[Bf-cycles] Remove old Sky Model

[Nathan Vegdahl]

Are we talking about removing this from Cycles, or removing it from
Blender?  Removing it from Cycles seems unnecessary to me.  As Stefan
illustrates, other software is now depending on Cycles as an engine,
so removing features impacts more than just Blender.

However, we can still choose to simply not expose legacy features of
Cycles in the Blender UI.  Right?

Is there some difficulty in approaching things that way?  Essentially,
treat Cycles like a library (avoid feature removal), but treat its
integration with Blender as a tool (hide legacy features in UI).  That
way we neither discourage others from integrating Cycles with their
tools, nor do we straight-jacket ourselves into a cluttered UI of
legacy features in Blender.

--Nathan

On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 3:34 AM, Thomas Dinges <blender at dingto.org> wrote:
> Hi,
> I reverted the commit now, so the Preetham Sky Model will still be
> available for the duration of 2.7x.
> I apologize for the inconvenience, I should have communicated the change
> better beforehand.
>
> For the 2.8x series of Blender, we can re-think this (and other things
> too), but best to make a list of changes first and discuss it.
>
> Best regards,
> Thomas
>
> Am 05.04.2016 um 10:55 schrieb Piotr Adamowicz:
>> Since Sergey mentioned there were not enough artists on the list -
>>
>> The removal of the old sky shader is no problem. Should there ever be
>> a need to render an old scene with the old sky in a new Blender
>> version, it's trivial to render the sky out to an environment texture
>> with an older Blender version. So IMHO it's fine to remove it for 2.8.
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 10:34 AM, Thomas Volkmann
>> <lists at thomasvolkmann.com> wrote:
>>>> 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)
>>> No one would complain for a new projects he (or she) is working on. However,
>>> if you replace shader completely, then you'll most likely have a complaint.
>>>
>>> It does happen when during movie production when you need to go back to a
>>> shot a re-render some frames. If they'll look different you'll be screwed to
>>> re-render full shot. This even happened during open movies here in the
>>> studio.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Usually you don't switch Software-versions during production. If you do on
>>> purpose then you are prepared to deal with changes. Once a project is
>>> finished it is tied to that software version, so if you're going to do some
>>> changes later, you dig out that old version of the Software (or you take
>>> your time to port it to a newer version).
>>>
>>> That said, minor version numbers should probably be consistent (e.g. the
>>> latest 2.7x can render render stuff done in 2.71). So best point for changes
>>> would be 2.8.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Just sayin',
>>>
>>> Thomas
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Bf-cycles mailing list
>>> 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