[Bf-cycles] Remove old Sky Model

[Thomas Dinges]

As long as feature removal is communicated well and long in advance, I 
don't see why we should do half-baked things.

Sometimes removing features is not only a UI topic, removing larger 
parts is sometimes also helpful to cleanup code and decrease the kernel 
size (which is still an issue on the GPU). I rather not start with this 
policy, either we remove something or we keep it.

Am 14.04.2016 um 19:02 schrieb 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
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-cycles mailing list
> Bf-cycles at blender.org
> https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-cycles