Is there any reason why we couldn't have the warning in the modifier GUI rather than a popup?
Something like Current Lvl: 256 Next Lvl: 1024 Cheers, -Andy On 30/04/2016 13:43, Fazekas László wrote: > Just an idea: sometimes when I mistakenly release something what is > memory hungry, a watchdog would be useful, and not only for the > subdivision. When an older (ie. 1-2 cores) machine is starting to use > the swap, sometimes it's nearly impossible even to open a terminal to > kill Blender. After x% of memory usage, a watchdog should pause the > process (on threading level, or with a trap at the malloc function) and > should ask the user what to do, with an option to undo the last edit. > > Fazek > > 2016-04-30 11:53 keltezéssel, Rain Gloom írta: >> Yeah, on second thought the warning would get irritating pretty fast. I >> vote on Gandalf's too. >> >> On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 9:25 AM, Patrick Boelens <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> 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 >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
