Awesome! Great to see Cycles development picking up again! :D<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 7:05 PM, Brecht Van Lommel <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:brechtvanlommel@pandora.be">brechtvanlommel@pandora.be</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">Hi,<br>
<br>
On second though I've just reverted the commit. It might make it a bit<br>
too difficult to understand for the user what's going on and how you<br>
should mix shaders...<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
Brecht.<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 12:05 AM, Brecht Van Lommel<br>
<<a href="mailto:brechtvanlommel@pandora.be">brechtvanlommel@pandora.be</a>> wrote:<br>
> Hi,<br>
><br>
> This change will not limit what is possible to render, it will only<br>
> require a different shader setup. Volume rendering will still support<br>
> using a different shader with a BSDF at the surface. Probably a node<br>
> will be added to make this kind of setup easier, but an Add Shader<br>
> node might already work for now... it depends a bit on how volume<br>
> rendering will interpret closures.<br>
><br>
> Layering again is something that can be done with nodes, rather than<br>
> adding sockets. I rather have this sort of thing as nodes, so that you<br>
> can put it in a node group and use entirely as preset, or mix it with<br>
> another group.<br>
><br>
> Brecht.<br>
><br>
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 10:55 PM, Michael Fox <<a href="mailto:mfoxdogg@gmail.com">mfoxdogg@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> On 13/10/11 06:22, Kel M wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> Hi Brecht,<br>
>> I just noticed this commit go in today:<br>
>> "Cycles: replace surface/volume sockets in output nodes with a single shader<br>
>> socket,<br>
>><br>
>> decided it's better to render objects as either surface or volume.<br>
>><br>
>> This may break the volume rendering patch, but shaders with volume closures<br>
>> still<br>
>> get tagged as having volume closures, so it should be fixable without too<br>
>> many<br>
>> changes."<br>
>><br>
>> "<br>
>> The ability to render an object with both a surface and a volume shader was<br>
>> a selling point of Cycles. It's how swimming pools must be rendered. I'm<br>
>> asking you to please revert this commit, I was able to make a bunch of<br>
>> beautiful ice sculptures with the volume patch because Cycles allowed both<br>
>> Surface and Volume on the same object.<br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> Bf-cycles mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:Bf-cycles@blender.org">Bf-cycles@blender.org</a><br>
>> <a href="http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-cycles" target="_blank">http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-cycles</a><br>
>><br>
>> i agree with this, you shouldn't be taking away slots as it takes away the<br>
>> flexibility that was a cornerstone of the nodal workflow when it was<br>
>> designed if anything we need to add the ability to add more sockets, like<br>
>> more displacment values and surface and volume so we can layer shaders<br>
>> rathur then mix or add them<br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> Bf-cycles mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:Bf-cycles@blender.org">Bf-cycles@blender.org</a><br>
>> <a href="http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-cycles" target="_blank">http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-cycles</a><br>
>><br>
>><br>
><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Bf-cycles mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Bf-cycles@blender.org">Bf-cycles@blender.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-cycles" target="_blank">http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-cycles</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><div style="visibility: hidden; left: -5000px; position: absolute; z-index: 9999; padding: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; overflow: hidden; word-wrap: break-word; color: black; font-size: 10px; text-align: left; line-height: 130%;" id="avg_ls_inline_popup">
</div>