[Bf-committers] Naming layer
lecocqguillaume at gmail.com
Wed Apr 20 22:09:18 CEST 2005
2005/4/20, Campbell Barton <cbarton at metavr.com>:
> Single objects occupying multiple layers RARE??? I use it all the time.
> I still have no problem with giving each layer a seperate name.
> Ton, werent you thinking of doing somthing with the outliner (With
> managing layers)?
Oh yes, I like. Imagine we have at the root the scene and after the
20th layers (32 possible in source, if I understand). after each layer
objects, lamps, ... If for example, layer one is collapsed (sorry if I
make a mistake with the wrd, I'm not english) we have icon show all
option of the layer (like icone on an object to show material,
texture, ...). The possibility to rename the layer.
I think this is a good idea, but I don't think I am able to make this,
I will make a try just for see ;-) .
> - Cam
> > Ton,
> > you knew that you would get some annoying feedback on this issue,
> > right? :)
> > On Wed, 20 Apr 2005, Ton Roosendaal wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >> The Blender layer system uses bitmasks, meaning there is no single
> >> layer you can use to give it a name. If we like it or not, but it's
> >> being used (and
> > Well, the *layers* as seperate entities do indeed exist. It's just
> > that there
> > is the occasional (rare) possibility of objects belonging to several
> > layers
> > at once. But the layers can indeed have names - there are exactly 20
> > of them,
> > and each can have its properties.
> >> useful) to define relationships between objects, like metaballs or do
> >> define which lamps give lights on what objects (lamp in layer 1,2,3,
> >> object in layer 3, scene showing layer 2+3).
> > Yes, instinctive's layer manager is, among others, used for exactly
> > that. It's
> > used for determining what objects should be locked, what objects
> > should be
> > visible when, what objects belong to which *named* 'group' (Layer), etc.
> >> As for the instinctive layer manager; this implementation looks like
> >> the usual quick & easy hack, something probably Alexander can use
> >> perfectly, but not something that complies to a standard as I like to
> >> see it for Blender. A
> > It's OK to have high standards, no doubt.
> >> good system to manage relations/grouping or properties for your
> >> Objects in a Scene will be just more work, requiring in-depth
> >> understanding of the full range of Blender, a maximum integration
> >> level, also related to extending the
> > Trust me, I have total understanding of the full impact of the Layer
> > system,
> > scenes, views, non-locked views, local views, etc., and as the past has
> > shown, more so than the majority of other Blender users.
> >> Sometimes I can seem like a show-stopping bitchy conservative here...
> >> :) I
> > I like conservative people, I'm one myself. My second name is
> > Ratzinger ;-)
> >> realize we need to find good ways to attract & involve new
> >> developers. But the times are also over to accept each code
> >> contribution only because it's a desired feature. We only run into
> >> troubles with that.
> >> Don't forget that the parts that nicely work within a Blender
> >> architecture are the real strong aspects in Blender, working already
> >> for 10 years, and still future proof. This stability allows for quick
> >> hacks, which is OK for within a production environment (like
> >> instinctive blender), but not per definition fit for inclusion in
> >> official releases.
> > You make an interesting point here, and it's what I've been saying for
> > the
> > past years (Now, you will hate me even more!): Blender *used* to be a
> > production tool (in NeoGeo times), and you know
> > best yourself that it was (and is) FULL of quick hacks.
> > What I find funny is that since it has gone open-source, the
> > Foundation seems
> > to be aiming at creating a typical, marketable end-user tool for the
> > masses
> > (BF-Blender) opposed to a "thing that gets the job done" (like NaN
> > Blender).
> > But this is probably unavoidable... Every company has its own
> > priorities and
> > special uses - so instinctive-blender and its special functionality is
> > OK for
> > *one* company... BF-Blender has the difficult task to please
> > *everyone* - maybe
> > it's insane to set yourself such a high goal.
> > | alexander ewering instinctive mediaworks
> > | ae[@]instinctive[.]de http://www[.]instinctive[.]de
> > _______________________________________________
> > Bf-committers mailing list
> > Bf-committers at projects.blender.org
> > http://projects.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
> Campbell J Barton
> 133 Hope Street
> Geelong West, Victoria 3218 Australia
> URL: http://www.metavr.com
> e-mail: cbarton at metavr.com
> phone: AU (03) 5229 0241
> Bf-committers mailing list
> Bf-committers at projects.blender.org
More information about the Bf-committers