You're blocking ads, which pay for BlenderNation. Read about other ways to support us.

Blender Developers meeting notes, January 1, 2017


Here are the notes from today's meeting in #blendercoders.

Ton Roosendaal writes:

Happy new year! 2017 will be the year of 2.8, exciting times ahead.
Below are the notes from today's 15 UTC meeting in #blendercoders.

1) Blender 2.8 projects

  • Lukas Toenne restored particles/hair code in the 2.8 branch. Sergey Sharybin and Bastien Montagne will work on partially restructuring it, to work with new depsgraph and to make it simpler to replace by a node system later.
  • Physics (for example fracture modifier): we need good way to generalise internally generated data and external caches. A topic for the physics team to work on: Sergey, Bastien, Martin Felke, Luca Rood, Alexander Gavrilov will connect about this to align design well.
  • Antonio Vazquez worked on Palettes in Blender. He will need help getting animation support for it.

2) Other projects

  • It's 2017, so we can talk about an update release (2.79). Let's gather topics here.
  • Suggested for an update release are:
    • Cycles update for Cuda/Intel/AMD fixes and optimizations
    • OpenHMD support (VR)
    • GSoC projects

That's it for now, next week more!

About the Author

Bart Veldhuizen

I have a LONG history with Blender - I wrote some of the earliest Blender tutorials, worked for Not a Number and helped run the crowdfunding campaign that open sourced Blender (the first one on the internet!). I founded BlenderNation in 2006 and have been editing it every single day since then ;-) I also run the Blender Artists forum and I'm Head of Community at Sketchfab.


  1. In 2.8 can we get local space to reflect distance between the origin of the current object and its parent's origin, or at least an option in the transforms to see and manipulate by this relative distance?

    To the best of my knowledge right now it parents the objects world space to the other object, and the relative distance remains related to the world space at the time of the parenting, which means unless you parent while the new parent is at 000, it's nearly impossible to tell relative distances. What's worse, when I did parent the object to a parent at 000, moved the parent, and then changed the child to another parent, I got a pop where the child shot off equal to the relative distance I had moved the parent. This means parenting can destroy spacing.

      • Why wouldn't the program want to expose relative space? What's the feature that makes revealing an object's parented world space, rather than tracking relative space, something that is useful?

        This seems like something that makes sense maybe at a programming side, but of absolutely no use from an artist's side. If I'm trying to quickly parent and rotate empty transforms to block out general proportions, I'm going to need to know the distances between those parented objects. I can't even conceive of a circumstance in which I'd need to keep the world position in relation to another object at the time of parenting for art purposes.

        Other programs handle this by recalculating transform information, including keyed animation) at the time of parenting or unparenting.
        This is very handy. For instance, I could parent an empty to a hand and position it 1 foot off from the wrist. I could then scrub the animation to a particular frame in which I want something to happen. I unparent the transform, and now that empty tells me the world space transformation info at that frame based on an exact value relative to the hand. Only one command to do it, too.

Leave A Reply

To add a profile picture to your message, register your email address with To protect your email address, create an account on BlenderNation and log in when posting a message.