Will Blender 2.5 be 100% compatible with 2.49 scenes?

I’ve been spending a lot of time learning Blender 2.49 and am really looking forward to learning 2.5, but until its more fully cooked I’m staying away from it. In the meantime, I’ve gotten a bit concerned that stuff I’m working on may have to be re-done for 2.5. Like rigging and particles. Is it planned for this stuff to be upwards compatible? I’m starting what looks to be a long term project and I want to be able to migrate the project to 2.5 when it’s ready. I’m just wondering what areas I should be aware may not translate over.

2.49 scenes should load in 2.5 with few problems in most cases.

However 2.5 scenes can’t be brought back into 2.49 without a number of things lost in opening the file. (providing it could get messed up or if it opens even)

radiosity is the only thing I think you won’t be able to load in 2.5/2.6. I don’t expect the devs to aim for anything below full backward compability with all kept features. Forward compability is, as Cyborg Dragon saind, an other story.

Python. My mouslook script for my game(apocalypse) won’t work in 2.5

Oh i completely understand not being able to open 2.5 scenes in 2.49. Thats a non-issue. I was concerned about doing a complex character rig in 2.49, only to have it broken in 2.5. I’m happy to hear that its a goal for backward compatibilty.

I tried my rig in alpha 0 and it was all messed up will have to learn all the new ways of rigging in apha 1 when it comes.

Can’t speak for particles, but I think being able to break backwards compatibility for rigging is actually a Good Thing ™. The drivers system in particular is undergoing a good re-working, which will make it a lot better, but will (I believe) make old files break.

There’s also a bit of old cruft here-and-there that would be good to remove. But depending on when you started using Blender, there’s a good chance you’re not using any of it. It’s more legacy stuff.

I think constraints will be fine. And the armature itself should port over correctly, as well as vertex groups etc.

So really, it depends on what rigging features you use.

I have some cloth sims in 2.49 that definitely don’t work in 2.5. I’m assuming this is something yet to be finished though.

I guess many 2.5 bases are pretty good cousins of 2.49’s and few things will be OK when opening a 2.49 in 2.5 (i do very simple stuff, therefor, i can open almost every older file with 2.5 with everything saved - even mapped materials). Yet, as 2.5 is rewritten, there will definitely be a point of no return at a certain stage of the developpement.
We’ve been warned about from scratch…

I have noticed that one issue with loading 2.49 scenes into 2.5 is the UI layout. The horizontal 2.49 layout does not transfer well into 2.5, so it’s better to uncheck Load UI in the preferences. However, once and if all the 2.5 UI issues get solved I expect this might not be an issue.

I hope not!..that seems a bit restrictive. I would ditch compatibility for features/power…and the argument about losing ones work… if we cannot reproduce our work are we are not artists.

I find that most scene stuff is salvagable. There are a few scenes that just crashed 2.5alpha on open or append. I do love the new vertical based layout and GUI in general. I am getting over my biggest disappointment, having to re-write all of my python scripts, and I find the new API very intuitive and the conversion is not as bad as I thought it might be. The new dual mode console is great, it’s like having a built in help system for programming.

My advice is to just jump in and deal with the fallout.

Yes drivers from 2.49 are ruined in 2.5. I hope drivers set up will be more user friendly in the final Blender 2.5 (2.6). Actual GUI is not really intuitive.

Besides drivers, maybe dependency cycles could be polished as well - not to be calculated on object level but also on bone level as well (for example when you use two armatures and constraint their bones vice versa).

Does anyone here have a mouselook script thats 2.5 ready? Or is there possibly someone who can make one and post it?

Took me about 20 seconds (google) to find one which I would guess is significantly shorter than the two replies and one new thread where you asked the exact same question.

Oh, and that 20 seconds includes the time to figure out what exactly a mouselook script is because I really had no clue.

See, the helpful thing would have been to post a link along with your criticism there, Uncle Entity.


Actually, Uncle Entity did contribute to the thread in that he told the OP how he could find his answer himself. I’d guess that he chose to not help further as an instructional kindness to him, teaching a man to fish and all that.

Your post though, contributed nothing at all to the thread. You can’t get any more off-topic than a criticism of another poster.


All your old Python scripts will be broken. They are completely reworking the API. I’m going to get around to learning it when they decide on a stable version. I also have to learn Python 3… /offtopic