[Bf-committers] Blender developers irc meeting,

[michael williamson]

On 12/06/11 16:26, Ton Roosendaal wrote:
> - Bug tracker at 174 open reports now.
>
> 2) Other Projects
>
> - Cycles: Brecht made notes for how Texture Workflow could work:
> http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Dev:2.5/Source/Render/TextureWorkflow
> He will continue on this with also UI proposal (mockup, proof of
> concept code) and then ask for official reviews.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ton Roosendaal  Blender Foundation   ton at blender.org    www.blender.org
> Blender Institute   Entrepotdok 57A  1018AD Amsterdam   The Netherlands
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-committers mailing list
> Bf-committers at blender.org
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers

Reading that wiki entry i have a couple of comments.

Quote:
/Do we need a full shaded GLSL draw mode for offline renders, given that 
we already have a Rendered draw mode, or do leave this as a game engine 
feature? /

I really must say ABSOLUTELY!  Texture painting has come a long way, 
this SOC promises much more and to lose GLSL would be a huge blow just 
when Blender is becoming a real contender in this area.

Bump map preview in GLSL is a killer feature and a big bonus for texture 
painting right now.... that alone is worth the hurt.

Painting specularintensity maps/glossiness maps  is also very nice using 
GLSL  (and useful for more physically correct shading models where 
glossiness == roughness and a specular intensity == fac on a mic 
closure... Not to mention simpler stiuff like painting an alpha map.

I think that users can accept GLSL not being a /perfect/ representation 
of the final result, but  close enough.

Obviously, painting in "rendered" mode would be for those demanding 
absolute final output, but on even a butch system I'd still prefer a 
quick preview.


Quote:
/Mapping and Stacking
/


          /Questions /

    * /Do we need a type of texture stack, or are mix nodes enough? /
    * /Do we go for "fatter" texture nodes that contain e.g. mapping and
      color modification options, or for multiple lighter nodes? If we
      go for fatter nodes, how can we avoid the UI getting crowded by
      showing all those options? If we go for lighter nodes, how can we
      make managing them easier? /
    *


Personally I think that having a primary focus on a clear node editor is 
fine....  Using groups should be the focus for removing UI clutter....

I think that having lots of nodes isn't a problem as you can easily have 
"macros" to add specific setups  As long as the node editor is a central 
place to see what is going on then it's fine.