another idea is, why can we not just vote for features ? And the team could try there best to make them ? Like Ton does lots of stuff, but the others are so free to do what they want , is there no way that we can get them to offer support and make a feature that everyone votes on ?
One at a time a feature could be made…
Because some features are “more equal” than other features.
Some bugs and features are relatively easy to implement. Most require more work. One problem is when a feature affects different areas of code. It takes more work to implement and then it must be tested.
What if the feature seems simple, but the underlying code won’t support it without a major restructuring? <sarcasm on>I’m sure everyone would wait patiently for Blender to be completely re-written to support a specific feature. <sarcasm off>
In a sense, we do have a vote on features. You can do your own programming and contribute to the overall software or write plug-ins for your specific needs.
Each user has different priorities. For some, including the game engine is #1. Other users don’t care. Animation tools? Rendering improvements vs. external renderers?
I think the development team does a very good job of including a mixed bag of new features with each release. There is something for everyone even if it is not 100% (like any software could be the perfect application for everyone).
Don’t know about the IK stuff, but I’m currently working on some extensions to the NLA/Armature system that will make it kick some ass, from a user standpoint. One of the problems with people modifying Armature/NLA is that the code is really really weird.
Also, at any time, anyone here is free to trade their paintbrush for a wrench, like I’ve done.
The reason people don’t vote for features is that coders work on what is interesting to them. They are not paid, and most will not work on something that they care little about. Now, if really wanted to, you’d set up a “bounty” system, where people would vote in $5 increments for a feature. If enough people voted for it, some programmer would decide to take that bounty and code it for the cash. Otherwise, it won’t be happening.
There’s something to be said as well for programmers who work on features they care about. Those features tend to work a lot better than someone just trying to fulfill a request. This, I think, is a true strength.
to be honest it looks like each post has some good point! each one.
but i could understand that the wired code structire of blender might have a affect on getting new features into blender working fine and not colliding with other functions!
claas
One good thing that I’ve noticed since Blender went open source is that
the community is viewing it more critically. Back in the NaN days It seemed to me that people were a bit too defensive about it in what ever it’s given state was. These days they are more willing to look at it objectively and see what it is lacking.
Yes and that’s because it’s still not up to the standards of useability, controlability and predictability to be ported.
That’s BS. Pretty much all the regular coders are responsible for at least one “module” and therefore responsible for the bug reports related to it, patches submitted that relates to it and so forth.
Maybe I’m missing something, but what’s the difference between Cessen’s first toon shader and when it was ported and it now fixed with all the correct ranges?
Martin
argh sorry theeth i ment his surface shaders. for more info see his own post!
His post where? Here? blender.org? The mailing list?
A link would be nice. If there’s something wrong in the port of his code, it would be nice to fix it.
Martin
no nothing is wrong with his code.
in his thread cessen explained the difference between his original version and what got into offical version. in his version the shaders were access a bit different and had bigger values to use. ton explained that he narrowed the values down to settings users might use most times. (pro. to make it faster and easier to get results you want)
but just that is what many combo all in one apps harmed them later.
they limited themself.
claas
AFAIK, the values were enlarged latter on and now fits the original ranges.
Martin