"LanuHum" <Lan### [at] yandexru> wrote:
> "Mr" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Although I know why you say that, I can't let you say it. Because I did receive
> > a lot of help from Ideasman 42,  and mont29 (I don't know if they whish to see
> > their real names written or prefer the nicks) both are two of the main Blender
> > developers (under paid contracts for the Blender Foundation). Here is how the
> > help was provided: Every time the api Broke, Ideasman changed the script
> > himself, to adapt to the change. the POV-Ray exporter served as a testbead for
> > it so it's been updated up to now, and I had to change almost nothing myself for
> > the api changes! This is why it is vital for you to try and get your branche
> > able to merge back with the trunk, this way you can get pauses without seeing
> > your code is broken when you get back to work. it's collectively maintained.
> > Mont 29 speaks french and is the developer of the FBX exporter so he knows well
> > the connected fields of Blender data structure, file formats, geometry, export
> > process... For all these reasons and also because he's like the second circle of
> > coders while ideasman (generalist) and brecht(cycles developer) are the first
> > circle, I tend to go to him first when I'm stuck (even though he does have a lot
> > of work too, the first circle are kind of always on fire, (look at
> > #blender-coders IRC channels and you'll see what I mean) so you need to be extra
> > careful with what time you steal from them, especially because all of these guys
> > are very generous and responsive (mont29 included). but they do need to sleep.
> > The last to date example of mont29 contribution is with export of smoke
> > simulation: I had managed to export the smoke cloud but it appeared with some
> > transformations, he helped me settle this, previously he also helped to do the
> > instancing system, and so many other improvements.
> >
> > However, to be fair, I should add that the project is one among many for them,
> > so we can only hope for so much from them, they are already providing their
> > maximum assistance.
>
> Good!
> Sorry!
> Thus, Blender - free program which is constantly transformed.
> Python API Blender is also created for all, but only the elite can use it.
> We can ask them to help.
> Well.
> Nevertheless it is strange to ask for the help developers.
> You can present such situation with Autodesk Maya or Cinema4D?
> Someone bought Autodesk Maya today...
> In a month there was an Autodesk Maya updating
> The user can't write scripts any more, writes letters to developers.
> Or...
>
> But, why the Povray developers don't arrive as the Blender developers arrive?
> In the example.pov file wrote 10 years ago:
> sphere {0,1}
> Today in the example.pov file write:
> sphere {0,1}
> And, it works.
> That you told if today it is necessary to write
> sphere {0,1},
> tomorrow it will be necessary to write
> sphere {1,0},
> and the day after tomorrow it will be necessary to write:
> {1,0} sphere
> ???
> In the Blender such funny things - the law.
>
>
> My nodes worked at 2.74
> My nodes don't work in 2.74.5.
> Changes happened, but functions didn't change.
> Or is worse than that...
> Yesterday I could rewrite class ShaderNodeTree, but today I can't...
> Today I have to take away time from the developer to learn: "Why he made it? For
> whom is it useful? How to fight against it?" :):):)
>
> Sorry!
> I don't know English.
> Possibly, you didn't understand that I wanted to tell. :)


Yes, I understand, and this time I totally agree with you. that is why I love
POV-Ray: maturity.

Blender is relatively young. its community sometimes suffered from what we call
"jeunisme" in french, the tendancy to believe that what is new is necessarily
better. that's why most blenderheads rushed to Mitsuba, Luxrender, Yafaray,
Kerkythea, Thea, Octane, Aqsis...  etc, without ever considering to help
modernize and integrate POV-Ray, simply because "it is old". LuxRender has had
up to 16 enthusiast developers, Cycles is driven almost full time by one of the
most professional, skilled an experienced developers available.
However four/five years or more after their creations, POV-Ray still offers some
functionality unavailable to them (Continue Trace) and has caught up with some
of its new candies (Real Time stochastic Rendering) to be fair, POV-Ray still
misses some features but these give no other difference in the final result than
rendering time (this could be debatable, for the way some features such as
spectral rendering would leverage more ressources and help overcome some POV-Ray
"crashing points", do show if you try the most extreme refractive caustics
scenes in POV-Ray and compare them with LuxRender results at the time of writing
this)

Because some of the Blender friendly external renderers and their exporters'
development kept drying out. The solution chosen was to nest the development of
the rendering engine inside the Blender Foundation to harvest all of the
community energy and feedback. This DID work, and Cycles development has been
blazingly fast and did not die. We could consider that with the manpower used in
all of these renderers povray 4 would already be there, but it would be like
considering you could put a town in a bottle if only every house was smaller.

Probably you are working in an area of blender (the nodes) that is less stable
than the rest now, the basic material and render API used to change often too
but has now stabilized. Here again, being in official addon repository has
helped, because developers helping to propagate their api changes themselves
made them hold their horses. If you really want to keep a separate branch, then
probably you will have more luck with developing other operators while you wait
for this stabilisation, such as POV-Ray importers, and tools. For instance we
could use a system of  locked primitives without edit mode and just pov
parameters, if possible: creating a cube would create a mesh cube, torus the
same, but the idea would be that at no point you could change the topology, only
the size, radius, etc. these would be sexy to the blender community because no
other renderer offers perfectly smooth shapes, except Aqsis and there is to my
knowledge no Blender interface well taylored specifically for them.

Post a reply to this message