[Bf-committers] Compositing View Port Proposal
jason.a.wilkins at gmail.com
Wed Mar 28 08:58:51 CEST 2012
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 8:43 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!
I think I understood this is what you meant, but I'm not invincible by
any stretch. It is good to make sure something is achievable in the
limited time available.
> 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?
This looks like a reasonable summary. I do not think it really "goes
deeper" except, for example, you might be able to support something
like deferred lighting eventually. I say "eventually" because my goal
at this point is not to provide a full game engine like capability
like you'd see in Unreal or Unity.
Honestly, this is to just to be able to do a couple of things I want
to do for sculpt, but which actually fall into the category of view
port drawing :)
> 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
> Bf-committers mailing list
> Bf-committers at blender.org
More information about the Bf-committers