blender
/
blender
128
396
Fork 569
Code Issues 6.2k Pull Requests 752 Projects 19 Wiki Activity

Regression: Image Editor Speed & Quality Regression #106092

New Issue
Closed
opened 2023-03-24 10:47:32 +01:00 by Steffen Dünner · 13 comments
Steffen Dünner commented 2023-03-24 10:47:32 +01:00
Copy Link

System Information
Operating system: Linux-5.15.0-67-generic-x86_64-with-glibc2.35 64 Bits
Graphics card: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Super/PCIe/SSE2 NVIDIA Corporation 4.5.0 NVIDIA 530.30.02

Blender Version
Broken: version: 3.6.0 Alpha, branch: main, commit date: 2023-03-24 07:09, hash: 08a6361b3ff8
3.5.0 Release Candidate
Worked: 3.4.1, 3.3.5
Caused by 2ffc9b72ad

Short description of error
I noticed a regression in both speed and quality in the Image Editor in latest main / release candidates. At first I thought my renderings showed artefacts (horizontal / vertical lines, kinks in perfectly straight lines) but when I loaded the same images in older versions of Blender (3.4.1 and earlier), the artefacts were gone.
When zooming in and out, performance is also much worse / stuttering while in 3.4.1 everything is buttery smooth. Panning is not affected, at least not that much.
I attached two simple 4k test patterns that show the problems.
One Bayer Matrix and a simple spiral.

Exact steps for others to reproduce the error

  • Open Blender, press F11 to open an Image Editor

  • Load the "Bayer_Matrix.png"

  • Press 1 on the numpad to set the zoom to 100%

  • In 3.4.1 it looks like this:
    image

  • In 3.6.0 like this:
    image
    Notice the 2 lines where there shouldn't be any

  • Zoom in and out of this image. Notice the speed difference between 3.4.1 and 3.6.0

  • Load the "Spiral.png"

  • 3.4.1:
    image

  • 3.6.0:
    image
    See the "kinks" in the spiral

**System Information** Operating system: Linux-5.15.0-67-generic-x86_64-with-glibc2.35 64 Bits Graphics card: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Super/PCIe/SSE2 NVIDIA Corporation 4.5.0 NVIDIA 530.30.02 **Blender Version** Broken: version: 3.6.0 Alpha, branch: main, commit date: 2023-03-24 07:09, hash: `08a6361b3ff8` 3.5.0 Release Candidate Worked: 3.4.1, 3.3.5 Caused by 2ffc9b72ad8db4bc2565119c0a74dbfab9a76e3d **Short description of error** I noticed a regression in both speed and quality in the Image Editor in latest main / release candidates. At first I thought my renderings showed artefacts (horizontal / vertical lines, kinks in perfectly straight lines) but when I loaded the same images in older versions of Blender (3.4.1 and earlier), the artefacts were gone. When zooming in and out, performance is also much worse / stuttering while in 3.4.1 everything is buttery smooth. Panning is not affected, at least not that much. I attached two simple 4k test patterns that show the problems. One Bayer Matrix and a simple spiral. **Exact steps for others to reproduce the error** - Open Blender, press F11 to open an Image Editor - Load the "Bayer_Matrix.png" - Press 1 on the numpad to set the zoom to 100% - In 3.4.1 it looks like this: ![image](/attachments/e95359a1-5ace-4a60-b54b-e0bad85a6d49) - In 3.6.0 like this: ![image](/attachments/86846cf3-c05f-42da-86dd-251a37040220) Notice the 2 lines where there shouldn't be any - Zoom in and out of this image. Notice the speed difference between 3.4.1 and 3.6.0 - Load the "Spiral.png" - 3.4.1: ![image](/attachments/87a13e69-2dd3-4db9-abe9-87efacc7c0d0) - 3.6.0: ![image](/attachments/fb5fbefd-74c3-4da8-a0d4-b84549d99786) See the "kinks" in the spiral
image.png
167 KiB
Bayer_Matrix.png
78 KiB
image.png
103 KiB
Spiral.png
5.5 MiB
image.png
172 KiB
image.png
46 KiB
Bayer_Matrix.png Spiral.png
Steffen Dünner added the
Priority
Normal
Type
Report
Status
Needs Triage
 labels 2023-03-24 10:47:33 +01:00
Helge Maus commented 2023-03-24 13:40:56 +01:00
Copy Link

I have the described problem also in 3.5 on Mac OSX.
See in 100% lines and heavy flickering when moving the image. This is not in 3.4.1

version: 3.5.0 Release Candidate, branch: blender-v3.5-release, commit date: 2023-03-24 01:57, hash: 6caccf6b9f, type: Release
build date: 2023-03-24, 11:04:39
platform: 'macOS-13.2.1-x86_64-i386-64bit'

I have the described problem also in 3.5 on Mac OSX. See in 100% lines and heavy flickering when moving the image. This is not in 3.4.1 version: 3.5.0 Release Candidate, branch: blender-v3.5-release, commit date: 2023-03-24 01:57, hash: 6caccf6b9f20, type: Release build date: 2023-03-24, 11:04:39 platform: 'macOS-13.2.1-x86_64-i386-64bit'
👍 1
Pratik Borhade commented 2023-03-27 07:56:30 +02:00
Member
Copy Link

Thanks for the report. I can confirm. Bisecting...

Thanks for the report. I can confirm. Bisecting...
Pratik Borhade changed title from Image Editor Speed & Quality Regression to Regression: Image Editor Speed & Quality Regression 2023-03-27 08:30:09 +02:00
Pratik Borhade added
Priority
High
 and removed
Priority
Normal
 labels 2023-03-27 08:30:26 +02:00
Pratik Borhade commented 2023-03-27 08:30:44 +02:00
Member
Copy Link

Caused by 2ffc9b72ad
@Jeroen-Bakker ^

Caused by 2ffc9b72ad8db4bc2565119c0a74dbfab9a76e3d @Jeroen-Bakker ^
Jeroen Bakker self-assigned this 2023-03-27 08:52:46 +02:00
Jeroen Bakker commented 2023-03-27 08:57:13 +02:00
Member
Copy Link

After the lines are solved we can increase the performance (there is a setting for that), but I didn't enable it because it would add more artifacts then shown here.

I will spend some time here this week. Although I don't think it will be ready for the 3.5 release which is in two days. This fix might take longer time to fix. I will keep it as high prio for now.

After the lines are solved we can increase the performance (there is a setting for that), but I didn't enable it because it would add more artifacts then shown here. I will spend some time here this week. Although I don't think it will be ready for the 3.5 release which is in two days. This fix might take longer time to fix. I will keep it as high prio for now.
Jeroen Bakker added this to the EEVEE & Viewport project 2023-03-27 08:57:27 +02:00
Jeroen Bakker commented 2023-03-27 13:01:47 +02:00
Member
Copy Link

After doing some tries to fix it the required changes requires some larger changes in order to fix these artifacts. Due to this and the upcoming release of Blender 3.5.0 I don't believe it is reasonable to target the fix for that release. I would suggest to land it in main and backport it to 3.5.1 eventually.

After doing some tries to fix it the required changes requires some larger changes in order to fix these artifacts. Due to this and the upcoming release of Blender 3.5.0 I don't believe it is reasonable to target the fix for that release. I would suggest to land it in main and backport it to 3.5.1 eventually.
Hans Goudey added
Type
Bug
 and removed
Type
Report
 labels 2023-03-27 14:44:19 +02:00
Ludvik Koutny commented 2023-04-03 15:54:51 +02:00
Contributor
Copy Link

I think I've reported this as well, under #106390

So my report is likely also a duplicate. Worth noting that like the previous image editor performance issues, this one also affects not only the drawing of the editor, but also the UI performance, so resizing any border of the image editor is laggy as well.

I think I've reported this as well, under https://projects.blender.org/blender/blender/issues/106390 So my report is likely also a duplicate. Worth noting that like the previous image editor performance issues, this one also affects not only the drawing of the editor, but also the UI performance, so resizing any border of the image editor is laggy as well.
Jeroen Bakker added this to the 3.6 LTS milestone 2023-04-11 08:58:46 +02:00
Jeroen Bakker commented 2023-04-11 09:09:00 +02:00
Member
Copy Link

Although there is an initial fix that brings the performance back to 3.4 era (#106173). There are ideas how to improve the performance back to 3.0 era. This requires more development and should not be handled as a bug report. Idea of the solution is to check if the image fits in GPU memory and if this is the case we draw the image using a single GPU texture.

If it doesn't fit we will fall back to the current implementation. For this to work we need to revert

  • Keep track of GPUTextures without checking the limit texture size
    option in the user preference. This should be a variant of a previous
    implementation that was removed a year ago. But without doing any
    resizing. Related commit that reverted previous implementation
    f41c7723c9
  • When this texture cannot be created we should fall back to the current screen
    space solution
  • Add an image based solution when texture fits on the GPU without resizing.

For now I am confident that that #106173 can be added to 3.6. I expect more smaller changes to reduce some artifacts so I don't want it to land in 3.5. The solution to get back to the performance of 3.0 era requires around 1 week of development time and will plan that for 3.6 as well. When this will be done depends on the priority of
other issues as well.

I will lower the priority of this issue as there is a plan to move forward, but requires more development time than is expected from a bug-fix.

Although there is an initial fix that brings the performance back to 3.4 era (#106173). There are ideas how to improve the performance back to 3.0 era. This requires more development and should not be handled as a bug report. Idea of the solution is to check if the image fits in GPU memory and if this is the case we draw the image using a single GPU texture. If it doesn't fit we will fall back to the current implementation. For this to work we need to revert - Keep track of GPUTextures without checking the limit texture size option in the user preference. This should be a variant of a previous implementation that was removed a year ago. But without doing any resizing. Related commit that reverted previous implementation f41c7723c93bc9e784634887da8b682787729538 - When this texture cannot be created we should fall back to the current screen space solution - Add an image based solution when texture fits on the GPU without resizing. For now I am confident that that #106173 can be added to 3.6. I expect more smaller changes to reduce some artifacts so I don't want it to land in 3.5. The solution to get back to the performance of 3.0 era requires around 1 week of development time and will plan that for 3.6 as well. When this will be done depends on the priority of other issues as well. I will lower the priority of this issue as there is a plan to move forward, but requires more development time than is expected from a bug-fix.
Jeroen Bakker added
Priority
Normal
 and removed
Priority
High
 labels 2023-04-11 09:09:14 +02:00
Ludvik Koutny commented 2023-04-11 11:13:02 +02:00
Contributor
Copy Link

I will lower the priority of this issue as there is a plan to move forward, but requires more development time than is expected from a bug-fix.

This report specifically concerns the performance regression from 3.4 to 3.5. Not 3.0 to 3.5. It should stay high priority and be fixed ASAP, because the regression is rather extreme in the way it impacts day to day UV editing work.

If you have an idea how to bring the performance back to 3.0 levels, then that's not a bug report and should perhaps be created as a new task. But this one isn't. This one is a bug report, the one that documents regression from 3.4 to 3.5. It should be fixed, solved and closed.

> I will lower the priority of this issue as there is a plan to move forward, but requires more development time than is expected from a bug-fix. > This report specifically concerns the performance regression from 3.4 to 3.5. Not 3.0 to 3.5. It should stay high priority and be fixed ASAP, because the regression is rather extreme in the way it impacts day to day UV editing work. If you have an idea how to bring the performance back to 3.0 levels, then that's not a bug report and should perhaps be created as a new task. But this one isn't. This one is a bug report, the one that documents regression from 3.4 to 3.5. It should be fixed, solved and closed.
Jeroen Bakker commented 2023-04-11 11:33:41 +02:00
Member
Copy Link

@Rawalanche That only addresses the second part of this report.

Note that priority is determined by many factors and according to our rules include the amount of work as well. So I keep to what I said before:

  • add initial fix to almost 3.4 speed in 3.6 by committing #106173. This fixes only a part of what is addressed here. And still requires more work to fix potential artifacts.
  • In main branch we should check and fix potential drawing artifacts Is also part of this this report.

This task isn't only about the performance, also about the quality of the drawing.

@Rawalanche That only addresses the second part of this report. Note that priority is determined by many factors and according to our rules include the amount of work as well. So I keep to what I said before: - add initial fix to almost 3.4 speed in 3.6 by committing #106173. This fixes only a part of what is addressed here. And still requires more work to fix potential artifacts. - In main branch we should check and fix potential drawing artifacts Is also part of this this report. This task isn't only about the performance, also about the quality of the drawing.
Ludvik Koutny commented 2023-04-11 11:58:26 +02:00
Contributor
Copy Link

@Rawalanche That only addresses the second part of this report.

Note that priority is determined by many factors and according to our rules include the amount of work as well. So I keep to what I said before:

  • add initial fix to almost 3.4 speed in 3.6 by committing #106173. This fixes only a part of what is addressed here. And still requires more work to fix potential artifacts.
  • In main branch we should check and fix potential drawing artifacts Is also part of this this report.

This task isn't only about the performance, also about the quality of the drawing.

Wait, so we will have to wait entire 4 months for a next major 3.6 release just to have the performance back to essential usable levels? I assumed the "initial" fix would be in 3.5.1...?

> @Rawalanche That only addresses the second part of this report. > > Note that priority is determined by many factors and according to our rules include the amount of work as well. So I keep to what I said before: > - add initial fix to almost 3.4 speed in 3.6 by committing #106173. This fixes only a part of what is addressed here. And still requires more work to fix potential artifacts. > - In main branch we should check and fix potential drawing artifacts Is also part of this this report. > > This task isn't only about the performance, also about the quality of the drawing. Wait, so we will have to wait entire 4 months for a next major 3.6 release just to have the performance back to essential usable levels? I assumed the "initial" fix would be in 3.5.1...?
Jeroen Bakker commented 2023-04-11 12:12:37 +02:00
Member
Copy Link

That depends on the quality of the fix. Currently it introduces more artifacts so that needs to be solved before it can actually land. Besides that there are some platform specific crashes/issues that are put on my desk, that have a higher priority than this ticket.

So if we are able to fix the artifacts before 3.5.1 is released it might land there.
Fixing issues isn't done in an hour/minute. Sometimes it takes days or weeks (like this one).

That depends on the quality of the fix. Currently it introduces more artifacts so that needs to be solved before it can actually land. Besides that there are some platform specific crashes/issues that are put on my desk, that have a higher priority than this ticket. So if we are able to fix the artifacts before 3.5.1 is released it might land there. Fixing issues isn't done in an hour/minute. Sometimes it takes days or weeks (like this one).
Ludvik Koutny commented 2023-04-11 13:04:50 +02:00
Contributor
Copy Link

That depends on the quality of the fix. Currently it introduces more artifacts so that needs to be solved before it can actually land. Besides that there are some platform specific crashes/issues that are put on my desk, that have a higher priority than this ticket.

So if we are able to fix the artifacts before 3.5.1 is released it might land there.
Fixing issues isn't done in an hour/minute. Sometimes it takes days or weeks (like this one).

Then wouldn't it be possible to just revert the commit to 3.4 state? Even the basic navigation (panning and zooming) in the UV editor is now painful, when it runs about 5-10FPS even on RTX2080Ti.

> That depends on the quality of the fix. Currently it introduces more artifacts so that needs to be solved before it can actually land. Besides that there are some platform specific crashes/issues that are put on my desk, that have a higher priority than this ticket. > > So if we are able to fix the artifacts before 3.5.1 is released it might land there. > Fixing issues isn't done in an hour/minute. Sometimes it takes days or weeks (like this one). Then wouldn't it be possible to just revert the commit to 3.4 state? Even the basic navigation (panning and zooming) in the UV editor is now painful, when it runs about 5-10FPS even on RTX2080Ti.
Blender Bot added
Status
Resolved
 and removed
Status
Confirmed
 labels 2023-04-11 16:20:41 +02:00
Steffen Dünner commented 2023-04-11 16:25:01 +02:00
Author
Copy Link

Awesome! I can totally live with this speed&quality fix 👍

Awesome! I can totally live with this speed&quality fix 👍
👍 1
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag Specified
Branches Tags
main
brush-assets-project
blender-v4.1-release
blender-v3.3-release
blender-v3.6-release
universal-scene-description
blender-v3.6-temp_wmoss_animrig_public
temp-sculpt-dyntopo
gpencil-next
anim/animation-id-113594
blender-v4.0-release
blender-projects-basics
bridge-curves
sculpt-blender
asset-browser-frontend-split
asset-shelf
tmp-usd-python-mtl
tmp-usd-3.6
blender-v3.5-release
blender-v2.93-release
realtime-clock
sculpt-dev
bevelv2
xr-dev
v4.1.1
v3.6.11
v3.3.18
v4.1.0
v3.3.17
v3.6.10
v3.6.9
v3.3.16
v3.6.8
v3.6.7
v3.3.14
v4.0.2
v4.0.1
v4.0.0
v3.6.5
v3.3.12
v3.6.4
v3.6.3
v3.3.11
v3.6.2
v3.3.10
v3.6.1
v3.3.9
v3.6.0
v3.3.8
v3.3.7
v2.93.18
v3.5.1
v3.3.6
v2.93.17
v3.5.0
v2.93.16
v3.3.5
v3.3.4
v2.93.15
v2.93.14
v3.3.3
v2.93.13
v2.93.12
v3.4.1
v3.3.2
v3.4.0
v3.3.1
v2.93.11
v3.3.0
v3.2.2
v2.93.10
v3.2.1
v3.2.0
v2.83.20
v2.93.9
v3.1.2
v3.1.1
v3.1.0
v2.83.19
v2.93.8
v3.0.1
v2.93.7
v3.0.0
v2.93.6
v2.93.5
v2.83.18
v2.93.4
v2.93.3
v2.83.17
v2.93.2
v2.93.1
v2.83.16
v2.93.0
v2.83.15
v2.83.14
v2.83.13
v2.92.0
v2.83.12
v2.91.2
v2.83.10
v2.91.0
v2.83.9
v2.83.8
v2.83.7
v2.90.1
v2.83.6.1
v2.83.6
v2.90.0
v2.83.5
v2.83.4
v2.83.3
v2.83.2
v2.83.1
v2.83
v2.82a
v2.82
v2.81a
v2.81
v2.80
v2.80-rc3
v2.80-rc2
v2.80-rc1
v2.79b
v2.79a
v2.79
v2.79-rc2
v2.79-rc1
v2.78c
v2.78b
v2.78a
v2.78
v2.78-rc2
v2.78-rc1
v2.77a
v2.77
v2.77-rc2
v2.77-rc1
v2.76b
v2.76a
v2.76
v2.76-rc3
v2.76-rc2
v2.76-rc1
v2.75a
v2.75
v2.75-rc2
v2.75-rc1
v2.74
v2.74-rc4
v2.74-rc3
v2.74-rc2
v2.74-rc1
v2.73a
v2.73
v2.73-rc1
v2.72b
2.72b
v2.72a
v2.72
v2.72-rc1
v2.71
v2.71-rc2
v2.71-rc1
v2.70a
v2.70
v2.70-rc2
v2.70-rc
v2.69
v2.68a
v2.68
v2.67b
v2.67a
v2.67
v2.66a
v2.66
v2.65a
v2.65
v2.64a
v2.64
v2.63a
v2.63
v2.61
v2.60a
v2.60
v2.59
v2.58a
v2.58
v2.57b
v2.57a
v2.57
v2.56a
v2.56
v2.55
v2.54
v2.53
v2.52
v2.51
v2.50
v2.49b
v2.49a
v2.49
v2.48a
v2.48
v2.47
v2.46
v2.45
v2.44
v2.43
v2.42a
v2.42
v2.41
v2.40
v2.37a
v2.37
v2.36
v2.35a
v2.35
v2.34
v2.33a
v2.33
v2.32
v2.31a
v2.31
v2.30
v2.28c
v2.28a
v2.28
v2.27
v2.26
v2.25
Labels
Clear labels   
Interest
Alembic

  
Interest
Animation & Rigging

  
Interest
Asset Browser

  
Interest
Asset Browser Project Overview

  
Interest
Audio

  
Interest
Automated Testing

  
Interest
Blender Asset Bundle

  
Interest
BlendFile

  
Interest
Collada

  
Interest
Compatibility
This issue affects/is about backward or forward compatibility

  
Interest
Compositing

  
Interest
Core

  
Interest
Cycles

  
Interest
Dependency Graph

  
Interest
Development Management

  
Interest
EEVEE

  
Interest
EEVEE & Viewport

  
Interest
Freestyle

  
Interest
Geometry Nodes

  
Interest
Grease Pencil

  
Interest
ID Management

  
Interest
Images & Movies

  
Interest
Import Export

  
Interest
Line Art

  
Interest
Masking

  
Interest
Metal

  
Interest
Modeling

  
Interest
Modifiers

  
Interest
Motion Tracking

  
Interest
Nodes & Physics

  
Interest
OpenGL

  
Interest
Overlay

  
Interest
Overrides

  
Interest
Performance

  
Interest
Physics

  
Interest
Pipeline, Assets & IO

  
Interest
Platforms, Builds & Tests

  
Interest
Python API

  
Interest
Render & Cycles

  
Interest
Render Pipeline

  
Interest
Sculpt, Paint & Texture

  
Interest
Text Editor

  
Interest
Translations

  
Interest
Triaging

  
Interest
Undo

  
Interest
USD

  
Interest
User Interface

  
Interest
UV Editing

  
Interest
VFX & Video

  
Interest
Video Sequencer

  
Interest
Virtual Reality

  
Interest
Vulkan

  
Interest
Wayland
Issues relating to Wayland windowing support.

  
Interest
Workbench

  
Interest: X11

Issues relating to Xorg/X11 support.

  
Legacy
Blender 2.8 Project

  
Legacy
Milestone 1: Basic, Local Asset Browser

  
Legacy
OpenGL Error

  
Meta
Good First Issue

  
Meta
Papercut

  
Meta
Retrospective

  
Meta
Security
Issues relating to security: https://wiki.blender.org/wiki/Process/Vulnerability_Reports

  
Module
Animation & Rigging

  
Module
Core

  
Module
Development Management

  
Module
EEVEE & Viewport

  
Module
Grease Pencil

  
Module
Modeling

  
Module
Nodes & Physics

  
Module
Pipeline, Assets & IO

  
Module
Platforms, Builds & Tests

  
Module
Python API

  
Module
Render & Cycles

  
Module
Sculpt, Paint & Texture

  
Module
Triaging

  
Module
User Interface

  
Module
VFX & Video

  
Platform
FreeBSD

  
Platform
Linux

  
Platform
macOS

  
Platform
Windows

  
Priority
High

  
Priority
Low

  
Priority
Normal

  
Priority
Unbreak Now!

  
Status
Archived

  
Status
Confirmed

  
Status
Duplicate

  
Status
Needs Info from Developers

  
Status
Needs Information from User

  
Status
Needs Triage

  
Status
Resolved

  
Type
Bug

  
Type
Design

  
Type
Known Issue

  
Type
Patch

  
Type
Report

  
Type
To Do

No Label
Interest
Alembic
Interest
Animation & Rigging
Interest
Asset Browser
Interest
Asset Browser Project Overview
Interest
Audio
Interest
Automated Testing
Interest
Blender Asset Bundle
Interest
BlendFile
Interest
Collada
Interest
Compatibility
Interest
Compositing
Interest
Core
Interest
Cycles
Interest
Dependency Graph
Interest
Development Management
Interest
EEVEE
Interest
EEVEE & Viewport
Interest
Freestyle
Interest
Geometry Nodes
Interest
Grease Pencil
Interest
ID Management
Interest
Images & Movies
Interest
Import Export
Interest
Line Art
Interest
Masking
Interest
Metal
Interest
Modeling
Interest
Modifiers
Interest
Motion Tracking
Interest
Nodes & Physics
Interest
OpenGL
Interest
Overlay
Interest
Overrides
Interest
Performance
Interest
Physics
Interest
Pipeline, Assets & IO
Interest
Platforms, Builds & Tests
Interest
Python API
Interest
Render & Cycles
Interest
Render Pipeline
Interest
Sculpt, Paint & Texture
Interest
Text Editor
Interest
Translations
Interest
Triaging
Interest
Undo
Interest
USD
Interest
User Interface
Interest
UV Editing
Interest
VFX & Video
Interest
Video Sequencer
Interest
Virtual Reality
Interest
Vulkan
Interest
Wayland
Interest
Workbench
Interest: X11
Legacy
Blender 2.8 Project
Legacy
Milestone 1: Basic, Local Asset Browser
Legacy
OpenGL Error
Meta
Good First Issue
Meta
Papercut
Meta
Retrospective
Meta
Security
Module
Animation & Rigging
Module
Core
Module
Development Management
Module
EEVEE & Viewport
Module
Grease Pencil
Module
Modeling
Module
Nodes & Physics
Module
Pipeline, Assets & IO
Module
Platforms, Builds & Tests
Module
Python API
Module
Render & Cycles
Module
Sculpt, Paint & Texture
Module
Triaging
Module
User Interface
Module
VFX & Video
Platform
FreeBSD
Platform
Linux
Platform
macOS
Platform
Windows
Priority
High
Priority
Low
Priority
Normal
Priority
Unbreak Now!
Status
Archived
Status
Confirmed
Status
Duplicate
Status
Needs Info from Developers
Status
Needs Information from User
Status
Needs Triage
Status
Resolved
Type
Bug
Type
Design
Type
Known Issue
Type
Patch
Type
Report
Type
To Do
Milestone
Clear milestone
No items
No Milestone
3.6 LTS
Projects
Clear projects
No project
EEVEE & Viewport
Assignees
Clear assignees
No Assignees
Jeroen Bakker
5 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format 'yyyy-mm-dd'.

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: blender/blender#106092
No description provided.
Delete Branch "%!s(<nil>)"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?