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

[Mike Belanger]

Layers themselves are fine, they're functional.  Yes they aren't like  
2d paint, but they're like layers in a lot of other 3d apps.  I  
thought we were simply going after the Render Layer layers, not layers  
themselves. I thought what was needing rethought was
their relationship to the render pipeline, as its kind of confusing.

Mike Belanger ( Mikahl )
www.watchmike.ca





On 2009-11-03, at 9:13 AM, Roland Hess wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-committers mailing list
> Bf-committers at blender.org
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers