This completes twist feature, which is now possible to also control by
texture. Since textures can not easily contain negative values as well,
same trick with 0.5 neutral as vertex groups is used.
All in all, this twist features allows to do following things.
Original hair:
{F2287535}
Hair with scientifically calculated twist value of 0.5:
{F2287540}
And we can also twist braids in opposite directions dependent on left/right
side:
{F2287548}
The idea is to give a control over direction of twist, and maybe amount of
twist as well. More concrete example: make braids on left and right side of
character head to be twisting opposite directions.
Now, tricky part: we need some negative values to flip direction, but weights
can not be negative. So we use same trick as displacement map and tangent normal
maps, where 0.5 is neutral, values below 0.5 are considered negative and values
above 0.5 are considered positive.
It allows to have children hair to be twisted around parent curve, which is
quite an essential feature when creating hair braids.
There are currently two controls:
- Number of turns around parent children.
- Influence curve, which allows to modify "twistness" along the strand.
Instead of calling an operator I just call `collection.new()`. Moving the
code into a separate function also simplifies it. In its new form there is
also no undefined behaviour when me.vertex_colors is non-empty but without
active layer.
- normalize → average the vector: the vector isn't normalized here, because
it doesn't necessarily becomes unit length. Instead, the sum is converted
to an average vector.
- angle is the acos()…: the dot product between the vertex normal and the
average direction of the connected vertices is computed, and not the
opposite.
- The initial `con` list was discarded immediately and replaced by a new
list.
- File didn't end with a newline.
We've got quite comprehensive BMesh based implementation, which is way easier
for maintenance than abandoned Carve library.
After all the time BMesh implementation was working on the same level of
limitations about manifold meshes and touching edges than Carve. Is better
to focus on maintaining one boolean implementation now.
Reviewers: campbellbarton
Reviewed By: campbellbarton
Differential Revision: https://developer.blender.org/D3050
The check to see if `use_advanced_hair` was enabled was actually in two places
(render panel `draw` function and physics panel `poll` function). As these
properties are only in one place now the check in `draw` isn't needed anymore.
Related: T53513, a6c69ca57f661a8538
This adds midlevel and object/world space for displacement, and a
vector displacement node with tangent/object/world space, midlevel
and scale.
Note that tangent space vector displacement still is not exactly
compatible with maps created by other software, this will require
changes to the tangent computation.
Differential Revision: https://developer.blender.org/D1734
This converts object space height to world space displacement, to be
linked to the new vector displacement material output.
Differential Revision: https://developer.blender.org/D3015
Brushes themselves are still affected by the mask, but the viewport is not
showing the mask. This way it's easier to see details while sculpting.
Studio request by Julien Kaspar
For experimental options, outside the scope of typical preferences.
While templates are developed we might want to make changes
to behavior which aren't fully compatible with typical work-flows.
Instead of mixing these options in with current preferences
expose separately (we could even force disable them when templates
aren't int use)
Technically this was introduced in 01b547f9931970050e when
exposing size and randomness for particles.
This "fixes" makes sure particle size and size randomness is always in the
Render panel when it affects the particle system (i.e., always unless using
advanced hair or hair that is not rendering groups/objects).
A comparison should have not just have been against an epsilon,
but relative to the edge length involved.
Thanks to mano-wii for patch on which this is based.
Regression from rB823bcf1689a3 (VPaint 2017 GSoC, this is not in 2.79 release).
Also cleanup, using fake-array-ification to access struct members is
generally not a great idea, but when we already have a totally confusing
broken struct layout, this is pure evil, as demonstrated here!
Found while investigating T53341.
