[Bf-committers] I'd like to kill the soft body module

[lusque at email.it]

Hi bjornmose,

> I think the cloth module does all the task the SB module did,  it uses
> the same mathematical/physical model,
> but with a smarter UI,  better integration  to the modifier stack,
> better global collision cache, better rock solid ODE solver for stiff
> situations  and more.
> Some tiny extra options of doubtable use may be missing or simply need a
> different set up.

As others (more expert that me) already said, cloth doesn't cover 
(totally) all the softbody use-cases. Maybe extending cloth by adding 
extra parameters similar to softbody's can be a good compromise.

> Well, the mayor issue I see with the module showed up
> when I did a review of the code to see how to get the new
> 2.5 paradigm 'everything can be animated' in there ...
> ... Next thing I see in future are lots of bug reports 'animating property
> XYZ in soft bodies does not work' .

I've already stumped in this "bug" once or twice in my tests. I've not 
filled a bug report just because I thought it was too early, and that 
softbody animatable parameters will be added later. I am sad that you 
confirmed my worst fears.

> My personal opinion is:
> While the SB module seems to do no harm and seems to be working with 2.5
> ( bad/ good luck ) ,
>   it is deprecated and needs a complete rewrite. I did expect it to fail
> with 2.5.
> Keeping up the current code will sooner or later be an obstacle to
> further evolution of the animation system.
> The rewrite needs to break compatibility with older file versions to
> some extend I can no estimate right now.
> Since 2.5 did big quantum leap forward on animation , I thought it might
> be the right time to cut off rotten parts of the tree.

I too think that 2.5 is the better place to break backwards 
compatibility in exchange for a more powerful blender.
IIRC from the blender roadmap, it is planned the integration of bullet's 
rigid body.
In your opinion will it be possible to bring in bullet's soft body too?
Could this solve the problems you've outlined?

regards,
Ervin Weber