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

Daniel Salazar - 3Developer.com zanqdo at gmail.com
Wed Oct 12 23:57:11 CEST 2011

Why would we worry about compatibility between two rendering engines
that are worlds apart? I don't think this is the case.. it would be
repeating the story of GLSL/Internal render compatibility which Brecht
clearly has stated he believes should not be attempted. I'll speak for
others here so sorry if this is not your opinion but if we decide to
switch the render engine on an ongoing animation project we should be
prepared to redo all shading, otherwise just stick to internal for
that specific project

I sincerely hope (and I think I'm right) this changes aren't made in
order to pursue any kind of compatibility between internal and cycles


Daniel Salazar

On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Michael Fox <mfoxdogg at gmail.com> wrote:
> i understand from his other commits, its to make the nodes compatible
> with Blender internal, which is shooting ourselves in foot, after all
> how can other renders make their own nodes or use the render api if they
> have to be compatible with blender internal. From what i can gather the
> new workflow will be you say in object properties, this is a volume
> object with no surface, or this is a surface object so don't do surfaces
> that kind of thing, which will not allow surfaced volumes like i made here
> http://pasteall.org/pic/show.php?id=18952
> <left to right, volume+transparent, glass, translucent>
> They were all made using nodes, adding gloss on top of another shader, i
> think what Brecht has in mind is fire and smoke, so it works with
> current way of rendering smoke, but is not realising volumetric shaders
> are used so much more then smoke and fire
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-cycles mailing list
> Bf-cycles at blender.org
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-cycles

More information about the Bf-cycles mailing list