awesome work! =)
Since we have 2.5 Plugin API and Blender UI docs in the forum and blender wiki.
IMO, it might possible to add these features as a plugin in 2.6 than a native feature.
But still keep those features in the 2.52. If not, please indicate which features aren’t available in the latter blender builds at http://www.graphicall.org
Blend Sky could be replaced with an existing texture applied by default to the sky.
Modifying it or removing it, if it’s applied you be as easy as the Blend Sky feature.
My take in the issue:
– Texture and sequencer plugins: If you are going to upgrade the plugins system for 2.5 coding style, making all existing plugins obsolete/incompatible, by all means go for it, anyways, as example, the old python scripts aren’t compatible with 2.5 system anyways, so is a ood timing to review that… If you are going to just remove the feature, then is a safe bet that some people will haunt you for ages…
– Vertex normal flip: Needed when importing scenes from other software, and also provides some interesting effects. Of course is not as general (a.k.a. “Everyone uses”) as other kind of situations, but needed by many nevertless.
– World stars… Can this be moved to a python script??.. i mean is a very valuable tool for quick (i really mean it) visualizations.. Think architectural and outdoor scenes quick testing. Sure shouldn’t be part of the render engine anyways, but as a python script you can clean your C code and forget about it, and at the same time will be still available for any uses.
– Fields Rendering: Hmmm.. at least in my country, will be at least another 12 years before NTSC goes shut down, so for now, is better to have it… Altough nobody will cry too much if the field rendering is moved to the compositor. (well i hate the compositor, but trading a minor hassle to a cleaner and future proof code is a good deal IMHO).
– Edge Rendering: You can drop it when Freestyle project is integrated properly into trunk… Before is too risky, considering the uses in architectural, outdoor and planning stages of working applications… (not only on toons situations)
– Pin floating panels: What about FIX the floting panels instead??? (I mean: bring it back from 2.4x)
– Environment map textures: I’ll going to act like i never see that… Seriously… You can tell people to use raytracing for environment map textures when you can provide an OpenCL raytracer… Also faking environments reflections in complex scenes is still and is going to be for a good time the “Holy Grail” for many setups… And don’t forget animations.
Take this as my 2 cents.
Best Regards
J.
DO NOT REMOVE ANYTHING.
I use every feature on the list to make my games and animations better and would appreciate it if you made a full versoin and one with removed features.
Sticky textures should stay. They’re far more useful than the UV coordinates method for camera mapping…
Hello Brecht van Lommel! I very appreciate your work in this community.
What I DO NOT use (a small list):
1. Location and Rotation options when creating a new mesh object.
2. Connected proportional editing. I think that it’s very rare to use. What I REALLY NEED – an axis lock for mesh editing of all kinds because it will give more control over Proportional editing and other editing actions.
3. Edge crease – but I think it’s only my personal style.
4. Mirror editing – use Mirror modifier instead. Sometimes it’s tricky. Mirror editing will be unuseful (my opinion) if the Mirror modifier will be “upgraded” to intellectually “understand” directions of vertices those had to be merged.
Few things I need very much:
1. Skinning (it was very useful and was lost from 2.49)
2. Bevel action – the very handy thing!
3. Axises lock (global switches – not every time press shift+X or other) – it’s the very common thing in many other 3d apps.
Controversial list:
* Animateable object layers – it may be useful for some artwork I think;
* Blend Sky (no horizon/zenith, just one color) – it’s very useful when you have a clean PC and have no time to set up something to show “good metal” and other things but you need it badly.
* Bounds draw types for objects – it may be useful for playing with physics and for novices! Don’t forget about new people!
* Cubic interpolation material option – I’m not sure but didn’t used it. Just tried.
* Curves in the image editor: – if I understand clearly… that it may be useful when you must fix an image quickly without going to the Compositor
* Dupliframes – didn’t tried it yet :-D
* Environment Map texture – I think it’s very useful but not sure what is it clearly. If this thing can be replaced by something else – it’s not useful.
* Fresnel diffuse shader – don’t use it. but it seems that this can be very good for some faking in BGE and maybe other purposes
* Grid mesh primitive – it’s useful when you don’t have time to create a plane then subdivide it.
* Invert Z Depth material option. – don’t know
* Irregular Shadow Buffer – tried but didn’t used a lot
* Particle grid emission distribution – don’t know
* Particle Instance Modifier – sounds like something useful :)
* Particle jittered Particle/Face option and Jittering amount options. – I think it’s useful
* Particle Line/Path/Billboard rendering – useful for sure! when you have no time for some serious simulation but you need to make quickly a good looking frame with smoke – this is for sure!
* Particle “Parent” option for rendering offset. – don’t know
* Sequencer Glow effect – don’t know
* Shadow Render Pass – I’m sure it’s very useful and at least may be needed to create some art-looking “shadows” when you use shadows as a “chroma key”. I saw this in “Serial Experiments Lain”.
What benefit is there to the user by removing any features?
Do not remove the world starts! This is one of the most handiest features and setting a particle system can sometimes be annoying.
I use this in most of my scenes and I would hate to lose this… :-(
The fields function as it currently exists should be removed. It would be *very* nice to have nodes for various field-editing capabilities in the compositor though.
Right now, whenever a project requires NTSC or PAL, I have to turn to a rickety program called AVIDemux, which despite its poor importing capabilities and terrible interface, perfectly supports every interlacing/deinterlacing function one could imagine.
@ Benjamin Kay
I’m not sure it’s unrealistic, still I don’t quite see the point. Linux distros is a different issue – we’re talking about an operational system, with many millions of users, who have VERY diversified needs, so in terms of sheer numbers and variety it makes a lot of sense. But Blender is a specialized application, the community is much smaller, so you don’t really need (or are able) to make a Blender for architects, a Blender for gamers, a Blender for housewives… Who would look over all that? And why? It’s not a huge app in terms of kilobytes, so why bother and not have it all together, and use whatever you need. I haven’t seen specialized forks of Open Office, although it’s quite big, and it can do a number of different things…
Had a look throuhg the list and I agree with you.
but no remove the Edge to Curve Script otherwise I am coming back
to the institute and Bang some head! ;)
Blender 2.6 is on his way… I am so looking forward for this.
I’ve used freestyle(in blender) since the very FIRST build on graphicall.org. it looks great, but it’s VERY different from blender’s internal edge-rendering method, of which I and MANY other enjoy. They’re 2 different tools, both doing something VERY different for the advanced edge-rendering-user.
It’s great to see edge-rendering will be a comp node. Blender internal edge rendering is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT and cannot be replaced by FreeStyle in its current form(or any form given the algorithms it uses IMO). Thanks you for taking our words into consideration.
Also VERY good to see shadow-pass off the cut-list, that had me wondering about this list being a joke. Seriously, a 3D production tool without a shadow-pass for compositing output, LOL.
Wow, those are a lot of comments. I intend to read them, later. My concerns after going over the list:
“Relative paths user preference and Remap Relative option for save operator: can we just enabled these two by default?”
I’ve never used the relative paths option. I think I know what it does, but don’t most OS-specific file browsers use absolute paths by default? I don’t have a strong objection to this proposal, but could someone explain the benefit of making paths relative by default? (If you already did, then thanks, and never mind).
“Texture mesh: is anyone actually using this? It’s useful in principle but…”
Is this what I think it is? The option to assign a texture image to the faces of a mesh, and then use that texture in a material using the “Face Textures” option? (“Face Textures” was “TexFace” in 2.4x). If so: I’ve used this a couple of times to apply different textures to different objects with the same material. Without it, you need to set up multiple nearly-identical materials, each with a different texture, for all of your similar objects.
If that’s not what “Texture Mesh” refers to, then once more, never mind.
The rest of the list looks good to me. There are one or two features that might take some getting used to if changed as proposed, but that’s true of everything in 2.5. Most of them sound more like changes or relocations than removals, anyway.
i think leave the time offset parent because its very useful for an ‘effect’ on the camera in games. i use it a lot.
“I am actually not a big fan of removing features at all. They were once added because people need them or people found them to be useful. I understand you want to clean up some code, but this seems like the wrong way to me. ”
It seems like the wrong way to me, too. Even if I were to need one of these “disposable” features only once in my career, I’d still need it. And I’d be more than upset that Blender didn’t have it.
Answer: Donation Challenge – we all donate to hire more coders to port features to 2.6?
Hello Brecht Salvador here,
I find this making a research about functionality idea fantastic. but I would recommend first to explain the tools you think should thrown out of blender. for example, until this article I had no idea what sticky texture coordinates did (I’m still not sure about). I don ‘t know what particle line rendering, slow parent, object color or texture mesh is (but sounds useful) in some cases I don’t even know where they are. Fields option for images, I never knew it existed.
I suggest to explain better the tools, EACH tool. Half of blender is shadowed in the dark sea of the unknown. Nobody uses them because they have no idea what they do or where they are in the first place, and we don’t know we are losing a super useful tool just because there was no info about it or ’cause it was so confusing nobody understood it.
You wrote Curve parent animation: replaced by constraint. Ok, Which constraint? The same name?
keep these ones please!!!
+KEEP THE CONSOLE WINDOW, IS REALLY USEFUL TO CLOSE BLENDER WHEN IT FREEZES.
*vertex normal flip
* Blend Sky (no horizon/zenith, just one color)
* Bounds draw types for objects
* Cubic interpolation material option
* Curves in the image editor:
* Dupliframes
* Environment Map texture
* Fresnel diffuse shader
* Grid mesh primitive
* Invert Z Depth material option.
* Irregular Shadow Buffer
* Particle grid emission distribution
* Particle Instance Modifier
* Particle jittered Particle/Face option and Jittering amount options.
* Particle Line/Path/Billboard rendering
* Particle “Parent” option for rendering offset.
* Sequencer Glow effect
* Shadow Render Pass
* Animateable object layers
* Cubic interpolation material option
* Curves in the image editor
*all edges option for meshes
*Irregular Shadow Buffer keep them they are super cool!!
*Slow parent
*Fields option for images
*Curve parent animation
*3d view lock to object
The ones in the list which I instead of taken out I suggest to improve are
*World Stars, get it to be better, DON’T take it!!
*Fields option, turnt it usable for the composite nodes
*Grid: Why don’t leave the grid instead of the plane? Like that we could have the advantage of the x/y subdivision options.
*vertexcol and vertexlights could be texture options, but like that are fine.
PLEASE DON’T TAKE OUT AT LEAST ANY OF THE ABOVE.
AND IF YOU THINK SOMETHING DOESN’T WORK PROPERLY, i SUGGEST TO MAKE EVERYTHING YOU CAN UNTIL IT WORKS PROPERLY. WE, THE USERS, NEED TO TEST THE TOOLS OUT AND KNOW EXACTLY WHAT DO THEY DO BEFORE WE CAN FIND THEM REALLY USEFUL.
-Salvador
some of these where mentioned by Pablo Vazquez in his dvd workshop venomlab and also referred as super commonly used options.
Like the cubic option for the materials.
salvadr
I would like to add a vote for Blend Sky and Sticky Texture Coordinates.
Blend Sky:
I could live without this option, but having the feature makes life a bit easier. I often use a gradient background and it is quite a bit more hassle to use a background image or nodes.
Sticky Texture Coordinates:
I use this a lot for mapping textures in visualization of ships. The hull of a ship normally have markings and paint in 2 or 3 different colours. My technique is to model the paint and markings in 2D, render an image with ortho camera and use sticky coordinates to position it.
Here is an example:
http://www.skipskompetanse.no/images/stories/Skomp/sk3100_03.jpg
The same result can be achieved with flat texture mapping, but it requires quite a few more steps to position and scale the texture correctly.
There might be another way to do this, but I haven’t found one yet.
A final note…
Blender 2.5 is coming along great. Especially the whole GUI rewrite and the render enhancements (indirect light and color management) is much appreciated. A big thanks to everyone involved.
Dan
Blender needs more procedural animation tools!!! PLEASE!!!! I’m crying for this! :)
Please, have a look at mograph, this would opens tons of possibilities to Blender:
http://www.maxon.net/products/modules/modules/mograph-2.html
Don’t just say “you can achieve that with by combining this and that…” often is simply not possible and more often is simply crazy time consuming in a production scenario.
We want Blender launched on the Mograph field too!!!! :)
Slow parent and time offset for Blender Game Engine usage is definitely a must have, please don’t remove it!
Thank you!
i actually switch “show relationship lines” on and off kinda frequently, so having it in the preferences would be out of the way
object wire colors would be nice to have, but that seems different than the object color for games.
I’d love to be able to animate visibility as a float at an object level, rather than material level, for fading objects in and out, without resorting to post.
I’m not a fan of the compositor, and prefer the VSE – more straightforward. Glow effect should stay there as an option.
we all learned a lesson here, didn’t we?
Every tiny little Blender feature is already vital to some random user and they’ll cry over it.
hey, how about a poll? Least voted feature is out… :)
Hi.
I think you should not removed all the features, but “replace” (re-code) some of these feature in a better and cleaner code.
it’s not because I don’t use it that a feature is not useful ;-).
I actually don’t use the “field” feature but I know, that in the professionnal TV, it’s a really necessary feature.
————–
The features I use very often in my professional work :
(please don’t removed it, except if the feature is replaced (re-coded) :-) ):
* Edge Rendering : with this feature, we can do very good things, in complement of freestyle and laplace node. Please don’t remove it (an example with edge rendering (from my professionnal game and animation : http://blendman.free.fr/ark/mmo/testRenduNPR.jpg and : http://vimeo.com/13201957). But if you have a Node to remplace it, it could be good to test this node :-).
* World Stars : This feature is interesting in animation, and it’s not easy to do that with only a texture or even a psys : http://vimeo.com/13201001 . A psys is too limited for the kind of feature.
Perhap’s the stars isn’t good for a 3D realist rendering, but for a mix3D/2D it’s very good ;).
But perhap’s it could better to replace (re-code) by another system which can do the same things (infinite space, distance to camera to render…)
* Vertex normal flip: if the creation of a face doesn’t create a flipped face, you can removed it. But until now, i use this feature a lot, because the creation of face (Fkey) often create faces which aren’t in the good side.
* Texture mesh: it’s a useful feature for texturing an object thanks to another. Is there another way to do that in the 2.5x ?
I don’t use it, but it’s an important feature for TV production :
* Field : it’s used in TV.
Controversial list, please don’t remove these features, They are usefull :
* All edges option for meshes : enable by defaut >ok
* Bounds draw types for objects : for very big scene, it could be usefull.
* Animateable object layers
* Blend Sky > I use it in all my scenes.
* Cubic interpolation material option
* Environment Map texture : usefulle for game and for quick reflection (baking)
* Fresnel diffuse shader : it’s a very good shader. I use it a lot. Really great for cartoon.
* Particle grid emission distribution
* Particle Instance Modifier
* Particle jittered Particle/Face option and Jittering amount options.
* Particle Line/Path/Billboard rendering
* Particle “Parent” option for rendering offset.
* Sequencer Glow effect : usefull in some case.
* Shadow Render Pass : really usefull for compositing !
For this, Brecht, you should ask the Ume Brothers (If I remember we have meet in their studio, in Liege , in 2006, so I think you remember the Ume brothers ;)) :
* texture and plugins sequence : I think, they use it very often, for the FX of their film.
Thanks for your work :-)
Well that opened up a can of worms :)
I admire the urge to ‘clean up the GUI’. As a coder I understand the need to have code easily maintainable but as an artist Functionality prevails over maintainability of the underlying code. Removing features to have easier maintainable code is in this aspect a very strange argument.
And ‘rarely used functions’ is very relative. if only 1% of users use a feature there are still a lot of users using it. Also the backward compatibility Blender prides itself with becomes not so compatible.
Without going into every point in the list I see quite some features that I think ARE used a lot. Maybe improving some of those would be better.
That said, there are some ‘changes’ that I agree with, like the removing of the console window. As a windows user I always disliked it, but could be useful. Now there’s (finally) an internal console window so it could go (or as suggested enabled in preferences).
While browsing through the list I also got the feeling that some features were listed to get a long list or something because some items are being used.
Things like ‘you could use ray-trace’ or ‘you could just render the double amount of frames’ is a suggestion that is way to easy a response. I almost think you have a render-farm nearby :) Imagine telling a production crew who hires time on a render-farm; “oh just pay double amount of money to render and wait twice as long’ instead of fixing a not good enough functionality :)
If it works, don’t fix it; if it doesn’t work, do fix it.
Hope you will make the right decisions.
@Zavigny’s comment about the removal of the ‘Are you sure you want to quit?’ dialog.
Please don’t remove the dialogue! Please please, all programs where you are working on something important SHOULD require a dialogue that confirms you want to close the entire program. Especially if you haven’t saved your work!! As a compromise, showing it only when the work has been altered and not saved would be great!
Too many stupid things can happen that result in the program accidentally being instructed to close, and losing everything. For instance, I got a button on my keyboard that is a close program button, if I bump it, and the program doesn’t ask if I want to quit, BAM, all the unsaved work is gone.
I would rather have to click a “Yes” button a few hundred times when closing a program than lose my work by accidentally clicking the close button. I do it sometimes and I hate myself when I do. :X
While we’re talking about features, I think there is a few things we could consider stealing from Firefox:
A) Better Plugin manager
I would love to have a special window that allows easy management of plugins. A little window that pops up and lets you quickly install or uninstall or config plugins would be EXCELLENT. What would be especially awesome would be if these plugins could be packaged in a way that installation just requires a double click, and then the file associated with Blender, would be opened and installed automatically.
B) Updater
I would love to be able to just open up blender, and have it automatically download and install updates to Blender itself, and all the plugins.
C) Session saving
One thing I love about Firefox is the ability to just close the program and save all the open tabs, and have them all load up again the next time I open Firefox. And recover them all if Firefox crashes, or the computer itself. Could Blender be able to do the same? Is this possible?
D) Tabs/Multiple Window Management
As it is, when you open multiple files in Blender, they open in multiple instances of Blender. Which is kinda annoying. Most programs these days allow for opening multiple files at the same time. For example: Photoshop. Would be great if Blender could have tabs or at least some kind of window management for having open multiple files.
I know the above would likely require a massive change to Blender’s codebase, but no harm in dreaming right? And if 2.6 is going to be the massive update for Blender, might as well go all out right? :>
As for taking out features. I wouldn’t recommend taking out any features personally. As others have said, if it’s there, it’s probably for a reason, it probably fills some purpose. Although adjusting features, making them more powerful or flexible, or adjusting the interface to them, or their location in the program is just fine.
@Don Rickles : As someone already said it, fields rendering is not a post processing process, and real rendering of the 50 half frames is necessary and can’t be faked by nodes.
@Logan : The Console is useful in some cases to close blender after a freeze.
@Aussiedude :
Automatic updater is only useful if you are connected to the web, and should be optional and would absolutely require to allow to enable or not in preferences :
For safety reasons, I have a computer dedicated to the web and my workstation is insulated.
Some softwares try to connect automatically at launching and each time I get popup windows saying that there is not web connection and warnings about updates, etc… I can’t disable these warnings and they are really boring !
@ROUBAL nothing a CTRL+ALT+DEL can’t handle.
I’d say, remove the console and make the commands appear in the new console built in blender.
I dunno if it’s possible, but the console could appear every time blender freezes…
And, the console could be optional in the preferences…
In the same topic:
File recovery – a must.
‘Would you like to save your file’ when clicking the ‘x’ – a must.
@Logan : You’re right, but I also forgot to say that it is also useful to display Python version errors and checking if exports through scripts are actually running.
I use a lot gestures and contextual menu (space in 2.49). I’ll use 2.49 until they’ll be back
Automatic updater is a very bad idea, specialy for software that is getting features removed.
Software that decides to not start rendering because it needs user input is bad news for renderfarm software. In renderfarms Automatic updaters are a real pain.
be verry verry careful what you take out because blender is open source and will likely be around for many genarations
Dont remove sticky texture co-ordinates. I use it for camera mapping
Please keep the following:
– Sticky texture coordinates (useful in camera mapping)
– Particle Line rendering (using a longer tail can have some interesting effects that can’t easily be replicated using children or strands)
– Blend Sky
Slow parent! Keep it. Think of the poor Game Engine! SP is used so much in camera set ups and other things.
Well this was an interesting discussion… I say that whatever is possible to do 2 ways, remove the first and improve the second. To avoid confusion, it’s better to have one way to do multiple things than multiple ways to do one thing. Like the Blend sky thingy… Textures would be a nice option indeed, Stars… I’ve always wondered why those aren’t removed already, add a classical stars preset to the particle settings for those who use it, Edge render… Well when the freestyle thingy is in blender, you can just just drop the traditional one. For the ones that can’t be replaced or done differently/uniformally/better, keep them for now as “as is”, on the dying list until everyone stops using these. Don’t know if it’s really a good thing though.
Some people are really a bit too afraid to learn a new way to do things, they don’t understand what’s really going on or think that pressing a few more buttons are going to take more than two days and five more to learn the cursor at the right direction. Some of these comments are just stupid. I have used blender almost from the time it became open source and I fully support some ripping apart. I can press 2-4 buttons more to get the same effect if it offers more control or if I don’t need to think witch way to do it.
For the gestures… I don’t really need them back but if someone really wants to get fancy, do a gesture editor and make the gestures work like the key shortcuts. In the preferences window, under the input tab, where you can select the input device like keyboard, tweak, mouse, text input, timer, you could also include the gesture.
But what you really need to do is to advertise it differently. Something like “more uniform and less confusion” rather than “A few features will be dropped”.
“General Agreement
Vertex normal flip: this does more harm than good in my experience, and actually makes rim lighting look wrong. Already removed in the render branch, I’d like to port that over to trunk. Note that this is not the Flip Normal tool in mesh edit mode, it is a rendering option.”
–This is the “Vertex Normal Flip” checkbox in the “Object Data” buttons, right? Used to be “No V.Normal Flip” in 2.4? I think I used it once to get backface culling, but that’s now possible with material nodes for rendering, and with the “Textured Solid” shading option in the 3D view.
Change as proposed.
“Instances option for raytracing: we can just enable this by default , just like the rest of the rendering system does this automatically.”
–I can’t find the option to turn in on or off, so go ahead and make it the default.
Change as proposed.
“Edge Rendering: make this a compositing node.”
–Yes, please make this a compositing node. I don’t know if it would be possible, but I’d also like to see it as a material node, because it could then be used in the 3D View and the Game Engine.
Change as proposed.
“B-Bone Rest: at least remove from the UI, and perhaps even the code. Was a compatibility option to keep broken behavior.”
–Seems to create weird twisting in some B-Bones when applied. The only reason to keep it would be backward-compatibility, and even then you could remove it from the UI.
Change as proposed.
“Pin Floating Panels: there aren’t any, so option should not be there.”
–I read at least a couple of complaints about this in the wall of comments, but the only thing that’s missing is the Render Preview panel. I hope we get back something like that eventually, but you’re right — there aren’t any floating panels, and all of the other functionality has been moved to the tool shelf, the property editor, or the Nkey panel.
Change as proposed.
“Snap always for Translate/Rotate/Scale: seems not necessary, just enable snap in the 3d view header if you always want to snap.”
–Sounds good to me.
Change as proposed.
“Outline Selected, All Object Origins and Relationship Lines in the 3d view should become user preferences.”
–I can see where a user might want these to be more quickly accessible than the User Preferences window, especially in medium-sized scenes with dozens of objects. It seems like these options are in a pretty good place already; I doubt they’re really in anyone’s way. And since you’re not proposing removing them entirely, I’d guess that leaving them alone won’t create any more development headache than moving them to the preferences?
Leave as-is.
“Relative paths user preference and Remap Relative option for save operator: can we just enabled these two by default? These two combined should make relative paths work completely automatic quite well, or are there cases that this doesn’t cover?”
–Just one more change to get used to in 2.5 / 2.6. I’m starting to get the hang of Shift+Akey instead of Spacebar.
Change as proposed.
“File browser should hide hidden files and filter types by default. Every file browser does this, and it just seems to be what you want nearly always anyway. Especially on mac/unix hidden files are really in the way in the home directory.”
–Agreed.
Change as proposed.
“Optimal display for multires and subsurf enabled by default.”
–You’re not talking about removing this as an option, just enabling it by default. I don’t see why not.
Change as proposed.
“All edges option for meshes: useful for dense meshes, but only if they are not too dense, because then they completely disappear. Just always enable it.”
–I hope this doesn’t bite me later, but…
Change as proposed.
“Particle jittered Particle/Face option and Jittering amount options: workarounds for poor distribution behavior.”
–I never use particle jittering, but I have no real preference here. Maybe you should ask someone who uses it?
Change as proposed.
“Grid mesh primitive: can use a plane instead.
–ScaroDj 15:17, 10 July 2010 (-6 GTM)
Ditch the plane and name the grid, plane. What everybody does is to add a plane and then subdivide or multi-loop-cut. It’s very useful to have a grid already made, the problem is that people is lazy and don’t look down the list.”
–I disagree with ScaroDj; the grid primitive is only faster than Add Plane>Subdivide if you want a 10×10 grid. Otherwise, you have to adjust the subdivisions either way.
Change as proposed.
“Classical shadow buffer: change default to Classical-Halfway.”
–Classical-Halfway seems to create arguably better results than Classical, seems to take the same amount of time to render, and once again, it doesn’t sound like you’re talking about removing any options, just changing the default selection.
Change as proposed.
“Some Time Offset features: the time offset value itself it still useful, but a few other options aren’t:
Particle: hasn’t done anything for years.
Edit: no longer does anything in 2.5, at least remove from UI or fix.
Parent: also marked as deprecated in 2.5, remove from UI or fix.”
–I’ve always wondered what those features were supposed to do, and I’ve never been able to figure it out. If it’s because they’re not working, get rid of them. Keep whatever’s working, as anything that’s good for the Game Engine is good for me.
Change as proposed.
“No Agreement Yet
Console window on Windows: this is not used on Mac/Linux and should only contain messages for developers. If e.g. python developers want to see printed messages, they can run blender from the console.
–hoshi 22:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh yes, please. Never really liked this one. Wouldn’t this be better placed somewhere in the console editor? Or at least as a optional startup parameter?
–Keith 20:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
No. The console window should stay as it is but its operation changed to easily display or hide the console window as desired or needed. It needs to be dynamic, easily accessible, control. Default: Off. When the info is desired, it is a very useful tool. In Windows, I have went through great pains to create the functionality to pipe data to a (normally non-existent) console window.
The Yafaray Community makes good use of the console window. The most important use is the gathering of Debug information when some person posts a crash or error on the forums. If the standard windows user didn’t have access to the console it would be much more of a process to get that information from them. Also the console window shows progress information during the render. I believe all of this is true for the new 2.5/6 exporter
–ScaroDj 13:45, 10 July 2010 (-6GTM)
I second Hoshi’s motion. I think all of Keith’s goals can be achieved making it an editor, this is the one thing that breaks Blender’s non-modality (along with the new User Preferences Editor, if you open it from the File Menu).”
–This window was a weird and ugly shadow in the background when I “up”graded from an old iMac to a custom PC desktop. I’ve gotten used to it now, and some of the render progress and python debug info are very useful, but I don’t think every Windows user should be forced to have it open by default, as a separate window, every time they run Blender.
Change as proposed.
“Texture and sequencer plugins: obviously plugins are useful, but it’s possible to make a much better system that fits in the 2.5 design. I don’t see the point of bringing them pack in the current form, and they were not much used or properly supported in 2.4x anyway. We can just remove all the code in my opinion.
–Jansende 14:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I like the Sequencer. It makes blender an easy to use video-editor with lots of functions. I use it often to edit my videos. But I agree its quite unhandy in some ways. So you may kick it of the new release and write a better one. :)
–Brecht 17:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
First, I’m not proposing to remove the sequencer, only the plugin system. Note plugins are currently not functional in 2.5. I don’t have a timeframe for when a new plugin system would be added. But I also think that bringing back the old system temporarily would be a waste of time, both for developers and for users who soon after will have to switch to another system anyway.
–Jansende 21:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Ahhh. You mean things like the Import/Export-Plugins? Yeah they are really creepy and unhandy. They should definetly be replaced. Most ennoying is the sound handling. :( If you don’t convert right you get crap in blender. :((”
–I never used plugins. Maybe with a new system we’ll get some really good ones.
Change as proposed.
“World stars: for 80ies space animations this may be useful, but if you want something that actually looks good, you should use a texture.
–Bartrobinson 13:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Keep stars. I don’t know about 80’s space animations, but I use this for visualization of 2010 space animation.
–Brecht 17:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I think this can be replaced quite well with a particle system, with the added advantage that the look is actually configurable. Should we have a moon rendering system, a nebula system, etc? Those things are useful but best left to addons.
–Zeauro 11:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
It is not as easy as it seems to replace that with a particle system.If the mesh emitter is out of camera clipping; a system with no physics with volume emission is not renderred.
–ScaroDj 14:07, 10 July 2010 (-6 GTM) (Sorry, idk how to do this)
I always thought that it was ridiculous to begin with, I would like a procedural star texture in the Texture Panel, though.”
–Okay, this one I don’t get. Congratulations to all of you who are successfully using this feature. I’ve tried it in two of my recent projects, and both times, no matter what settings I used, hitting F12 caused Blender to crash. (AMD Phenom 9850, nVidia 8800GTS, 4GB RAM, both in Windows Vista 32 and Windows 7 32, Blender 2.48a and 2.5 alpha). I guess star rendering is still working for most people? Go figure.
Change as proposed.
“Texture mesh: is anyone actually using this? It’s useful in principle but seems like one of those things that was added because it was useful in a neogeo project but not used afterwards, and now is just a confusing option in the UI.
–Brecht 17:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Alternatively this could be moved to the texture mapping panel, at least then it becomes clear what it is used for.”
–I was over on BlenderArtists not long ago, looking for a way to fake an effect for the Game Engine, and someone had a thread open about animating water moving through a transparent hose. At the time, I had no idea the Texture Mesh functionality existed at all — it turns out it would have been perfect for that person! (Thanks to Zeauro for pointing out that tutorial). That said, the current implementation seems a little strange, not very intuitive. Moving it to Texture Mapping sounds like a good idea. And maybe changing the name and tooltip, so people can actually figure out what it’s for?
Change based on second proposal
“Object Color: for games this is useful, but otherwise I think it’s a bad feature, so I propose to only show it in game engine mode. Note that this is not a wire frame color or solid view drawing color, it is a texface/material option.
–Jansende 21:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I found it. And I wondered what does this option do? I didn’t find out. Can you please explain it.
… I think, if you can’t get out whats changing, when you use an option, this one might be very useless.”
–I can only find the option in the material buttons that enables the use of Object Colors for a given material, not where to actually set the color per-object. It seems like you should be able to achieve the same result by applying a generated image texture to each object, and using the TexFace option in the material buttons to apply that texture as the material’s color. This has the advantage of being a texture, not just a solid color (Which means it could also be a solid color), and retains the per-object nature of the Object Color option.
Change as proposed.
“Sticky texture coordinates: doubt this is much used in practice. Corrected perspective interpolation however is useful, could be added back as an option for UV’s.
–Pixelminer 21:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
If sticky texture coordinates are removed then there should still be some way to use a camera to project UVs onto surfaces. If not, I say keep it in since sticky textures are useful for projected matte paintings and such.”
–I finally learned what this does today. I’ve been wondering for years. It’s kind of unfortunate that this seems to be the quickest and maybe best way to achieve this result, because the way it’s implemented is inconsistent with other texture mapping options in Blender. With UV mapping, you create an editable UV layout for your mesh. With Object mapping, you connect the texture coords with an existing mesh in your scene. With Sticky mapping, you get an apparently theoretical set of coordinates that can be deleted, but can’t be seen or adjusted. What are sticky coordinates “stuck” to? The active camera? The selected object? Something else entirely? Make this an option for UV mapping instead. (Thanks to Woodge for the Sticky Coordinates link).
Change based on second proposal.
“Animateable object layers: not compatible with the dependency graph. Visibility/renderability can be animated instead.”
–What about compositing animations? What will I do if I want my composite nodes to affect objects in one renderlayer, but not another renderlayer? Normally, I’d set each renderlayer to include different 3D layers, and animate the objects between the layers, which would effectively animate which renderlayer the objects were on, too? Is there some other way to do that?
Leave as-is / Fix!
“Curve parent animation: replaced by constraint.”
–That should be fine.
Change as proposed.
“Curves in the image editor: replace by exposure slider. If you really need this much control, use compositing nodes.”
–I tend to feel like the Image Editor needs more tools and functionality, not less. However, I can see the logic in this proposal, especially as a pre-2.6 cut that could always be improved on down the road. Meantime, I like the compositor, and I have no problem using it for image correction — or, you know, an actual image editing program. GIMP is free, too.
Change as proposed.
“Irregular Shadow Buffer: raytracing can be used instead.
–calli 14:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Speed?
–Brecht 17:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I think the main advantage is that you can disable raytracing, besides that I don’t think there is a big speed difference.”
–If anybody knows about the speed of shadow rendering in Blender, it’s Brecht. If he says irregular buffers aren’t faster than raytracing, he’s probably right.
Change as proposed.
“Particle Line rendering: doesn’t seem like you can create good looking results with this.
–Alexsani 17:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I have used this for sparks renders, and it is not very high quality. If you could make a path-type version which would have a strand render for the path traveled by the particle, that would help greatly.
–Zeauro 16:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Other interesting things than realistic sparks can be done with line rendering. [1]
–This is a quick way to render a particle that looks motion blurred. It doesn’t look great by default, but it can be tweaked in the compositor. Maybe it should stay until something better comes along?
Leave as-is / Fix.
“Sequencer Glow effect: seems out of place.
–ScaroDj 15:07, 10 July 2010 (-6 GTM)
If you could process the sequences through the Node Editor, it would make Blender a really powerful video editing tool, I think. Making a new node in the compositor (Add ? Input ? Sequence Layer)
so that the only effects in the Sequencer would be the transition ones. So, yes, it is out of place.”
–Glow is post, and post is done in the compositor. If you can’t currently feed the sequencer, you should be able to. I’d like to see more fades/crosses/transitions in the sequencer, but it doesn’t need post effects.
Change as proposed.
“Slow Parent: useful, but doesn’t actually work correct with the current animation system. We could still keep it working in the game engine.
–calli 14:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
many camera controls in the BGE rely on SlowParent so at least keep it for BGE.
–cog 14:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
This list is beginning to remind me of an old adage about a bus company whose busses stopped picking up passengers.
When asked why they were doing this the manager replied. “If we had to stop for passengers we would never be able to keep up with the timetable”.
Meaning know what your business is not what makes the job of running it easier.
–As before, what’s good for the Game Engine is good for me.
Change as proposed. (Keep in Game Engine mode)
“Invert Z Depth material option: weird rasterization trick, doesn’t seem very useful. Yes, you can do certain Escher type renderings with, but do we really need native support for that kind of thing?”
–If I understand correctly, we can invert the Z depth pass in the compositor, right? We can also normalize, squeeze or blur it…
Change as proposed.
“Fields rendering: is anyone actually using Blender to produce content for TV with this option? For example, it doesn’t work with compositing and never has. Can’t we leave this to specialized tools?
–Bartrobinson 13:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Keep Field Rendering. Very important! In order to directly support television standards, rendering of fields is required. If it’s not supported 4 times as much data needs to be rendered as is required when field rendering to get the same smooth motion quality. I’ve used it on several for TV and DVD projects and commercials and independent films. It would be nice if it were actually better supported.
–calli 14:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Keep! Still there are many DV cam/recorders working and not everybody has a LCD Screen as TV. 50i images are much smoother on such devices.
Brecht 17:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
My point is not that interlaced video is outdated, but the way it is implemented in Blender makes it of limited used. A better alternative is to render in double the framerate and encode it as interlaced at the last point in the pipeline. Besides that, Blender has never been able to save an interlaced video file that can be played correctly in a video player.”
–Clearly important to a lot of Blender users.
Fix.
“Fields option for images: same reasoning as above. Also no one noticed this has been broken for years.
Field Rendering is very important for me and I really think that it’s time for field rendering to be supported with the compositor.
–Bartrobinson 13:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Repair Fields option for images, and enhance. If this were working, it would be a huge time saver for loading in interlaced (professional video) for texturing and comping.
–speaker_mute18:12, 9 Uly 2010
–I’m inclined to stay out of this one. I have yet to produce anything good enough for TV, and if it’s been broken that long, nobody noticed it. It seems like exporting fields would be more important than importing them, but I don’t want to pretend I know anything about it.
…
“No Suitable Replacement
These won’t be removed since there is nothing good enough to replace them:
Environment Map texture
Blend Sky
Fresnel diffuse shader”
–So I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say these last three definitely won’t be removed? I just have this feeling that they somehow won’t be removed. Weird, huh?
I second the motion graphic request, Blender is really behind in this field. That’s really a shame, mograph is so popular today entering this field could give Blender a lot of popularity a.k.a. more developers, more ideas, new stuff.
@Gryphon
“Console window on Windows: this is not used on Mac/Linux and should only contain messages for developers. If e.g. python developers want to see printed messages, they can run blender from the console.”
Please, move it as an option to preferences. The console is very handy when you aren’t familiar with running it from the command line. By the way – it’s showing loop circles and it’s very important. One time I had built a model and then noticed some strange behaviour of it. If not the console then I had didn’t noticed – it’s not a bug but it was my accidently made loop circle (don’t remember how actually it sounds. for example – it’s when the first object is driving by the second object in some modifier and the second is parented to the first). Here is many other situations when novices (and not only novices) must have a support without goiung into forums to say “what’s wrong with my model?”. Also in some cases it’s important for doing bug reports. I have a time to write a report but I really have no time to deal with the command line and arguments and etc.
@Gryphon : Thank you for this clever and in depth analysis and comment.
I don’t see what would be so bad about an automatic updater..
But if it’s such a concern, I suppose there could have an option to ‘disable’ it (or ‘enable’ it even if having to turn it off is such a hazzle)? Would just make life a little easier, no more manual downloading and running of installers. And would give Blender a slightly more professional, or ‘noob friendly’ design possibly.
As for computers without an internet connection, no worries, they just wouldn’t get the auto updates, as is the case for all Blender users now. As for the annoying ‘no connection’ messages, well I would just not have them included at all if I was making the updater.
I really see no reason why it’d be a problem to at least have it as an option? Wouldn’t need to update to every Beta or Alpha release, just the new stable versions as they are released officially.
One more vote for edge rendering.
I have even have a feature request regarding them:
– Actually, I would prefer if the edge int could be set on per object basis (e.g. in materials panel)
– doing the edge rendering when the image is flattened (currently there might be artifacts on the edge if objects intersect)
Maybe making it material node*? I guess then the internal renderer code could remain cleaner as well.
* I don’t know whether the flattening thing would be go well with being a material node …
Agree! I never understand why the grid was there, when I can use a plane and subdivide it -.-“
’cause that way you make those two in one step .-)
It seems there are no many motion graphics artist here… that’s a shame.
Keep Blend sky, please.
Console window on Windows: Keep this. sometimes blender freezes and this is an easy way to close. Maybe make an option to show or hide it.
Blend sky: pretty useful in my opinion.
stars can be useful too. with some editing in GIMP, look: http://i47.tinypic.com/20utliv.jpg . Sure you could simulate 3d stars in gimp, by why add extra steps?
motion graphics is one of those trendy, newfangled buzzwords, isn’t it? :)
@ namekuseijin: buzzword? really? ask to tons of motion graphics professionals who work in this field.
@Gryphon : thats what I call a serious look.
@ Richard
‘I do motion graphics’ (Motion 4) ! – just thought I would stick my arm up above trenches :))
@ namekuseijin – Believe me, motion graphics are anything but trendy buzzwords, when you’re trying to crank out some client work at speed at 4 in the morning. It’s real solid paying work, but sometimes you do need matchsticks to keep the eyes open :)
Also, is libmv (motion tracking) available as a add-on for 2.5?
I rarely use a lot of implements in my kitchen, but it’s not never, or I’d question why I have them in the first place. Sometimes the food processor is good to quickly chop together something in a hurry. Other times I might need a sharp precision knife to slowly craft something exquisite. These proposed changes feel like someone going into my kitchen and removing a bunch of items and telling me to learn how to cook X a new way. Just saying…
Am I the only one thinking this is a discussion that should have occurred before this point in time? Regardless, thank you developers for all you do. I must say, it’s easy to pontificate from the sidelines, especially when you think you are right. =P
A: Opt-in Phone-Home Feature Usage Stat’s Module???
================================
@joeri67,
I agree that an auto update isn’t the answer, right now, but…
if we started with just a simple stat’s module in Blender 2.6 that sends feature usage data to BF only with user permission, then the BF and community would likely have a large enough pool of info to better make these decisions.
By default it would be on but only send (anonymous) data to the BF with users permission.
And if the user wanted to, they could turn this module off in User Preferences and not participate.
Or they could leave it on without sending the data for personal/business training purposes or whatever.
The benefits are quite obvious – developers would have a strong indication of what features are used.
And the BF could publish this data to the wiki or elsewhere to give everyone insight on future functionality planning.
Once the connectivity and data collection functions have been tested, then perhaps in future an auto-updater of Blender could be added to the module, again with option to turn it off.
But just starting with an opt-in phone-home feature usage stats module would help this type of decision making.
Or, as I suggested after, we could get a BF Donations Challenge going first to get more features ported to 2.6?
I wish Brecht van Lommel, would remove himself from the blender team!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@u4
I think that you’ll not get any comrade here ;)
@noeol
I like your http://www.noeol.de/blender_249_edge_rendering.png
Thats a nice image and all, but wouldnt it be as easy to do in freestile?..
@Marc:
But if they dont work then do you keep them or throw them away?
I always replace them, but then again I have the cash to do so.
@blndrusr:
Yeah sure, phone home. Add vertex , Extrude and cut edge. My list would be pretty boring.
I think it would be better if there are plans set out on how to accomplisch tasks and then create tools to do so, not randomly add features people start yelling. Or remove them for that matter.
Maybe one Picasso uses that rarely used feature only once. Shame if we would need to miss his work. Ofcourse Blender needs to be stable, but in the end blender needs to be blender, a tool for artists, not a developers hobby. Thats my take anyway.
Someone at a spanish blender forum suggested that maybe he is thinking in a release just to fit times and finish the durian project. Then other person suggested they should make this version with the tools brench suggested taken out, but in the next subversion they should reapper. If that would happen I would let them continue with these proposals.
The Blender version number system scheme is just fitting, IMO. It reminds of the Linux kernel releases.
Whatever is to be removed as mentioned in this proposal for Blender 2.6 release (stable) keep them in the Blender 2.5 release (unstable – development build) for us to continue our work. Once these features have a suitable alternative as you suggest or if none available as mention in the blender wiki, kindly re-implement them in 2.6.
The other option was release these features as a Add-on and suggest a disclaimer, these add-on are unstable and experience a crash. Something along those lines. This would make the code more modular. Easier for the user to disable or enable a crashy feature.
I hope that makes a lot of sense. Sorry about the repeat suggestion. I was brainstorming the alternatives earlier as I am using Blender 2.49b’s “PAttr” under Map to in the Materials and Loop in the Extra’s Particle System which isn’t available in the 2.5 :-(
As of now, I see there are to branches at the graphicall.org a render build and a plain build.
Why not follow that scheme into Blender 2.6. Of course, include the render branch code into the final release.
In addition to my comment here’s an example that uses the PAttr in the Map to. http://www.youtube.com/v/mh1O-X82EKk
Nion, your quick tutorials are awesome!
I already saw this video but had looked to it again. My favourite effect is second – a fast way to make some magic :)
I postponed to do these tricks by myself and saved your videos to HDD. It will be pitty if so cool things couldn’t be able to perform on Blender 2.5 final beta version.
Cheers!
Sorry, I am not Nion ^_^ I just use the feature he mentions in his experimental episode.
OK, nevermind :)
Console window on Windows
Can this be called from within blender as a form of Log Window or something?
When you are not using Blender from command line then u encounter an error, you want to see the messages and processes in the Console Window or an ErrorLog Window.
Not just for developers but generic Log Window will be useful, if not console window.
Definitely do NOT remove the Plane object. I use it all the time – sure, I often subdevide it, but if people want a Grid object, why not make both people happy and stick the Grid object right after the Plane object, and move the the Cube down the list, right after Grid? We can all have the tools we enjoy using.
As for making optimal draw being default on Subsurf, well, it doesn’t matter that much, except in the Creature Factory, Andy notes that he stopped using Optimal Draw because he couldn’t see how the underlying mesh was really behaving/being affected.
About the console window: YES, PLEASE REMOVE IT!!! Sure, it can be useful, and was nice when rendering an animation in PNGs, since I could see what frame number I was on. I guess I’d opt that it be put as an option in the User Preferences window, to be there on startup or not, but that you could also open it whenever you wanted, or access it via a Console Window in the Windows Menu of Blender.
Also, a log of every action taken in a file for complete recursive recovery would be amazing. Imagine being able to go back to a change you made three days ago and restore that version of the file? It would ROCK.
I really hate how Blender 2.5 handles the EKey in Edit Mode – when I try to extrude an edge, it automatically locks the edge I’m dragging to the X and Y axises, which completely CRAMPS my flow. I mean, how the heck are you supposed to model a face with it constantly constraining it to two axises? You can hit Esc and then move the selection, but it adds another two inputs to the operation, Esc and then GKey. Seriously, what is the point of this new setup for extruding edges? It’s NOT helpful!
I know the whole design of Blender 2.5 is not meant to necessarily work well with Horizontal alignment – the new UI isn’t as boxy as the 2.4 versions, which crammed everything into little modules, but hey, when I’m trying to edit a 2.4 file in 2.5, it’s a pain to work with the Properties panel horizontally, which is 2.4’s default.
Also, why the double file backup? One .blend1 is enough of a mess… now we have .blend2? I know I can turn it off and save the default settings, but hey, why the mess in the first place?
One of the first things I want to do when opening up the Object Properties panel in the 3D Window is to rename a object, but in more recent versions of 2.5, the object name input (“Items”) box is thrown towards the end of the list. Once again, I can Ctrl+U to save the default. However, this can get old if one updates GraphicAll builds every month or few weeks.
You are right, the World Stars feature isn’t that powerful – but I’ve used it before in short little, crumpy animations I’ve done, and it was cool to use it – such as making them all cluster and get super bright, then fly far apart really fast… or to simulate particles underwater in the ocean… sure, there may be better systems, but it was cool to use them for what I did. Let me put it this way – if particles were easier to render and there were more tutorials on how to use them, yeah, get rid of the Stars feature.
We should definitely keep the Layer option in the Graph (IPO) Window – or put it back in if it’s not there. Could be used for fading text or another shot in and out, instead of using the VSE.
Why not keep Curves in the image editor? The more powerful the image editor, the better – as long as it doesn’t get clogged, confusing, and buggy.
I have also used Line rendering on particles for a spark FX (see here http://vimeo.com/8039216) But if you get too close to the particles, they render all funny… not like sharp, beautiful sparks, but as sticks with a weird glowy circle… UGLY. I wish there were more, EASIER options for particles… they could be so darn useful for rain and sparks and whatnot.
I agree, the Glow effect is not where it should be… it should be in the Node Editor, along with a ton of other options for video editing. Seriously, there is no real video editor out there for free… it would free up the film industry SOOOO much if there was an Open Source solution for FullHD editing and VFX that worked like a charm. Proxying is a pain. :P So, yeah, make the VSE compatible with Nodes, but until then, keep Glow in the Sequencer – I’ve used it, too. (http://vimeo.com/8273893, and another shot.)
DEFINITELY KEEP FIELDS FOR RENDERING! Granted, I haven’t used it, but if we want to be useful for the TV industry, at least for another 5 years, KEEP IT. And yes, definitely give it more options… give it a separate sub-panel with a plethora of more options for those who need it.
Keep Blend Sky and Env Map.
Enough said.
And don’t forget, we love you, Brecht!!! I’m sure you have done awesome work for the Blender Foundation and have greatly improved Blender. So much goes on behind Blender… such a sea of crazy code – but you help put it all together to make sense and flow while the rest of us enjoy the wild joy of creating in 3D. Keep it up!
And oh, thanks for listening!
Cheers,
-me
I have one UI issue. It’s been bothering since the the inception of the node time curve.
I’m trying to animate some nodes and effect within node compositor using the time curve and keyframing is great! However, not so great in the affect that I want to tweak the look more precisely, say in the F-Curve editor. I’m looking into py scripting but don’t expect me results in that regards. I’m hitting up the py api docs.
Please included Node Time Curve in the F-Curve and the Dopesheet graph editor especially when there are points within the node time curve as keyframes. Currently, the only way to make the node time curve to appear in the F-Curve and Dopesheet graph editor is by inserting a keyframe on the start and/or end. But what happened to the in between; those point in the time curve in node compositor are M.I.A. Honestly, it isn’t precise for my liking just yet. I want to be able to set extrapolation and interpolation mode of those points not just the start and end points.
Also, it’s a bit tedious to edit the time curve within the node compositor, of course, I’m aware of the “n button” to toggle the properties for slightly bigger view of the graph. Now, when I do CTRL + UpArrow there’s no indication of the current frame for the node time curve, there used to be a green playhead (2.49b has it, in 2.5 where did it go) within the node time curve and there’s no way of scrubbing through the node time curve.
Oh, and one more thing, the continuous scrolling it’s available in the timeline or F-Curve, when I say that I mean for scrubbing through the timeline with Shift or the CTRL button held down. I want to do something precise reviewing of the animation.
Now that your joining Octane rended team. Does this proposal still stand?
This is only one post is really exceptional from other blog commenting sites! I’m sure that you’ve selected these efficiently.
Cause I find out almost 100+ blog post doing backlinks for my affiliate blog but most of them are shared spammy low quality and disfavor site.
But your post is really different and each link I count carefully to build Quality Baclinks