[Bf-committers] Naming layer
cbarton at metavr.com
Wed Apr 20 15:49:22 CEST 2005
Single objects occupying multiple layers RARE??? I use it all the time.
I still have no problem with giving each layer a seperate name.
Ton, werent you thinking of doing somthing with the outliner (With
> you knew that you would get some annoying feedback on this issue,
> right? :)
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005, Ton Roosendaal wrote:
>> The Blender layer system uses bitmasks, meaning there is no single
>> layer you can use to give it a name. If we like it or not, but it's
>> being used (and
> Well, the *layers* as seperate entities do indeed exist. It's just
> that there
> is the occasional (rare) possibility of objects belonging to several
> at once. But the layers can indeed have names - there are exactly 20
> of them,
> and each can have its properties.
>> useful) to define relationships between objects, like metaballs or do
>> define which lamps give lights on what objects (lamp in layer 1,2,3,
>> object in layer 3, scene showing layer 2+3).
> Yes, instinctive's layer manager is, among others, used for exactly
> that. It's
> used for determining what objects should be locked, what objects
> should be
> visible when, what objects belong to which *named* 'group' (Layer), etc.
>> As for the instinctive layer manager; this implementation looks like
>> the usual quick & easy hack, something probably Alexander can use
>> perfectly, but not something that complies to a standard as I like to
>> see it for Blender. A
> It's OK to have high standards, no doubt.
>> good system to manage relations/grouping or properties for your
>> Objects in a Scene will be just more work, requiring in-depth
>> understanding of the full range of Blender, a maximum integration
>> level, also related to extending the
> Trust me, I have total understanding of the full impact of the Layer
> scenes, views, non-locked views, local views, etc., and as the past has
> shown, more so than the majority of other Blender users.
>> Sometimes I can seem like a show-stopping bitchy conservative here...
>> :) I
> I like conservative people, I'm one myself. My second name is
> Ratzinger ;-)
>> realize we need to find good ways to attract & involve new
>> developers. But the times are also over to accept each code
>> contribution only because it's a desired feature. We only run into
>> troubles with that.
>> Don't forget that the parts that nicely work within a Blender
>> architecture are the real strong aspects in Blender, working already
>> for 10 years, and still future proof. This stability allows for quick
>> hacks, which is OK for within a production environment (like
>> instinctive blender), but not per definition fit for inclusion in
>> official releases.
> You make an interesting point here, and it's what I've been saying for
> past years (Now, you will hate me even more!): Blender *used* to be a
> production tool (in NeoGeo times), and you know
> best yourself that it was (and is) FULL of quick hacks.
> What I find funny is that since it has gone open-source, the
> Foundation seems
> to be aiming at creating a typical, marketable end-user tool for the
> (BF-Blender) opposed to a "thing that gets the job done" (like NaN
> But this is probably unavoidable... Every company has its own
> priorities and
> special uses - so instinctive-blender and its special functionality is
> OK for
> *one* company... BF-Blender has the difficult task to please
> *everyone* - maybe
> it's insane to set yourself such a high goal.
> | alexander ewering instinctive mediaworks
> | ae[@]instinctive[.]de http://www[.]instinctive[.]de
> Bf-committers mailing list
> Bf-committers at projects.blender.org
Campbell J Barton
133 Hope Street
Geelong West, Victoria 3218 Australia
e-mail: cbarton at metavr.com
phone: AU (03) 5229 0241
More information about the Bf-committers