Add support of python constraints
It would be nice add support of python modifier and constraints to the blender python architecture so that it is as easy as adding operators.,
as you can see they are already discussing the topic successfully without separating modifiers and constraints python topic . it just one and the same. There is nothing to be discussed in detail. I think it straight forward when I say "Add support of python modifiers and constraints" I don't need to explain how to develop it that is why am submitting a proposal so that blender developers can handle the development of that architecture. Otherwise I have to almost download 40 gigs of visual studio, 7gb of cuda, 5 gb of optics, 6 gibs of blender dependencies to do that in c++,plus 30 minutes of recompiling blender every time I make adjustments of source code that is bit inefficient I prefer a simple architecture that can handle python modifiers and python constraints. Like am already enjoying operators and addons architecture which is very simple without recompiling blender.
agapi simon Thanks
22 Comments
Partial duplicate of this proposal .
Furthermore, you've basically bundled two proposals in one. It would be better to separate them into individual proposals (with much more detail in each) so people can discuss them independently.
* @Jason van Gumster * I like to keep related so that it isn't scattered post.
* @mittisimone * Please do not. That's not how this site works. If you'd like to relate proposals, make links to them.
* @Jason van Gumster * as you can see they are already discussing the topic successfully without separating modifiers and constraints python topic . it just one and the same. There is nothing to be discussed in detail. I think it straight forward when I say "Add support of python modifiers and constraints" I don't need to explain how to develop it that is why am submitting a proposal so that blender developers can handle the development of that architecture. Otherwise I have almost 40 gigs of visual studio, 7gb of cuda, 5 gb of optics, 6 gibs of blender dependencies to do that in c++,plus 30 minutes of recompiling blender every time I make adjustments of source code that is bit inefficient I prefer a simple architecture that can handle python modifiers and python constraints. Like am already enjoying operators and addons architecture which is very simple without recompiling blender.
* @mittisimone * They are not one in the same. That's my point. I understand that you want both. That doesn't mean that they can work the same way or that they have the same limitations. That you're conflating the two is making the conversation more difficult to have.
* @Jason van Gumster * never mind I will use c++ I don't need beg you, I don't what is your problem, are you the admin of this website. How many post so far as contribution to blender.
* @mittisimone * I am the maintainer of Right-Click Select, yes.
* @Jason van Gumster * may be you should also sorting the submitted proposal in way that if some one sumittied more than one proposal it to see related proposal from the contributor.
* @mittisimone * It's a known issue with a Meta tag already tied to it. Hopefully that will be resolved in the relatively near future.
* @Jason van Gumster * great hopeful
python modifiers are considered as "antifeature" by blender fundation wiki.blender.org/wiki/Reference/AntiFeatures
* @Pawel Piotrowski * that is an excuse, even c4d supports python deformers and they high performance too.
* @mittisimone * Constraints a non processor intensive. There is no excuse for no inclusion in python architecture. Period.
* @mittisimone * python support multithreading which takes advantage of all CPUs cores. No excuse indeed.
* @mittisimone * You don't have to convince me. I dissagre with most of "antifeature" thing.
There is a guy thats trying to make interchangable(dcc wise) modifiers. devtalk.blender.org/t/open-mesh-effect-branch-prev-houdini-engine-modifier-for-blender/8218 github.com/eliemichel/OpenMeshEffect
But You can see for yourself how little interest is in that.
* @Pawel Piotrowski * I'm not arguing for or against this proposal- but I would take this opportunity to point out that the anti-features doc is extremely dated and subjective. Remember that at one point in time left-click selection was considered an anti-feature.
* @testure * let's keep fingers crossed, that would a break blender to support python constraints And modifier
* @mittisimone * You absolutely can create "constraints" with Python- that is, by creating drivers that call Python functions, or handlers that call Python functions. Making a Python program fit into a constraint stack is not easy, nor is it guarenteed to be safe-- the Python programmer could very easily break Blender by writing commands that try to update the depsgraph, which would then call the script again and create an infinite recursion. Constraints may or may not be "processor intensive", as you say, but that's beside the point- Blender's depsgraph is not able to handle that kind of thing (nor should it. Anything that you need a new constraint for should have its own constraint in Blender. The depsgraph will be faster if it doesn't have to check all over the place for a rarely-used feature. Better to design it intentionally)
This isn't really true in this context. Yes, Python supports multithreading, but only one Python thread may access Blender at a given time- violating this rule is sure to cause the worst kinds of problems. This isn't unique to Blender, I know for a fact that Maya has this limitation, too.
Finally, it really isn't helpful to have such a combative tone. Whether they're making "excuses" or not, there's no excuse for complaining about something you got for free. Especially if you're fully capable of downloading the source and adding the features yourself.
I'd be happy to explain further how to call Python functions from a driver.
* @Josephbburg * Python modifier are happening in c4d easy. It matter modifying the python architecture in blender ,while operators are high performance with only python,no excuse. Animations nodes high performance too in python, I love blender and convert my python scripts in to modifier so that i can stack them, in modifier panel, but with a single script running in text editor with handlers is sufficient enough.
* @mittisimone * Animation nodes is a cpython extension to make it fast and require specific build for each platform. So yes binding a compiled library may be fast but the main issue still is slow data exchange between the processes through python. As long as you code a modifier for a single box it is not an issue, but billion polygon meshes may take decades to process.
* @stephen * constraints are performed on billions of polygon
* @mittisimone * How c4d handle it on billions of polygons