[Bf-committers] Compositing View Port Proposal

[Campbell Barton]

Quick reply on this topic...

* happy view-port is getting some attention, it needs it :)

* Project seems ambitious, suggest to provide minimum targets in your proposal.

* I would feel better about this project if our view-code was in a
better state, Ideally IMHO this code should be improved before large
changes like this (draw modes and settings are mixed up and not nice
from code or user POV)

* One problem with large changes to our OpenGL drawing is our
selection code which is tricky - mixed bone/object select, vertex
select, face & vertex select in weight paint mode - supporting all
configurations is probably not trivial if you plan to refactor this
code.

* Rule of thumb - we support 5 year old hardware, can this be done on
standard/crappy GFX cards from 5 years ago? - if not is there a
reasonable fallback which wont complicate things too badly?

- Campbell

On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Mike Erwin <significant.bit at gmail.com> wrote:
> With all the major stuff you've done for sculpt, what I meant was "if
> anyone can tackle a tough problem, it's you." Sorry for being unclear!
>
> So for instance the 3D view, would you issue one call like "3D view,
> draw thyself", then composite widgets & overlays on top of that based
> on a script? Or does it go deeper into how the 3D view is actually
> drawn? Or am I missing the point entirely?
>
> Mike Erwin
> musician, naturalist, pixel pusher, hacker extraordinaire
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 7:06 PM, Jason Wilkins
> <jason.a.wilkins at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 4:50 PM, Michael Fox <mfoxdogg at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Oh yes it is more then a mess, its a nightmare, I am trying to add view
>>> tessellation option to the view port, and im having one hell of a hard
>>> time. we defiantly need an cleaning out
>>
>> I'm curious what you are trying to do.
>>
>> To answer Mike's question about if I can handle this, yes, I am rather
>> confident.  The fancy view port could be written along side the
>> existing one where it can grow features until it replaces the old one.
>>  That is also good for A-B switching.
>>
>> Although I want to emphasis generality and programmability, which are
>> sometimes evil tar-pits, I can start with a very domain specific set
>> of pieces and replace those with more general pieces as time allows.
>>
>> In other words, as long as I don't try to jump straight to absolute
>> best implementation right away I'll be fine.  I think this is
>> something that can be made to approach "perfection" over multiple
>> iterations instead of something I get stuck in over my head.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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



-- 
- Campbell