> * Slow parenting
> We've also used slow parenting for animation in the past,
> and just baked it to keyframes before farm submission - was
> very useful in those cases. If it's possible to reproduce the
> same functionality easily using some other method (drivers?),
> i don't mind getting rid of it though, especially if a pre-made
> script can be provided ;)

Just bake the child's animation and offset the bake in time.  This is
also more flexible.  You can have fast-parent too. ;-)

--Nathan Vegdahl

On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 8:22 AM, Matt Ebb <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Firstly I would quite strongly recommend against removing most shading 
> related things here, until we have a new shading system. There will already 
> be quite significant changes then, and I think it will be a better time to 
> clean out the old junk, when there's at least a better framework to build 
> functional replacements upon, or at least for users to construct replacements 
> themselves with improved nodes.
>
> Barring that, I agree with many of the non-controversial ones, some extra 
> notes/emphasis here:
>
> * Slow parenting
> We've also used slow parenting for animation in the past, and just baked it 
> to keyframes before farm submission - was very useful in those cases. If it's 
> possible to reproduce the same functionality easily using some other method 
> (drivers?), i don't mind getting rid of it though, especially if a pre-made 
> script can be provided ;)
>
> * Stars
> Yes please let's get rid of this, the code is pretty nasty too. There are 
> much better ways of achieving this.
>
> * Object Colour
> This has been quite useful for me in the past, as a way of individually 
> manipulating aspects of materials instanced multiple times in linked 
> objects/groups (yep, using animatable bones and drivers! Jez might remember 
> :). Though I used this pretty much by making a separate shadeless material 
> with ob colour on, that was used as an input into a node tree. I'd be happy 
> to see the current 'multiply by colour' method go, if the same functionality 
> could be added as part of an 'object data' input into a shader node tree for 
> example - i.e. this can be done in new shader system, but let's not remove 
> until then.
>
> * 3D View lock to object
> Why remove this? Been quite handy for some things in the past - ask Jez.
>
> * Blend Sky
> This is currently the only decent way to get tonal variation in environment 
> lighting (with AAO). I'd love to see the entire world shading get torn up and 
> replaced with something sensible (fixing the bizarre real/paper options, 
> strange hemispherical mapping modes, etc), and then the same functionality 
> could be available just using blend textures, which could then get properly 
> sampled for environment lighting, stored in spherical harmonics etc.. But 
> again, a job for new shading system, please don't remove it until then.
>
> * Environment Map
> Still very useful in some situations, we were still using it in production 
> work at promotion. Would not like to see this go.
>
> * Particle line rendering
> Still very useful - again, I'd love to see the halo system torn up/turned 
> into something better (eg. properly motion blurred points? krakatoa?), but 
> until there's a replacement, please keep.
>
> * Particle instance modifier
> Not sure if this has changed recently, but I used that a while ago as a way 
> of applying cloth sim to the results of an instanced particle sim for papers 
> flying in a tornado - don't think that's possible to do otherwise. If better 
> functionality for manipulating particle-instanced-objects becomes available, 
> sure  - but i wouldn't get rid of it until then.
>
> * Curves in the image editor
> Mentioned this in a tracker report, I think just replacing it with exposure 
> isn't really solving the problem - there needs to be a better distinction 
> between what is just a 'viewer' feature, so viewer exposure, viewer LUTs, etc 
> vs what's actually editing the image itself. The way it actually edits the 
> pixels of the 8bit representation of float images is quite nasty I think.
>
>
> cheers
>
> Matt
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-committers mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>
_______________________________________________
Bf-committers mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers

Reply via email to