Remember, these are 10 and 11-year-olds :) I think patching and building stuff would be confusing at that age level, especially considering that the school computer lab machines are all Windows.
But it would be a great suggestion for an older group, say high-school level. James On 08/09/2013 11:01, Gavin Howard wrote: > James, > > Even if it can't be applied for 2.69, you can do something else. You can > teach the club how to BUILD Blender on their own machines. > > Of course, I don't know if they would like that, but if they would, then > you can teach them how to apply the patch to the sources, build, and then > test it. It might be pretty fun for them to have a "customized Blender". > > God Bless, > Gavin Howard > > > On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 10:51 AM, James Yonan <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Can this patch be considered for inclusion in 2.69? All feedback has >> been incorporated, and the patch has been in the field for several >> months (applied to 2.68a) with no known issues. >> >> >> https://projects.blender.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=35183&group_id=9&atid=127 >> >> I'm going to be hosting a Blender club at my son's elementary school, >> and we need this patch, otherwise we can't record the animation of >> static objects that are controlled by logic bricks, which means that we >> can't do cool stuff like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yltDGgW4jd0 >> >> One could argue that this is a bug fix, since the capability to record >> the animation of static objects existed in previous blender versions (< >> 2.60) and was removed without explanation. >> >> James >> >> On 01/05/2013 03:32, Dalai Felinto wrote: >>> Hi James, >>> Could you upload the patch in the blender tracker? >>> http://projects.blender.org/tracker/?atid=127&group_id=9&func=browse >>> >>> It's better to discuss eventual changes there >>> (and an example file there would help as well). >>> >>> My only concern with the patch (and we are better off discussing that in >>> the tracker) is that I would probably have a m_animate property >>> (instead of objprop.m_static_animate). >>> This way we don't need to check IsDynamyc() inside RecordAnimation(). >>> >>> That also means that if you have a dynamic object and temporary disable >> its >>> Dynamics (via logic bricks) the object will still has its movements >>> recorded, which I think it's reasonable (it may already happen, not sure >> if >>> the actuator affects the result of IsDynamic() - too late now for me to >>> check the code ;). >>> >>> Nice video by the way. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Dalai >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> > _______________________________________________ > 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
