A bit early to speculate, I know, but the sooner we figure out what we want, the sooner we can chase the developers back to the code-mines and back to work
So what would you guys like to see in 2.34? Or even 2.3x or 2.40? Here’s a few of my ideas:
Bring back the ability to compile games into executables. Naturally
Camera filters. Being able to apply a certain property to a camera natively rather than rely on other methods to do so. Here’s what I mean: say I wanted to make a shot of a scene like it was through a dodgy security camera. I select the camera I want, and choose a ‘Scanlines’ filter to th camera so that when I switch to it/render from it, scanlines like you would find on any dodgy camera would be added. I know this kind of thing can be done now, but I would still like to see it.
Three words: Sub. Surface. Scattering. The holy grail of rendering. I know this would take alot of work, but this feature would make Blender leap ahead of the commercial packages if we had good, effective SSS.
Overhaul of the game engine. It’s good how it is, bt it could be so much better. Faster, meaner, leaner. Also, perhaps the ability to develop for external engines? Like getting the Half Life 2 or Quake Whatever source wen it comes out and being able to use Blender to seamlessly intergrate with those.
Here’s a big one - collaboration with the various divisions to intergrate (or at least promote compatability) with the many open-source Console development packages. There are alot of them on Source Forge and they offer what all of us would want - to create a console game. Imagine firing up an Xbox game and seeing a ‘Made With Blender’ logo pop up first. Brilliant
Of course, NURBS. Proper ones this time, thank you
having Blender beable to work side by side with hl2 or quake, would be spectacular. Blender could then make it’s self known as a Good program in the modding world, rather then a Horrible, Confusing, and Stupid program. Which seems to be what most mod people think
orange text is corrections
might I say why these things are unlikely?
that isn’t unlikely, next
why did I say that, it is completely wrong. Was I thinking locking files or something (topic on it on blender.org, pretty much is impossible)
that doesn’t make much sense[your idea’s explination], like enable sequence plugins to be applied to output without going through sequencer?
(while we’re at it put in zblur too)
okay, got a bit off track there
I was trying to be pessimistic, but that is a good idea, would be nice if a few were integrated…
this would slow down blender how much?
apparently not much
heh, and bsp tree culling while we are at it
blender’s mesh editing interface would make calculation of bsp trees difficult. Also some other features should be improved, like the decimator
the exports to other formats have nothing to do with the game engine, and can be done in python. you want the gamelogic translated and compiled too? (possible, doubtfulwhy doubful? the python api has expanded a lot and doesn’t look like it will stop)
I am not being pessimistic enough!
you seem to over estimate the number of blender developers
as far as I know there are at most 2 people working on the game engine in the first place. An interface to joysticks would be welcome, but would be a significant change. would it appear in the game logic or would it be all python? how would it be implemented in game logic? could variable values be passed into motion actuators without using python? Though I think python is a quick (and previously done) solution, I would like to see a logicbrick change to make it possible.
what is wrong with blender’s nurbs? is it that they can’t stitch different sizes together? well, where is the math to do that?
I don’t know that there is one agreed on method to stich nurbs surfaces together. one of the powers of nurbs is that the surface can be defined exactly and recreated in the real world (subdivision surfaces can not do this). any stiching method would not have that ability.
that said, I think the nurbana code (I haven’t heard of it before either) is avalible to be implemented into blender.
so, I am less pessimistic than I thought
I want to see, umm
I’ll have to get back to you, I had an idea at some point
well, I have remembered some of my requests now, at the moment one major one comes to mind
you know, like in wings 3d. they make hard edges when smoothed and when just drawn smooth shaded (press tab I think)
this would make it possible to get those edges without having to split things. I wouldn’t have to worry about holes being created when I use radiosity on those edges. I wouldn’t have to worry about remove doubles in places to get rid of part of the seam I tred to create…
and I wouldn’t have to consider that there are actually multiple verticies at that spot, and use box select instead of right-clicking on what appears to be (and ought to be from my point of view, but not to the graphics card) just one vertex
i always would like to see the game-engine thing as a different stand-alone package…where all the blender objects,anims etc. could be loaded (just like the professional game engines).this would make blender an animation only package and lets call the stand-alone gamekit as blender game creator or something like that.there is no reason to integrete the entire game engine into blender’s original interface -which makes things more complex i guess.
apart from that in the next versions i would like to see better uv-unwrapping methods (the new 2.33 one is good, but faces still intersect!).if i had enough time i would have tried to code it by myself!
more bone types are a real need…and not to mention n-gons in meshes.
have you seen steven stahlberg’s human models?he solely relies on maya’s n-gons.
I don’t want to start a flame war, but could you mind cutting back on the negative comments? I’m new at this so the least you could do is ut me some slack - shooting down all my suggestions without offering some alternatives or even a reasonable explantaion isn’t doing nayone good, least of all a beginner like myself. That’s all I’m saying about that.
So it appears that most of the people here have an issue with the GUI? I have to agree there. When you start off with Blender it can be horribly confusing.
But of course, no matter what happens, a mighty hurrah to the coders indeed. Without them we wouldn’t be here and wouldn’t have Blender. A massive kudos to them all and I just hope they can keep up the good work. Any word from any developers about what they plan to do in up-coming versions? Anything that is being looked into?
the SubSurf tool in blender is as primitiv than blender nurbs tools.
what i mean is it lacks ch, edge and face weighting. it would be perfect to get real SubSurf like in maya but just having the weigting options found in c4d or lightwave for example will enhance modeling and reduce mesh size!
the nurbs tools kinda have this weighting function and that rocks. i dont know how far nurbs in blender follows real standards but in most cad apps they all use a liocenzed nurbs kernel and thus having all the same simillar power. i just would like to see a trim tool and than a filled tool like in maya. for 3d animation thats enough. and when the nurbs patches have the same uv numbers than stitching might be use full as well. but when you have SubSurf with weighting i think nurbs could be kinda ignored a bit. special for character design it makes more sence to work with SS since the power of modeling gets compined with the ease of use for UV mapping the polygon mesh!!!
SSS in blender and caustics? sweet. this stuff takes time or do you think mental ray is fast with it? carrara has a pretty fast GI and photon mapper but they trick around a bit. i would be glad to have this render optins in blender so there is no hassel with external renderers and blender gest more mature in terms os render out put. and even when the render qualety does not meet the state of the art it still is better than not having it and rendering longer a scene.
for my person a think the particle system is a bit dusty and already there are people working on it. looks very very promessing!