[Bf-committers] blender as ui for game engine

Tue Jan 26 18:25:18 CET 2016

If others are willing to implement the plugin architecture I personally
have no feelings towards, it misses the point that I was trying to push
forward. I do not want blender to change or to start focusing on game
developers, I know that's a fool's errand. What I want to do is very simple
to explain.

Take all the core c files dealing with the blender DNA/RNA data structures
and refactor them so that anything that needs access to those data
structures can just include those header files and deal with the DNA/RNA
data structures, that would include loading, saving and accessing anything
within a blender scene. Pretty much exposing a specific subset of the
python api that deals with the scene, model, materials, nodes, etc... only
exposing it at a lower level from the c api.

Once that's done anyone could use blender to design their levels, use the c
api to write out some data in whatever format their engine want's to
consume. It's not turning blender into a game engine, it's just allowing
blender to export it's data in different way.

If the core of blender is refactored in the way that I am suggesting, it
could be like this:
https://www.blender.org/api/blender_python_api_2_76_2/info_quickstart.html

without the cons and using the c programming language. Although I am mostly
interested in the aspects dealing with the scenes, materials, cameras, etc.

Best,
Owen

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 1:06 AM, Ton Roosendaal <ton at blender.org> wrote:

> Hi Kai,
>
> The open movie datasets were never available for download, to save
> precious blender.org bandwidth. These were sold as DVDs in our store.
> Helped to make Blender!
>
> The costs you had to pay for 1 movie project DVD box ($34) is higher than
> 3 months access to download every movie project in cloud now ($30). Cloud
> uses a commercial CDN for this.
>
> You only pay for the service, it's all free data still. Share and use it
> as you wish.
>
> Obviously the issue is not about the money you would have to pay for
> plugins, it's about reducing the functional scope of the core software
> project (free & public benefit) and forcing users to start shopping to get
> stuff done (commercial or 'free' plugins). This infrastructure would invite
> crippling and 'evaluation' plugins and deliver you to the mercy and moods
> of vendors who will likely not consider public benefit as important as
> Blender Foundation does.
>
> -Ton-
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Ton Roosendaal  -  ton at blender.org   -   www.blender.org
> Chairman Blender Foundation - Producer Blender Institute
> Entrepotdok 57A  -  1018AD Amsterdam  -  The Netherlands
>
>
>
> > On 26 Jan, 2016, at 14:57, Kai Kostack <kaikostack at gmx.net> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> >> Secondary: plugin architectures are popular for closed source
> environments, or
> >> semi-open environments where the goal is to build a commercial
> infrastructure
> >> for plugin vendors. That is not something I believe will serve our goals
> >> better. Did you check the "open fx" plugins? It's a disaster, plugins
> adding
> >> watermarks over your art telling you to pay them first.
> >>
> >> But I can be wrong! Revive K3D or Moonlight3d - all plugin
> architectures who
> >> claimed Blender to be a disaster 12 years ago already. I would love to
> see
> >> competition and see other approaches to make 3d tools work well.
> >
> > Technical aspects aside, I think it's the strong leadership what made
> the Blender
> > project big rather than the lack of an efficient plugin system. The
> argument that
> > reduced flexibility of Blender should scare proprietary business models
> away
> > appears somehow weird to me. That's what I read between the lines here,
> but I can
> > be wrong though. What is the purpose of the Blender Market then? Also I
> honestly
> > dislike the idea of putting the open movie project datasets, as best
> > educational source on how to use Blender out there, behind a paywall, but
> > that's another story. While I understand all the difficulties associated
> with
> > financing a stable development of Blender, I would consider this
> rationale for
> > not having a plugin system debatable at best.
> >
> > -- Kai
> >
> > P.S.: I don't like watermarks on art either though.
> >
> >
> >> Gesendet: Freitag, 22. Januar 2016 um 21:13 Uhr
> >> Von: "Ton Roosendaal" <ton at blender.org>
> >> An: "bf-blender developers" <bf-committers at blender.org>
> >> Betreff: Re: [Bf-committers] blender as ui for game engine
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >>> During Blender conference 2015, the question was raised why blender
> did not
> >> support these ideas or projects, Mr Roosendaals' reply was: "if you
> want that,
> >> you will just have to create your own community" (I am paraphrasing
> here, but
> >> it is essentially what he said)
> >>
> >> Well obviously there's a rationale for not going for a plugin
> architecture. As
> >> for any concept, there are pros and cons related to Plugin
> architectures.
> >>
> >> Blender's architecture is not plug-in based at all, and that's
> purposely so, by
> >> design.
> >> 3D Max - for example - was designed ground up with a plugin
> architecture.
> >>
> >> To convert the current design into a plugin architecture is not a
> recommended
> >> project. It will conflict too often with (old) designs. You better
> start from
> >> scratch with a new design then.
> >>
> >> Secondary: plugin architectures are popular for closed source
> environments, or
> >> semi-open environments where the goal is to build a commercial
> infrastructure
> >> for plugin vendors. That is not something I believe will serve our goals
> >> better. Did you check the "open fx" plugins? It's a disaster, plugins
> adding
> >> watermarks over your art telling you to pay them first.
> >>
> >> If we want to have a true free/open source creation environment, we
> have to
> >> make sure that the program works without needing a plugins externally.
> For
> >> everything, the whole pipeline. On top of that we can make sure that
> this
> >> environment is extensible and configurable. Addons and occasional
> plugins then
> >> can help with it, but can be limited to expert cases or special use
> cases.
> >>
> >> But I can be wrong! Revive K3D or Moonlight3d - all plugin
> architectures who
> >> claimed Blender to be a disaster 12 years ago already. I would love to
> see
> >> competition and see other approaches to make 3d tools work well.
> >>
> >> -Ton-
> >>
> >> --------------------------------------------------------
> >> Ton Roosendaal - ton at blender.org - www.blender.org[
> http://www.blender.org]
> >> Chairman Blender Foundation - Producer Blender Institute
> >> Entrepotdok 57A - 1018AD Amsterdam - The Netherlands
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 22 Jan, 2016, at 19:49, hewi jupama <hewi at jupama.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> How I love this discussion, you (may) know me.
> >>>
> >>> Allow me to again write you too many lines for people not to have time
> to
> >> read ;)
> >>>
> >>>>> What part of Blender's C core is neglected exactly?
> >>>
> >>> How funny you are asking. have you ever looked at the creator.c file,
> the
> >> first and most basic file from blender, where it all starts:
> >>>
> >>> if (G.background) {
> >>> /* actually incorrect, but works for now (ton) */
> >>> WM_exit(C);
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> auch, that is when I say +1 for me. And literally, this is just the
> start!
> >> The blender C core code is riddled with these comments and hacks and it
> needs
> >> lots and lots of refactoring. If you don't agree or see that, mmmh ...
> ? (don't
> >> know how to put that nicely so I wont put anything :)
> >>>
> >>>>> However the purpose of the "Blender" project is to:
> >>>>> "build a free and open source complete 3D creation pipeline for
> >>>>> artists and small teams."
> >>>
> >>> You are however absolutely right, the blender foundation wants to
> provide "a
> >> tool for ... " It is very important and a real privilege to see blender
> is
> >> sticking to these goals. Many projects fail because they divert from
> their
> >> initial goal!
> >>>
> >>> We are discussing the preparation of the blender source code for 2020,
> to
> >> make it extendable and easily maintainable. To make it stick to the
> current
> >> conventions and guidelines on coding and project management (e.g. the
> >> ubiquitous right hand rule of XYZ Axis as a main source of sadness
> every time I
> >> open blender). This, apparently, has nothing to do with current blender
> vision
> >> nor it's goals. I see that now (I was involved very closely in the
> Blender
> >> Plugin System (BPS) discussion).
> >>>
> >>>>> we're not looking to prevent you from trying this.
> >>>
> >>> But you're not providing much of support either. I was actually
> prohibited by
> >> Mr Roosendaal himself to discuss the BPS system on the developer irc
> channel
> >> "as it is not a supported project from the blender foundation". Well,
> that
> >> makes me very sad.
> >>>
> >>>>> But *expecting* this will be accepted into master isn't reasonable
> >>>
> >>> Exactly wright and 100% correct yet again. During Blender conference
> 2015,
> >> the question was raised why blender did not support these ideas or
> projects, Mr
> >> Roosendaals' reply was: "if you want that, you will just have to create
> your
> >> own community" (I am paraphrasing here, but it is essentially what he
> said)
> >>>
> >>> So basically, any discussion to refactor blender's source should be
> taken
> >> offline or elsewhere online, until the dev's and Ton see the benefit
> and are
> >> convinced of the relevance.
> >>>
> >>>> That's why I sent this email out to the group to see how many people
> would
> >>>> be willing to support me while I did this but the response seems less
> than
> >>>> luke warm, although I might be totally wrong.
> >>>
> >>> I had this idea already somewhere Dec 2013. My idea was to create a BUI
> >> (blender user interface) and extend that using a plugin system.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Dev:Ref/Proposals/UI/BUI_BlenderUserInterface[
> >>
> http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Dev:Ref/Proposals/UI/BUI_BlenderUserInterface
> ]
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> http://blenderartists.org/forum/showthread.php?319727-BUI-BlenderUserInterface&p
> >> =2528068&viewfull=1#post2528068[
> http://blenderartists.org/forum/showthread.php?3
> >> 19727-BUI-BlenderUserInterface&p=2528068&viewfull=1#post2528068]
> >>>
> >>> My intention to achieve this is still not just luke warm but boiling
> hot.
> >> Despite all the ice cubes that were thrown in my path. I have source
> code ready
> >> to be reviewed. I just need a place to drop it and we can start
> developing.
> >>>
> >>> If you look through the spaghetti source code and all it's circular
> >> dependencies, you will find the source is not that hard at all. It of
> course
> >> needs time and a good initial set-up.
> >>>
> >>> throw me a private line "hewi at jupama.org" to discuss future evolution
> of this
> >> idea. Discussing it here will only cool you down.
> >>>
> >>> KR, hewi
> >>>
> >>> ps: Again i have though hard and long and over and over and doubted and
> >> re-read and re-phrased before I pushed the send button. But, freedom of
> speech
> >> in mind, I finally did.
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Bf-committers mailing list
> >>> Bf-committers at blender.org
> >>>
> >>
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers[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[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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-committers mailing list
> Bf-committers at blender.org
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>