[Bf-committers] The Future of Blender Projects WAS meeting notes

[Ton Roosendaal]

Hi all,

Cool suggestions all over; will need some time to study it in detail.  :)

Just coincidentally; this month's ACM Communciations has a nice article about technical debt. It also refers to the currently very popular short release cycles; with the evident benefits but also with as danger that it can go out of control with a huge pile of postponed todo items and issues. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_debt

The issues on this page sound strikingly familiar ;)

-Ton-

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ton Roosendaal  Blender Foundation   ton at blender.org    www.blender.org
Blender Institute   Entrepotdok 57A  1018AD Amsterdam   The Netherlands

On 18 Jun, 2012, at 3:16, Bassam Kurdali wrote:

> absolutely! though I'm not sure still what part is 'big enough' for
> 2.7/2.8 - it seems like more nodes is! but maybe dependency graph should
> even be a target for 2.6 series.
> my observations of 'weaknesses' from experience working on tube and
> other projects:
> 1- dependency graph
> 2- library linking robustness in corner cases, and overrides, and over
> simplicity.
> 3- speed is always nice (maybe depgraph helps multithreading)
> 4*- renderer issues are being fixed by cycles already
> 5*- mesh issues are being fixed by bmesh and other work.
> 6- nodal everything ;) at least
> constraints/modifiers/transforms/relationships.
> 7- nodal particles
> 8- hair and fur
> 9- unified/better physics esp. cloth sim.
> 10- art-directable sim/ rigid bodies.
> 
> some of those are probably related to each other. 
> cheers
> B
> 
> On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 01:10 +0100, Gianmichele Mariani wrote:
>> Main focus for 2.7/.8 series? A full dependency graph for sure. Possibly
>> bring more nodes into the core of blender (particles, rigging, fx)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:48 AM, Mike Belanger <mikejamesbelanger at gmail.com
>>> wrote:
>> 
>>> I'm really happy about the last few years of Blender development.  But I
>>> sort of miss the built-like-a-tank stability of 2.4x series.  It'd be nice
>>> to focus on stability, bug-fixes for a while.
>>> 
>>> I know that isn't as cool as an open-project though :P
>>> 
>>> Mike
>>> On 2012-06-17, at 7:33 PM, Knapp wrote:
>>> 
>>>>> - Ton also invites people to think of post 2.6 projects. A special
>>> focus for 2.7x and 2.8x? Suggestion: in all of 2013, BF focus on Blender
>>> itself (no open movies!).
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Could you enplane this a bit more?
>>>> 
>>>> IMO VERY HO
>>>> I would like to see a project that pushes fog, clouds, sea, smoke and
>>>> water effects and unifies them. Perhaps a classic Greek / Roman
>>>> sailing adventure?
>>>> Integration of Particles and Array mods could use some work.
>>>> --
>>>> Douglas E Knapp
>>>> 
>>>> Creative Commons Film Group, Helping people make open source movies
>>>> with open source software!
>>>> http://douglas.bespin.org/CommonsFilmGroup/phpBB3/index.php
>>>> 
>>>> Massage in Gelsenkirchen-Buer:
>>>> http://douglas.bespin.org/tcm/ztab1.htm
>>>> Please link to me and trade links with me!
>>>> 
>>>> Open Source Sci-Fi mmoRPG Game project.
>>>> http://sf-journey-creations.wikispot.org/Front_Page
>>>> http://code.google.com/p/perspectiveproject/
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Bf-committers mailing list
>>>> Bf-committers at blender.org
>>>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Bf-committers mailing list
>>> Bf-committers at blender.org
>>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bf-committers mailing list
>> Bf-committers at blender.org
>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-committers mailing list
> Bf-committers at blender.org
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers