On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 11:39 PM, Matt Ebb <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 10:39 PM, Campbell Barton <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Revision: 36779 >> >> http://projects.blender.org/scm/viewvc.php?view=rev&root=bf-blender&revision=36779 >> Author: campbellbarton >> Date: 2011-05-19 12:39:57 +0000 (Thu, 19 May 2011) >> Log Message: >> ----------- >> modify fcurve evaluation for bool/enum/int values. was converting from a >> float to an int which means 0.9x evaluates to 0.0, negative numbers are also >> rounded up. >> >> Round at 0.5 instead & treat negative numbers the same. >> > > Hi Cam, > > I don't think this is such a good idea - if you're animating a bool/int > property with a curve you want it clearly defined. Currently having it stay > 0 until the curve passes 1 works well, it's very explicit and clear as to > where the transition will be. Having a curve progressing from 0 to 1 > switching values now at 0.5 is quite untintuitive in the context of fcurves. > > cheers > > Matt > > PS. This commit also may have broken old animations in some files.
Aligorith and I discussed this before committing, and are aware of the implications. To me if you are editing floats, but have them converted to ints later it makes most sense (on a user level), to round them. If the GUI makes it unintuitive then it should be made intuitive (grid lines when zoomed in for example), if you want I can add this. Nevertheless, this isn't an issue I feel strongly about, and I'm not an animator :), but at the very least it should use floor(value), rather then (int)value, this still potentially breaks old files, but the cases of animating ints that go negative is small enough IMHO that the correction is acceptable. Otherwise a straight, linear fcurve can give the same value twice when switching sign. _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
