Quick reply on this topic... * happy view-port is getting some attention, it needs it :)
* Project seems ambitious, suggest to provide minimum targets in your proposal. * I would feel better about this project if our view-code was in a better state, Ideally IMHO this code should be improved before large changes like this (draw modes and settings are mixed up and not nice from code or user POV) * One problem with large changes to our OpenGL drawing is our selection code which is tricky - mixed bone/object select, vertex select, face & vertex select in weight paint mode - supporting all configurations is probably not trivial if you plan to refactor this code. * Rule of thumb - we support 5 year old hardware, can this be done on standard/crappy GFX cards from 5 years ago? - if not is there a reasonable fallback which wont complicate things too badly? - Campbell On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Mike Erwin <[email protected]> wrote: > With all the major stuff you've done for sculpt, what I meant was "if > anyone can tackle a tough problem, it's you." Sorry for being unclear! > > So for instance the 3D view, would you issue one call like "3D view, > draw thyself", then composite widgets & overlays on top of that based > on a script? Or does it go deeper into how the 3D view is actually > drawn? Or am I missing the point entirely? > > Mike Erwin > musician, naturalist, pixel pusher, hacker extraordinaire > > > > On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 7:06 PM, Jason Wilkins > <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 4:50 PM, Michael Fox <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Oh yes it is more then a mess, its a nightmare, I am trying to add view >>> tessellation option to the view port, and im having one hell of a hard >>> time. we defiantly need an cleaning out >> >> I'm curious what you are trying to do. >> >> To answer Mike's question about if I can handle this, yes, I am rather >> confident. The fancy view port could be written along side the >> existing one where it can grow features until it replaces the old one. >> That is also good for A-B switching. >> >> Although I want to emphasis generality and programmability, which are >> sometimes evil tar-pits, I can start with a very domain specific set >> of pieces and replace those with more general pieces as time allows. >> >> In other words, as long as I don't try to jump straight to absolute >> best implementation right away I'll be fine. I think this is >> something that can be made to approach "perfection" over multiple >> iterations instead of something I get stuck in over my head. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 -- - Campbell _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
