[Bf-committers] While we're talking about naming conventions...

[Roland Hess]

Layer usage in Blender is not even close to 2D paint (or design or 
illustration) software. Layers in those applications conform to the 
common notion of the term "layer," i.e., elements that form a stack, and 
whose order (and settings) within the stack determine the final image 
(or object) presented.

In Blender, layers control solely for visibility. That might be 
visibility in the 3D view, it might be the visiblity of one object to 
another vis a vis force fields, light influence, etc. But it's all "What 
and who can see what?" There is no stacking or ordering. There are no 
"settings" that can be applied to the layers themselves that alter the 
outcome or final presentation. Layers in Blender are simply (very 
useful) groups of objects. They are a conveniently located organization 
and bin system.

Not that that's going to get anyone to really consider changing this 
stuff, but I felt the need to give my view on what I consider an 
oft-repeated misconception (that Blender layers are equivalent to 2D art 
application layers). Unfortunately, this is one of the big problems 
people have getting their head around Blender, once they get past the 
basics. They except something called "layers" to work like, well, 
layers, as they do in other applications, and in their real-world 
equivalent. Note that I'm not saying we should mirror the other apps, 
but that in this case our terms conflict with the real-world basis.

So, our terminology is less useful than it could be. It's not 
insurmountable, obviously. But there you go.
> Layers make sense, it's use is very similar to layers in 2D paint
> software. And the other 3d software that uses the idea calls them that
> too, so you have a level of inter-program consistency.
>
> If any changes should be made to layers it should be that we can have
> more of them and/or the ability to name them.
-- 

Roland Hess
harkyman