[Bf-committers] Blender developers meeting notes, 9 April 2016

Alexander Romanov a.romanov at blend4web.com
Tue Apr 12 10:49:23 CEST 2016

Hi all!
I have some thoughts about removing BI in Blender 2.8.
1) I've tried to remove BI code and found that there must be some active 
render engine, so, at least one always should be built in the core and 
for now it is BI. We can select Cycles, but it is an addon, which can be 
disabled. Should we isolate the common part of all Viewport engines? For 
example, solid and wireframe modes could be common. For now the Cycles 
and BI shading in solid mode is different.
2) BI(CPU side) has a more strong reliance with the core then Cycles. 
They are just parts of monolithic kernel. But this reliance can be weakened.
3) Blend4Web developers don't really like the idea of BI permanent 
removal. Because the future is still not clear and we don't know what 
functionality the future Viewport will have and how soon it will 
cover/replace the current capabilities.
4) In addition BI Viewport at the moment is the only self-sufficient 
real time renderer for Blender. Cycles so far is underdeveloped. Also, 
it is not known what would be the basis for the future Viewport system. 
Clement's work? Or some other system with new nodes, that is more 
compatible with the deferred shading technology?
5) So, my proposal is to reduce relationship between the core and BI and 
put BI into an addon. I want to keep the old node system, at least for 
the first time. Of course, OpenGL BI code will stay in the core, since 
we have no infrastructure to build it separately (and probably we will 
never exclude the viewport from the core into a module because of 
monolithic kernel policy). So I would like to help to refactor Viewport 
in order to keep the old node system.

On 10.04.2016 13:29, Ton Roosendaal wrote:
> Hi,
> Before we get upset (or happy) about the removing bizz, let's be very clear.
> There are two types of "remove". One is a temporary remove (for refactor, recode or redesign), and the other is a permanent removal.
> The first category will be quite easy to agree on. For the second category we can do a long review and insist on a wide consensus by the teams.
> The "remove" sequencer or game engine thefore should be read as "recode".
> -Ton-
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Ton Roosendaal  -  ton at blender.org   -   www.blender.org
> Chairman Blender Foundation, Producer Blender Institute/Studio
> Entrepotdok 57A  -  1018AD Amsterdam  -  The Netherlands
>> On 09 Apr 2016, at 22:23, Aaron Carlisle <carlisle.b3d at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think that blender internal should be removed, permanently.
>> And instead be replaced by the improved view port.
>> Just my two cents :)
>> On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Ton Roosendaal <ton at blender.org> wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> Here are the notes from today's LA 10 AM timezone meeting, #blendercoders
>>> irc.freenode.
>>> 1) Blender 2.77a release
>>> - The release went out last week, all is fine with it. No showstoppers in
>>> bug tracker.
>>> 2) Blender 2.78 (or 2.8)
>>> - There are a couple of ongoing projects we can do a new release for. No
>>> planning yet.
>>>   (VR rendering, Headmounted disply support, Alembic, etc)
>>> - Main meeting topic was brought in by Thomas Dinges: where are the plans
>>> for 2.8!?
>>> Meeting agreed on not planning any new release before we (also) have a
>>> solid planning for 2.8.
>>> - A good way to get this started is to open a (first) 2.8 branch with all
>>> of the code we
>>> want to refactor or redesign removed. That could mean: no viewport code,
>>> no particles, no
>>> game engine, no sequencer, etc. It's OK if the branch is dysfunctional for
>>> a while.
>>> Developers who then need to do even more radical work can fork this branch
>>> and work on
>>> their modules.
>>> We did something similar back then for 2.5. In the end we just put back a
>>> lot of old code
>>> still - for the sake of having things work - but we could also fix a lot
>>> of design flaws.
>>> Next meeting (18 April) we aim at having a 2.8 branch proposal for the
>>> meeting to agree on.
>>> 3) Other projects
>>> - Kevin Dietrich has an Alembic patch ready for review:
>>> https://developer.blender.org/T48075
>>> - Mai Lavelle submitted Cycles microdisplacement code. Brecht van Lommel
>>> reviews.
>>> https://github.com/maiself/blender/tree/microdisp
>>> -Ton-
>>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>> Ton Roosendaal  -  ton at blender.org   -   www.blender.org
>>> Chairman Blender Foundation - Producer Blender Institute
>>> Entrepotdok 57A  -  1018AD Amsterdam  -  The Netherlands
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Bf-committers mailing list
>>> Bf-committers at blender.org
>>> https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bf-committers mailing list
>> Bf-committers at blender.org
>> https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-committers mailing list
> Bf-committers at blender.org
> https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers

Alexander Romanov (Blend4Web Team)

More information about the Bf-committers mailing list