[Bf-committers] The Future of Blender Projects WAS meeting notes
congcong009 at gmail.com
Mon Jun 18 16:10:10 CEST 2012
1, For Ocean Modifier, I hope there will be a better way to simulate the
water interaction with boat or something above the wave. The currently fake
workflow just pain for more details. FYI:
2, Improved Outline System, sometimes it will be better to get a clean
button to re-organize the linked source or unused texture, action,
materials etc. Now I have to click each linked path and press X to clean
them. And a reload button will be cool to refresh the linked objects,
reopen is not the best way to save the time.
3, A better Muscle System? Shrinkwrap is not the best fake way to do this
4, And for PO translator, a real time translation env will cheers us to
check the result immediately.
5, A better support for UTF-8 will be cool! If I compiled blender source
code in a Chinese operation system, some system date var issue will throw
me exception to finish the build process. And if I open browser in Blender
to check my files, all the Chinese character will show cubes there. That is
So much for today, thanks for all! :)
*罗聪翼/Ethan Luo* <congcong009 at gmail.com>
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 6:59 PM, Campbell Barton <ideasman42 at gmail.com>wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Patrick Shirkey
> <pshirkey at boosthardware.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, June 18, 2012 9:47 am, Campbell Barton wrote:
> >> 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
> >>> 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?
> > >From a Developer perspective it seems to be a bit hard to program for
> > exporter API when someone like Eihrul has troubles with getting the iqm
> > exporter to work cleanly. That suggests to me that the learning curve for
> > getting things right is a bit steep.
> Exporting armatures is tricky - but I don't think the API has bad,
> more that we could use better docs, examples and possibly add some
> helper functions (get the bone relative rest/pose in different spaces
> - its a common problem that different formats expect this data in
> different spaces).
> Note that we already worked on this area docs/helpers api functions at
> least... but could do more.
> also x_axis, center, children_recursive ... are helpers to make the
> api easier to use.
> However I think converting between different rig representations is
> also inherently difficult - especially when the format has for
> example, bones that dont have a length - or the length moves along a
> different axis then in blender.
> > >From a users perspective it's really quite difficult to export a skinned
> > and rigged model correctly. So that suggests the interface is too complex
> > or abstract. Perhaps there needs to be a wizard that steps through the
> > process.
> > >From an advanced user perspective I see no good reason apart from "no
> > has had the time/money" that it is not possible to apply a set of
> > (preset) movements to any mesh (or mesh type). That would allow very
> > prototyping of potential models for game engines and virtual 3d
> > environments.
> > arm, finger, leg, toe, head, eye, mouth
> > These are rig configurations that are essential to exporting 3d models
> > it seems like a glaring omission that Blender doesn't provide some sane
> > and well tested defaults which can be quickly applied by a normal user.
> > they are already there then they are well hidden or abstracted.
> Have you used rigify? Sounds like this should do what you want.
> >> 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?
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Bf-committers mailing list
> >> Bf-committers at blender.org
> >> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
> > --
> > Patrick Shirkey
> > Boost Hardware Ltd
> > _______________________________________________
> > Bf-committers mailing list
> > Bf-committers at blender.org
> > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
> - Campbell
> Bf-committers mailing list
> Bf-committers at blender.org
More information about the Bf-committers