On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 11:15:27 +0200, Lukas Tönne <[email protected]> wrote:
> Either way it's very ugly and imo a problem with the current particle > system design (before you start shouting, i know particles will be > redesigned some time and there are more important things atm, so this > is just a theoretical question). How about this: Instead using one > object as the owner of the particle system and it's (only!) emitter at > the same time, wouldn't it be better to have particle systems as a > distinct object type (like mesh, light, etc.) and have a list of > objects, which function as emitters for this particle system? Not that > i would want to implement this right now, i would just like hear an > opinion on this (Jahka?). I've been playing with the idea of having particles separated from emitter objects for quite some time. I don't think making particles it's own object type is the right choice, but this could work very well by having particle systems defined in empties (hair should probably remain directly connected to the emitter though). This would allow for nice logical grouping of particle systems in different empties and allow for direct moving of the particles once they're baked by just moving the empty. The emitter object (or even a list of objects) for a particle system could then just be set as a parameter to the system. This would also be a small step in the direction towards node based particles codewise as it would separate particles from the emitter data. So while I don't have the time right now to start this project it's definitely something I'd like to pursue when I have the time. jahka _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
