Return of the old features BI in the new issue (as a wish)


  1. Return Radiosity modeling and rendering (aproximate indirect lighting not produce shadows)
  2. Return Texture plugin support for better texture paterns in texture nodes
  3. Return Pynodes support for material nodes

Question to developers: Why this features not support in actual releases?

Radiosity may come in eventually but cycles was built to not have any hacks in there… that was the problem with BI… there were too many hacks going around which made development hell.

Texture plugin, i dont know what you are talking about?

Probably wont happen… you can use OSL for material nodes instead

Probably wont happen… you can use OSL for material nodes instead

doublebishop, this wish for Blender Renderer (Internal), not Cycles. Cycles - is joke of developers :)…

Texture plugin, i dont know what you are talking about?

2.49 and old support *.dll as texture plugins

Oh… yeh the BI developers are doing limited work on Blender Internal Render. Cycles has total dedication. And it is not a joke. It is significantly better than BI

doublebishop, BI will may work as Cycles with little upgrade and better… this is raytracer to… and with upgrade -> pathtracer as Cycles with save old functionality :slight_smile:
…but I am writing about the return of the old functions…

Don’t hold your breath. BI is pretty much dead aside from maintenance work. Working with it as a coder is a nightmare that no one wants to get into.

Working with it as a coder is a nightmare that no one wants to get into.

before 2.5 blender version it does not scare people. As example this build:
…what has changed? …stupefied? …return old functionality is very difficult?

Why it was necessary to remove these features? Because Cycles as in “Groundhog Day” movie? :smiley:

Welcome to the world of maintaining software. It is often not that hard to hack a feature together that works in most cases. Getting it bug free, and keeping it that way while adding new features later on is hard, particularly if the work was poorly designed in the first place.

You may want to read up on the concept of technical debt.

If you think the blender development team is wrong in this assessment, then by all means implement some of these things yourself.

Sazerac, this is for Pov Ray, Yafaray, Renderman and оther developers?

Do you actually have an idea on how software development works (and why they sometimes replace old functionality entirely) or do you really think coding is as simple as “Place statement A in function B”?

“Place statement A in function B”?

Ha Ha :slight_smile:
This is great problem to make AA patterns 2, 4 … 24, 32, 48, 64, 96, 128… ?
This is great problem make AO support transparency?
…and more little useful things…

…Some years… at last… checkbox Cast (shadows) will be develop!!!

I don’t think these features are coming back.

What result are you trying to achieve that can’t be done with current tools?

Are the old versions of blender that had all these tools unavailable or unusable…if you can live without the new gui, animation system and new modelling tools then Blender 2.49 is not such bad deal.

Well, I will agree with you that Radiosity not really needed because you can bake a texture in the vertex color. Then there is no need in the function of indirect lighting with approximate method… why not delete?
More procedural textures - is that bad? You use them everywhere and in the mode of texture paint, and in the mode of sculpting. With Cycles generated textures it inpossible!
And there is no possibility to use the OSL in Blender Internal. Then Pynodes also needed.

PS: Blender Renderer closer to Pro visualization systems than Cyscles. Please do not argue about it. Dialogue about the features Blender Internal.

Old_Demon, that attitude is completely useless, is not constructive. It resembles Steve Jobs “reality distortion field”

lol How long before this thread gets shut down? Im taking bets. I give it till the end of the day.

…is not constructive

Why? Better texturing and Texture Paint upgrade is not constructive?
New Grease Pencil animation support - this is good thing? But why we still not paint like this in Image Editor and Texture Paint mode?
Developers are joke like that?

I give it till the end of the day.

… give

What’s not constructive is your attitude.
Brecht started the development of Cycles because it wasn’t feasible to enhance Blender Internal in several ways. The code is hardly maintainable. It seemed to be easier to start from scratch with something now than continuing with Blender Internal. The current state of Blender Internal is that it doesn’t get a lot of attention from developers besides bug fixes when needed. Maybe someone decides to push the development further, but that is very unlikely to happen. You can’t expect that lots of time is spent on Blender Internal anymore. That means the chance that feature requests for it may be implemented is almost not existant.
This is not a joke, that’s the reality. Neither Cycles is a joke, nor are the developers joking.

Old_Demon, the answer to all your “why why why” questions is: Because.

There are reasons for why old features don’t get ported over or why some features are not given priority over other features. However, you’re not owed an explanation for any of these things, by anyone. Even if somebody bothered to explain: What difference does it make?

If you want any of these features back and if you’re not a programmer and you don’t have the money to hire a programmer: Forget about it. They’re not coming back. Nobody cares enough about these features to maintain them (or else they would have been ported over).

Asking for features (or explanations on why they aren’t there) is indeed not constructive. In the worst case, you’re taking up the time of some developer that is best spent elsewhere. In the best case, you get ignored. In the most likely case, there will be some hot air created by us fellow Blenderartists (and then nothing else happens).

Old_Demon, the answer to all your “why why why” questions is: Because.

:slight_smile: you are wrong - “To be, or not to be, that is the question” :slight_smile:

This is not a joke, that’s the reality

That is another side of reality - Blender internal reality like Cycles. But difficult to understand for users, because sampling local for materials. And it is no joke to…

PS: Test Scene from Lighting Challenge.