[Bf-funboard] Re: Layers: The way they ARE
Thorsten Wilms
bf-funboard@blender.org
Fri, 5 Dec 2003 17:18:50 +0100
On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 10:18:37AM -0500, Karim Nassar wrote:
>
> Woah.... Ton, are you saying that when you unlock a 3-d view's layer
> buttons, that those buttons now point to "different layers" altogether??
No, that isn't the case. Only the layers settings are then independet
from that of the scene. So locked means layer states as indicated
by buttons are that of the scene. Unlocked means local layer states
for the 3d view.
> Forgive me for saying so, but that is really a bit screwy. Lot's of
> potential for things to get "lost." No... I must be reading that wrong.
About going lost: the local settings are lost when you lock the view.
> In any case, in light of the way Layers currently work, maybe the right
> way to go about this is to look at re-designing the OOPS window
> after-all. It may be simpler to build an Object Manager with the sort of
> control we need out of the OOPS engine.
A treeview is much easier to navigate.
Regarding the OOPS view: Somebody should take a look at Houdini's and Maya's
networks (or whatever they're called there). And also at Solidworks
hierrarchic system. Some inspiration might come from modular (software)
synthesizers. Hm, maybe I will do it.
Anybody knows of other network like or hierarchic structures that could
be of interest?
What I would like to see (and might try to design):
An object system with all kinds of relations that are as unified as possible.
(That means not using independent concepts for things that are rather similar,
if you look at them from the right perspective).
Something along inheritance and/or linking.
Maybe integrated branched undo/redo on all levels (single objects or whole
scenes).
Every parameter animatable, with the possibility to use the same IPO
curves for different things with some signal processing.
It should be possible to feed audio and midi into the paramter system.
---
Thorsten