<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
      http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    Hi,<br>
    <br>
    The benefit is "get rid of legacy algorithms". If we would get a
    more realistic Glass shader (at the same performance level), no one
    would complain that the render looks different (aka backwards compat
    breakage). We kinda have the same argument here. Even in the Hosek
    paper, it directly compares with the Preetham model.<br>
    <br>
    I can add it back for 2.7x (to keep compatibility, as Ton
    suggested), but later I really like to remove it. I don't want to
    end up with a Blender Internal 2.0, which has gazillions of buttons
    and options after 5 years. <br>
    <br>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 04.04.2016 um 17:07 schrieb David
      Fenner:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote
cite="mid:CAKbJxCQdBhCNiwqGTahs1QyKPJGognVqx+ZBMJ2fY-KR3adkBA@mail.gmail.com"
      type="cite">
      <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">&lt;<a moz-do-not-send="true"
              href="mailto:swerner@smithmicro.com" target="_blank">swerner@smithmicro.com</a>&gt;</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
                &amp; Graphics<br>
                Smith Micro Software, Inc.  |  <a
                  moz-do-not-send="true"
                  href="http://www.smithmicro.com" rel="noreferrer"
                  target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.smithmicro.com">http://www.smithmicro.com</a></a> &lt;<a
                  moz-do-not-send="true"
                  href="http://www.smithmicro.com/" rel="noreferrer"
                  target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.smithmicro.com/">http://www.smithmicro.com/</a></a>&gt;<br>
              </font></span><span class="im HOEnZb"><br>
              <br>
              <br>
              <br>
              <br>
              On 4/4/16, 3:43 PM, "<a moz-do-not-send="true"
                href="mailto:bf-cycles-bounces@blender.org">bf-cycles-bounces@blender.org</a>
              on behalf of Thomas Dinges" &lt;<a moz-do-not-send="true"
                href="mailto:bf-cycles-bounces@blender.org">bf-cycles-bounces@blender.org</a>
              on behalf of <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                href="mailto:blender@dingto.org">blender@dingto.org</a>&gt;
              wrote:<br>
              <br>
              &gt;Hi Ton,<br>
              &gt;<br>
              &gt;I really hoped for the 2.8x project to finally kick
              of. It was announced<br>
              &gt;almost a year ago, and sounded quite promising
              (including the<br>
              &gt;possibility for module teams to do bigger cleanups).<br>
              &gt;<br>
              &gt;If we decide to stick to the 2.7x series for much
              longer (2.78, 2.79...)<br>
              &gt;then *that* is something, that we need a roadmap for.<br>
              &gt;Because if that will be the case, I'd ask for a Cycles
              branch, where we<br>
              &gt;can work on bigger topics.<br>
              &gt;<br>
              &gt;I would like to mention here though, that I wanted to
              just replace<br>
              &gt;Preetham with Hosek in 2013, when I added it. Back
              then Brecht suggested<br>
              &gt;to keep it for a bit. Now 2 years later, I'd like to
              remove it, as Hosek<br>
              &gt;is much more realistic. When will such changes be
              possible, without<br>
              &gt;conflicting with  the BF schedule?<br>
              &gt;<br>
              &gt;Best regards,<br>
              &gt;Thomas<br>
            </span>
            <div class="HOEnZb">
              <div class="h5">_______________________________________________<br>
                Bf-cycles mailing list<br>
                <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                  href="mailto:Bf-cycles@blender.org">Bf-cycles@blender.org</a><br>
                <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                  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>
      <br>
      <fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
      <br>
      <pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Bf-cycles mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Bf-cycles@blender.org">Bf-cycles@blender.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-cycles">https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-cycles</a>
</pre>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>