[Bf-cycles] Please Give Us Back Volume&Surface Combos

[Daniel Salazar - 3Developer.com]

Well i don't know if he shouldn't or not, after all he MADE Cycles.
I'd just like a bit of explanation on why this choice

Daniel Salazar
3Developer.com



On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Michael Fox <mfoxdogg at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 13/10/11 06:22, Kel M wrote:
>
> Hi Brecht,
> I just noticed this commit go in today:
> "Cycles: replace surface/volume sockets in output nodes with a single shader
> socket,
>
> decided it's better to render objects as either surface or volume.
>
> This may break the volume rendering patch, but shaders with volume closures
> still
> get tagged as having volume closures, so it should be fixable without too
> many
> changes."
>
> "
> The ability to render an object with both a surface and a volume shader was
> a selling point of Cycles. It's how swimming pools must be rendered. I'm
> asking you to please revert this commit, I was able to make a bunch of
> beautiful ice sculptures with the volume patch because Cycles allowed both
> Surface and Volume on the same object.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-cycles mailing list
> Bf-cycles at blender.org
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-cycles
>
> i agree with this, you shouldn't be taking away slots as it takes away the
> flexibility that was a cornerstone of the nodal workflow when it was
> designed if anything we need to add the ability to add more sockets, like
> more displacment values and surface and volume so we can layer shaders
> rathur then mix or add them
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-cycles mailing list
> Bf-cycles at blender.org
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-cycles
>
>