This would be internally inconsistent though, and frankly seems like overkill to me. +1 from me on Gandalf's soft/ hard limit suggestion.
Sent from my iPhone On Apr 30, 2016, at 1:39 AM, Rain Gloom <[email protected]> wrote: > IMHO a warning would suffice. It shouldn't be hard to compute an estimate > of the number of resulting vertices/faces, so the warning could say > something like: "This will create <resulting-number-of-vertices> which > might slow down your computer." > Same thing as asking before overwriting a file or closing without saving. > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 6:36 AM, gandalf3 <[email protected]> wrote: > >> As seen in this SE question >> <http://blender.stackexchange.com/q/51525/599>, the current hard-maximum >> number of subdivision cuts (100) is easily within the realm of what >> users would like to use. >> >> What is the reasoning behind having a hard-maximum at all? I can >> understand having a soft-maximum to protect against accidentally setting >> the number of cuts too high, but that system is already in place and >> works well. >> >> Would it not be more user-friendly to allow any number to be typed >> directly, especially if the user wants a prime number of cuts? >> >> This maximum apparently didn't exist in 2.74 >> _______________________________________________ >> Bf-committers mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers >> > _______________________________________________ > Bf-committers mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers > _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
