[Bf-cycles] Remove old Sky Model

Thomas Dinges blender at dingto.org
Mon Apr 4 18:11:37 CEST 2016


The benefit is "get rid of legacy algorithms". If we would get a more 
realistic Glass shader (at the same performance level), no one would 
complain that the render looks different (aka backwards compat 
breakage). We kinda have the same argument here. Even in the Hosek 
paper, it directly compares with the Preetham model.

I can add it back for 2.7x (to keep compatibility, as Ton suggested), 
but later I really like to remove it. I don't want to end up with a 
Blender Internal 2.0, which has gazillions of buttons and options after 
5 years.

Am 04.04.2016 um 17:07 schrieb David Fenner:
> I agree with stefan. Sometimes I use the old model just as a 
> complement, or to get a gradient coloured gi instead of a plain color 
> or a full fledged sky. Matched with a few lights can make some good 
> looking scenes, even if they are not realistic (which of course is 
> hardly a priority in many projects).
> 2016-04-04 11:44 GMT-03:00 Stefan Werner <swerner at smithmicro.com 
> <mailto:swerner at smithmicro.com>>:
>     Hi,
>     Is there any benefit to removing the old sky model? Just because
>     developers think that the new model is better doesn’t mean that
>     all users will agree. The new model may be more realistic, but one
>     may use the older model for artistic reasons. Some will have
>     scenes that rely on the old model, and unless there is a reason to
>     break those scenes, I’d vote in favor of keeping it. Besides a few
>     bytes of code, keeping the old model around doesn’t come with any
>     extra cost, does it?
>     Stefan Werner  |  Senior Software Engineer; Productivity & Graphics
>     Smith Micro Software, Inc.  | http://www.smithmicro.com
>     <http://www.smithmicro.com/>
>     On 4/4/16, 3:43 PM, "bf-cycles-bounces at blender.org
>     <mailto:bf-cycles-bounces at blender.org> on behalf of Thomas Dinges"
>     <bf-cycles-bounces at blender.org
>     <mailto:bf-cycles-bounces at blender.org> on behalf of
>     blender at dingto.org <mailto:blender at dingto.org>> wrote:
>     >Hi Ton,
>     >
>     >I really hoped for the 2.8x project to finally kick of. It was
>     announced
>     >almost a year ago, and sounded quite promising (including the
>     >possibility for module teams to do bigger cleanups).
>     >
>     >If we decide to stick to the 2.7x series for much longer (2.78,
>     2.79...)
>     >then *that* is something, that we need a roadmap for.
>     >Because if that will be the case, I'd ask for a Cycles branch,
>     where we
>     >can work on bigger topics.
>     >
>     >I would like to mention here though, that I wanted to just replace
>     >Preetham with Hosek in 2013, when I added it. Back then Brecht
>     suggested
>     >to keep it for a bit. Now 2 years later, I'd like to remove it,
>     as Hosek
>     >is much more realistic. When will such changes be possible, without
>     >conflicting with  the BF schedule?
>     >
>     >Best regards,
>     >Thomas
>     _______________________________________________
>     Bf-cycles mailing list
>     Bf-cycles at blender.org <mailto:Bf-cycles at blender.org>
>     https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-cycles
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-cycles mailing list
> Bf-cycles at blender.org
> https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-cycles

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.blender.org/pipermail/bf-cycles/attachments/20160404/a2fcd049/attachment.htm 

More information about the Bf-cycles mailing list