[Bf-committers] The final step that Blender needs to take in order to become fundamentally perfect

Muhamad Faizol Abd. Halim faizol.blender at gmail.com
Mon May 10 23:31:38 CEST 2010


Hi all,

I'm willing to help to gather some info or documentations on this for now. I
don't see anything beyond just discussions or brainstorming. At most perhaps
just a proof-of-concept stage.
That's all I can think of about the above suggestion.

Anyway, I'm trying to start reading Blender's code before starting to
experiment with Blender's coding. Is there any documentation project on the
development side perhaps I can start helping with?

Thanks.

Best Regards,
Muhamad Faizol ABd. Halim

On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 3:03 AM, joe <joeedh at gmail.com> wrote:

> We'll get to nodes eventually; I'm not sure why this contention is
> going on, from scanning the emails it seems to be mostly from
> non-developers speaking with too much authority :)  Like I said
> before, we have ideas for nodes for meshes and shaders, and we'll find
> our way to cooler stuff too eventually (honestly a large-scale node
> refactor is completely impossible right now, but there's no real
> reason to do such a thing; I'd suggest asking the moonlight3d guys how
> well that worked for them ;) ).  Really there are only a few key areas
> to look at first, and I think smaller-scale efforts will work a lot
> better in the end; each area has different needs from a node graph
> solver, and creating a global solver would be premature since we don't
> even know what would be required of it (other app's examples help, but
> none of them are perfect, and none of them are blender, and there are
> always a *ton* of hidden quirks to work out).
>
> joe
>
> On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 4:53 PM, Knapp <magick.crow at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 4:40 PM, Raul Fernandez Hernandez
> > <raulf at info.upr.edu.cu> wrote:
> >> Hi there
> >>
> >>> I know resources are limited but what is to stop a few from starting a
> >>> branch and exploring this very interesting area? I could see it as
> >>> being a nodal extension of the game engine. I do admit to knowing very
> >>> little about this subject but that is what it looked like in that
> >>> SUPER cool video.
> >>
> >>  You cannot fork Blender for a "huge" revamp in its current state, when
> >> haven't finished the previous revamp because then the sync back could
> >> become near impossible, you could base your entire codebase in things
> >> that simply will change or could dissapear in the official branch. Only
> >> after few stable releases you could fork Blender for a major
> architecture
> >> change like this.
> >
> > I agree that we don't want to but we could provided we had the people
> > to do it. All it takes is man power and money. None of which do I want
> > to see divided but I think one person exploring the possible would not
> > hurt anything.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Douglas E Knapp
> >
> > Massagen Arbeit in Gelsenkirchen Buer
> > http://bespin.org/~douglas/tcm/ztab1.htm
> > Please link to me and trade links with me!
> >
> > Open Source Sci-Fi mmoRPG Game project.
> > http://sf-journey-creations.wikispot.org/Front_Page
> > http://code.google.com/p/perspectiveproject/
> > _______________________________________________
> > Bf-committers mailing list
> > Bf-committers at blender.org
> > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-committers mailing list
> Bf-committers at blender.org
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>


More information about the Bf-committers mailing list