[Bf-committers] The Future of Blender Projects WAS meeting notes
ideasman42 at gmail.com
Mon Jun 18 09:47:20 CEST 2012
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Patrick Shirkey
<pshirkey at boosthardware.com> wrote:
> On Mon, June 18, 2012 8:55 am, Campbell Barton wrote:
>> @Patrick Shirkey,
>> please don't request specific features on this thread - this has the
>> effect of turning all planning threads into wish-lists which active
>> devs tend to skip reading & not take so seriously.
>> This is a developer list - if you want some specific engine or one
>> feature back from 2.4x you can code it right?
> Of course.
>> What you _could_ suggest is an api for game engines to be more easily
>> integrated - so adding engine support worked better (something Apricot
>> project was supposed to resolve but didn't really).
> I was attempting to make the point that the whole process of exporting a
> model with an active rig is not obvious.
Could you explain what you mean by this? - for the developer or for the user?
What should be changed/improved?
I used cube/iqm as an example but
> I think it applies across the board. It seems to be an interface/usability
> issue. From my research it also seems that it is a low priority for
> developers but I think it would be a very powerful project to have some
> renewed focus on as blender could be used to spit out whole armies in
> batch mode. In that regard I am more than willing to discuss some possible
> improvements but I am not sure that this list is the correct place to
> discuss such interface issues.
> An API to integrate games engines more effectively is definitely a good
> thing(tm). Perhaps they go hand in hand?
More information about the Bf-committers