<div dir="ltr">I agree with stefan. Sometimes I use the old model just as a complement, or to get a gradient coloured gi instead of a plain color or a full fledged sky. Matched with a few lights can make some good looking scenes, even if they are not realistic (which of course is hardly a priority in many projects).</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2016-04-04 11:44 GMT-03:00 Stefan Werner <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:swerner@smithmicro.com" target="_blank">swerner@smithmicro.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi,<br>
<br>
Is there any benefit to removing the old sky model? Just because developers think that the new model is better doesn’t mean that all users will agree. The new model may be more realistic, but one may use the older model for artistic reasons. Some will have scenes that rely on the old model, and unless there is a reason to break those scenes, I’d vote in favor of keeping it. Besides a few bytes of code, keeping the old model around doesn’t come with any extra cost, does it?<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
Stefan Werner | Senior Software Engineer; Productivity & Graphics<br>
Smith Micro Software, Inc. | <a href="http://www.smithmicro.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.smithmicro.com</a> <<a href="http://www.smithmicro.com/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.smithmicro.com/</a>><br>
</font></span><span class="im HOEnZb"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 4/4/16, 3:43 PM, "<a href="mailto:bf-cycles-bounces@blender.org">bf-cycles-bounces@blender.org</a> on behalf of Thomas Dinges" <<a href="mailto:bf-cycles-bounces@blender.org">bf-cycles-bounces@blender.org</a> on behalf of <a href="mailto:blender@dingto.org">blender@dingto.org</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
>Hi Ton,<br>
><br>
>I really hoped for the 2.8x project to finally kick of. It was announced<br>
>almost a year ago, and sounded quite promising (including the<br>
>possibility for module teams to do bigger cleanups).<br>
><br>
>If we decide to stick to the 2.7x series for much longer (2.78, 2.79...)<br>
>then *that* is something, that we need a roadmap for.<br>
>Because if that will be the case, I'd ask for a Cycles branch, where we<br>
>can work on bigger topics.<br>
><br>
>I would like to mention here though, that I wanted to just replace<br>
>Preetham with Hosek in 2013, when I added it. Back then Brecht suggested<br>
>to keep it for a bit. Now 2 years later, I'd like to remove it, as Hosek<br>
>is much more realistic. When will such changes be possible, without<br>
>conflicting with the BF schedule?<br>
><br>
>Best regards,<br>
>Thomas<br>
</span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">_______________________________________________<br>
Bf-cycles mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Bf-cycles@blender.org">Bf-cycles@blender.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-cycles" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-cycles</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>