no! I want python defined space types :smiley:

He gave you a clue

no! I want python defined space types

A space type could then theoretically be defined that would be designed for procedural object scripts such as tree generators.

2 useless answers in 4 posts, you guys really are helpful. yes it would be nice to have things work, dont hold your breath, youre probably going to be in for quite a wait. just keep using 2.49b

I had the scripts window in 2.5 working for a bit, but decided to give up on it and eventually try adding python space types. This would be especially nice for integrating external tools.

Note that even if we had the scripts window back, people would still need to port scripts over, its not a trivial task in most cases.
within 8 months Id like to have py spaces done.

PySpaces AND PyModifiers (he asked hoping that such a thing is at least open for some thought)?

in 8 month uh?

@FourMadMen, py modifiers could get annoyingly slow if they have to run all the time while transforming verts for eg. so Id only consider some limited python modifier that takes an array of verts and deforms it (which could be acceptably fast I think), anything that created geometry on the fly would be too slow from python unless you have very low poly or only enable for rendering.

  • Adding python modifiers shouldn’t be that hard btw.

@cekuhnen, 8 months since its probably not a durian target and I can work on back in Australia.

yesterday I tried to start converting some of my scripts from Maya to Blender 2.5 Alpha 0 and discovered that operators such as bpy.ops.mesh.primitive_uv_sphere_add() have no return value. Is there any idea when it will be changed? Also bpy.ops.tfm operators work only on selection, so when that will be changed as well?

Python defined space types would be great indeed.

You make a good point about performance. I don’t think users would put up with something annoyingly slow so any python modifiers that were would likely die a quick death.

Having said that, my desire for python modifiers can also add the restriction that:

  1. It’s the first modifier in the stack
  2. It’s the only python modifier in the stack

Bottom line, my initial desire for python modifiers is basically something like this: The PyMod is first in the stack (and only pymod in stack) and based on the type and settings you get a mesh (verts and faces – modifier can create new geometry) that you can (1) add other modifiers to and (2) can go back and modifiy the original parameters.

Having said all that, with Python everywhere else in Blender I can see python modifiers as a good thing. Even if it only had limited functionality for modifying the verts, edges, faces lists.

He coded it.


hey, sorry for bothering with such a question,
but I thought vekoon was working on C-Plugin API,
could that in theory be usable for practical plug-in modifiers?

I do hope vekoon will be able to finish it,
even if it doesn’t get finished for/into 2.6,
in case he’s even still working on it, that is. :slight_smile:

i didn’t vote, but many scripts shouldn’t really be any different than the built in tools… little utilities like batch re-naming or cleaning up meshes etc…

others are much much better with their own space eg:

a centralised material manager,
layer manager
image texture manager
spreadsheet browsing of object properties

as example…

the proposed plan of adding space types so end users could write stuff like a layer manager and it could have its own dedicated space is a much much better level of integegration than the current generic script window…

it’s exciting times as this makes python scripting as prominent in the UI as the built in C stuff… python scripts will be able to go in the “best” place from a user perspective rather than be confined to the “only” place…

I guess that no amount of posting and polling will get the new space types done any quicker though!

as with much of 2.5 we have t be a little patient!

I found the scripts window of Blender 2.4x very useful for creating scientific extensions for Blender. One of the most useful aspects of the scripts window was that I could create highly customized UI’s with many different buttons and pop up menus. The possibilities of the scripts window with DRAW and BGL modules seem endless. It is not clear to me if 2.5-2.6 will provide similar capabilities.

Will the spactype feature provide identical functionality to the Scripts Window - DRAW - BGL setup? If no, then in my opinion this is a significant step in the wrong direction.