[Bf-committers] Render API: Framework and Scene Break-Down
Bob Wenzlaff (AB8TD)
rwenzlaff at soylent-green.com
Thu Jun 7 18:25:22 CEST 2007
At 09:37 AM 6/7/2007, you wrote:
>And BTW, in my own opinion, a "generic renderman exporter" is rather
>pointless, and has really limited use scenarios.
The idea was that any Renderman compliant renderer could use it. If
you wanted the bells and whistles, a custom one would be made.
If a lot of the Bells and Whistles could be combined using a
"register features" method, fine. But there should be a least common
denominator that all can use.
If someone publishes a Renderman compliant render engine (Stubby3D)
out of the blue the day after we release the first exporter, it
should just work using the generic RM exporter. It may not take
advantage of any Stubby special features, but it at least should work.
It also serves as a good starting point to spawn a new exporter. The
Stubby team spawns a new exporter off the Generic one adding Stubby
specific features. Then the Stubby community to maintains the Stubby
exporter while the Blender team concentrates on Blender.
Otherwise, no-one can use Stubby until a exporter is
written. Without that, no momentum gets built (Remember, though
we've made huge leaps, we're still a small player. A lot of pros
still haven't heard of Blender) and the only way we get a Stubby
exporter is if a Blender Developer takes time off Blender projects
and makes one. And the only way we know if a renderer is worth
taking time off Blender projects for is if we take time out and do it
for all of them.
If you say "the Neqsus/BtoR exporter can handle Stubby's limited set
of features via the register feature function", then I would claim
that _it is_ the generic RM exporter. Generic doesn't mean "plain"
or "low feature" it means "nameless" - ie; not tied to one specific renderer.
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.11/837 - Release Date: 6/6/2007
More information about the Bf-committers