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
…but I am writing about the return of the old functions…
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.
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”?
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.
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?
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).