[Bf-committers] While we're talking about naming conventions...
rolandh at reed-witting.com
Tue Nov 3 18:13:04 CET 2009
Layer usage in Blender is not even close to 2D paint (or design or
illustration) software. Layers in those applications conform to the
common notion of the term "layer," i.e., elements that form a stack, and
whose order (and settings) within the stack determine the final image
(or object) presented.
In Blender, layers control solely for visibility. That might be
visibility in the 3D view, it might be the visiblity of one object to
another vis a vis force fields, light influence, etc. But it's all "What
and who can see what?" There is no stacking or ordering. There are no
"settings" that can be applied to the layers themselves that alter the
outcome or final presentation. Layers in Blender are simply (very
useful) groups of objects. They are a conveniently located organization
and bin system.
Not that that's going to get anyone to really consider changing this
stuff, but I felt the need to give my view on what I consider an
oft-repeated misconception (that Blender layers are equivalent to 2D art
application layers). Unfortunately, this is one of the big problems
people have getting their head around Blender, once they get past the
basics. They except something called "layers" to work like, well,
layers, as they do in other applications, and in their real-world
equivalent. Note that I'm not saying we should mirror the other apps,
but that in this case our terms conflict with the real-world basis.
So, our terminology is less useful than it could be. It's not
insurmountable, obviously. But there you go.
> Layers make sense, it's use is very similar to layers in 2D paint
> software. And the other 3d software that uses the idea calls them that
> too, so you have a level of inter-program consistency.
> If any changes should be made to layers it should be that we can have
> more of them and/or the ability to name them.
More information about the Bf-committers