Editing an object that is referenced in a disabled modifier (of another object) forces the other modifiers on the same stack to update #73199

Open
opened 3 years ago by Vyach · 49 comments
Vyach commented 3 years ago

System Information
Operating system: Windows-7-6.1.7601-SP1 64 Bits
Graphics card: GeForce GTX 660 Ti/PCIe/SSE2 NVIDIA Corporation 4.5.0 NVIDIA 441.20

Blender Version
Broken: version: 2.82 (sub 6), branch: master, commit date: 2020-01-15 21:07, hash: 689a873029

Short description of error
When there are two Boolean modifiers, and the second one is disabled, editing its shape still recalculates the Boolean operation if the first one is enabled.
Even when both modifiers are disabled, editing their shapes is slower than editing the same shape that is not targeted by a Boolean modifier.

As an example:

2020-01-17_18-02-50.mp4

Exact steps for others to reproduce the error

  • Open #73199-testboolean.blend (or add two cubes, make a dense mesh, add Boolean modifiers to the dense mesh each targeting a cube).
  • Switch off a single Boolean modifier.
  • Edit the mesh that is targeted by that Boolean modifier. This is slow.
  • Switch off the other Boolean modifier.
  • Edit the same mesh as above. This is now much faster.
  • Add a third cube and edit it. This is still faster than in the previous step.
**System Information** Operating system: Windows-7-6.1.7601-SP1 64 Bits Graphics card: GeForce GTX 660 Ti/PCIe/SSE2 NVIDIA Corporation 4.5.0 NVIDIA 441.20 **Blender Version** Broken: version: 2.82 (sub 6), branch: master, commit date: 2020-01-15 21:07, hash: `689a873029` **Short description of error** When there are two Boolean modifiers, and the second one is disabled, editing its shape still recalculates the Boolean operation if the first one is enabled. Even when both modifiers are disabled, editing their shapes is slower than editing the same shape that is not targeted by a Boolean modifier. As an example: [2020-01-17_18-02-50.mp4](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F8283208/2020-01-17_18-02-50.mp4) **Exact steps for others to reproduce the error** - Open [#73199-testboolean.blend](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F8296702/T73199-testboolean.blend) (or add two cubes, make a dense mesh, add Boolean modifiers to the dense mesh each targeting a cube). - Switch off a single Boolean modifier. - Edit the mesh that is targeted by that Boolean modifier. This is slow. - Switch off the other Boolean modifier. - Edit the same mesh as above. This is now much faster. - Add a third cube and edit it. This is still faster than in the previous step.
Vyach commented 3 years ago
Poster

Added subscriber: @Vyach

Added subscriber: @Vyach
Collaborator

#102361 was marked as duplicate of this issue

#102361 was marked as duplicate of this issue
Collaborator

#88332 was marked as duplicate of this issue

#88332 was marked as duplicate of this issue
Collaborator

#81871 was marked as duplicate of this issue

#81871 was marked as duplicate of this issue
Collaborator

#80892 was marked as duplicate of this issue

#80892 was marked as duplicate of this issue
Collaborator

#79693 was marked as duplicate of this issue

#79693 was marked as duplicate of this issue
Collaborator

#79147 was marked as duplicate of this issue

#79147 was marked as duplicate of this issue
Collaborator

#79047 was marked as duplicate of this issue

#79047 was marked as duplicate of this issue
Collaborator

#77956 was marked as duplicate of this issue

#77956 was marked as duplicate of this issue
Collaborator

#71490 was marked as duplicate of this issue

#71490 was marked as duplicate of this issue
Collaborator

#75646 was marked as duplicate of this issue

#75646 was marked as duplicate of this issue
iss commented 3 years ago
Collaborator

Changed status from 'Needs Triage' to: 'Confirmed'

Changed status from 'Needs Triage' to: 'Confirmed'
Collaborator

Added subscriber: @dr.sybren

Added subscriber: @dr.sybren
Collaborator

I've replaced the example file that's slightly easier to use for debugging:

  • Renamed the cube objects so that they have a sensible name (I won't remember which one was Cube.002 when looking through the depsgraph plots, so Cube.LeftBool makes more sense)
  • Removed the add-on overrides from the workspaces. I didn't expect these, and was wondering why my debugging add-on wasn't showing.
  • Removed non-essential workspaces now that I was looking at workspaces anyway.
  • Removed the subdivision modifier from the cube (by applying it) so that there are only modifiers that are relevant to this report.

I can confirm the reported behaviour, and IMO it's indeed a bug. The performance of editing the Cube.LeftBool mesh should IMO be independent of whether the boolean modifier targeting Cube.RightBool is active.

I've replaced the example file that's slightly easier to use for debugging: - Renamed the cube objects so that they have a sensible name (I won't remember which one was `Cube.002` when looking through the depsgraph plots, so `Cube.LeftBool` makes more sense) - Removed the add-on overrides from the workspaces. I didn't expect these, and was wondering why my debugging add-on wasn't showing. - Removed non-essential workspaces now that I was looking at workspaces anyway. - Removed the subdivision modifier from the cube (by applying it) so that there are only modifiers that are relevant to this report. I can confirm the reported behaviour, and IMO it's indeed a bug. The performance of editing the `Cube.LeftBool` mesh should IMO be independent of whether the boolean modifier targeting `Cube.RightBool` is active.
mont29 commented 3 years ago
Owner

Added subscribers: @Sergey, @mont29

Added subscribers: @Sergey, @mont29
mont29 commented 3 years ago
Owner

Issue here is that for the depsgraph, it has no knowledge whether the modifier is disabled or not, so it keeps following the rules established by the relations generated in updateDepsgraph() modifier's callback.

We could imagine something like calling DEG_relations_tag_update() when enabling/disabling a modifier's "visibility", and then check in the various updateDepsgraph() callbacks whether modifier is enabled or not... But that does not seem to go along current design really, updateDepsgraph() is not even aware of evaluation context at all currently (which makes sense).

Think we need depsgraph mastermind lights here before we do anything, @Sergey?

Also, this is definitively not a bug, things are working as expected in current design afaikt, and not how simple it will be to change that behavior..

Issue here is that for the depsgraph, it has no knowledge whether the modifier is disabled or not, so it keeps following the rules established by the relations generated in `updateDepsgraph()` modifier's callback. We could imagine something like calling `DEG_relations_tag_update()` when enabling/disabling a modifier's "visibility", and then check in the various `updateDepsgraph()` callbacks whether modifier is enabled or not... But that does not seem to go along current design really, `updateDepsgraph()` is not even aware of evaluation context at all currently (which makes sense). Think we need depsgraph mastermind lights here before we do anything, @Sergey? Also, this is definitively not a bug, things are working as expected in current design afaikt, and not how simple it will be to change that behavior..
Sergey commented 3 years ago
Owner

This is indeed a known issue.

There is no easy solution here, since modifier "visibility" can be driver/animated. So if we want to be smart and completely remove relations from disabled modifiers then we will very quickly run into feedback loop: we need to know whether modifier is enabled or not during dependency graph construction, but to know that we need to evaluate dependency graph.

One possible solution is to have heuristic similar to collections: ignore collections which are not visible and which visibility is not animated/driven. But that' s an optimization rather than a bug fix.

This is indeed a known issue. There is no easy solution here, since modifier "visibility" can be driver/animated. So if we want to be smart and completely remove relations from disabled modifiers then we will very quickly run into feedback loop: we need to know whether modifier is enabled or not during dependency graph construction, but to know that we need to evaluate dependency graph. One possible solution is to have heuristic similar to collections: ignore collections which are not visible and which visibility is not animated/driven. But that' s an optimization rather than a bug fix.
Vyach commented 3 years ago
Poster

@Sergey
Anyway, I'll be happy with such optimisation, because mostly I work with static scenes and sculpts.

@Sergey Anyway, I'll be happy with such optimisation, because mostly I work with static scenes and sculpts.
Collaborator

Added subscriber: @lichtwerk

Added subscriber: @lichtwerk
Collaborator

Isnt this the same as {#71490}?
Also had a play there with adding relations conditionally (but not the complete way as @Sergey suggested...), see P1162

If these reports should be merged [I think they should], should we do it by merging #71490 into this one? [comments here are much more to the point...]

Isnt this the same as {#71490}? Also had a play there with adding relations **conditionally** (but not the complete way as @Sergey suggested...), see [P1162](https://archive.blender.org/developer/P1162.txt) If these reports should be merged [I think they should], should we do it by merging #71490 into this one? [comments here are much more to the point...]
Collaborator

Added subscribers: @hadrien, @VincentBlankfield

Added subscribers: @hadrien, @VincentBlankfield
Collaborator

I think merging #71490 here is a good idea indeed.

I think merging #71490 here is a good idea indeed.
lichtwerk changed title from Switched off Boolean modifier still recalculates if there is second one, that switched on to Switched off modifier still recalculates if there is second one, that switched on 3 years ago
Collaborator
Added subscribers: @FrancoisRimasson, @GabrielMoro, @M.Pivetta, @ZachHixson, @mano-wii

Thanks for the merge I wasn't sure the issue affected all modifiers.

In #73199#876123, @Sergey wrote:
This is indeed a known issue.

There is no easy solution here, since modifier "visibility" can be driver/animated. So if we want to be smart and completely remove relations from disabled modifiers then we will very quickly run into feedback loop: we need to know whether modifier is enabled or not during dependency graph construction, but to know that we need to evaluate dependency graph.

One possible solution is to have heuristic similar to collections: ignore collections which are not visible and which visibility is not animated/driven. But that' s an optimization rather than a bug fix.

That makes sense. I imagine depsgraph can't evaluate relations up to the point where it knows whether or not the modifier is enabled (if driven/animated), and then decide to evaluate it or not ? Surely you've explored this already, probably pointless to suggest it.

In any case, I know I would benefit greatly from this optimization : for most scenes my modifiers' states are usually static (that wouldn't apply to character rigs). My exact case is, I have a short script that checks for a specific lattice modifier on all mesh objects and toggles it to gain performance - at least that's what I expected to happen, but performance stays the same hence the bug report.

Thanks for the merge I wasn't sure the issue affected all modifiers. > In #73199#876123, @Sergey wrote: > This is indeed a known issue. > > There is no easy solution here, since modifier "visibility" can be driver/animated. So if we want to be smart and completely remove relations from disabled modifiers then we will very quickly run into feedback loop: we need to know whether modifier is enabled or not during dependency graph construction, but to know that we need to evaluate dependency graph. > > One possible solution is to have heuristic similar to collections: ignore collections which are not visible and which visibility is not animated/driven. But that' s an optimization rather than a bug fix. That makes sense. I imagine depsgraph can't evaluate relations up to the point where it knows whether or not the modifier is enabled (if driven/animated), and then decide to evaluate it or not ? Surely you've explored this already, probably pointless to suggest it. In any case, I know I would benefit greatly from this optimization : for most scenes my modifiers' states are usually static (that wouldn't apply to character rigs). My exact case is, I have a short script that checks for a specific lattice modifier on all mesh objects and toggles it to gain performance - at least that's what I expected to happen, but performance stays the same hence the bug report.
Vyach commented 3 years ago
Poster

In #73199#876123, @Sergey wrote:
One possible solution is to have heuristic similar to collections: ignore collections which are not visible and which visibility is not animated/driven. But that' s an optimization rather than a bug fix.

Yep, It looks smart and proper way to fix it. Anyway In most cases modifiers are static.
I will wait this great improvement.

> In #73199#876123, @Sergey wrote: > One possible solution is to have heuristic similar to collections: ignore collections which are not visible and which visibility is not animated/driven. But that' s an optimization rather than a bug fix. Yep, It looks smart and proper way to fix it. Anyway In most cases modifiers are static. I will wait this great improvement.
EAW commented 3 years ago

Added subscriber: @thomason1005

Added subscriber: @thomason1005
Vyach commented 3 years ago
Poster

Idk if it is correct place, but I have this bit of info about modifiers unnecessary recalculation,
may be it can help to check Blender`s behavior more precisely.
untitled.blend
2020-06-25_20-18-32.mp4

Idk if it is correct place, but I have this bit of info about modifiers unnecessary recalculation, may be it can help to check Blender`s behavior more precisely. [untitled.blend](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F8644026/untitled.blend) [2020-06-25_20-18-32.mp4](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F8644025/2020-06-25_20-18-32.mp4)

Added subscriber: @mattli911

Added subscriber: @mattli911
iss commented 3 years ago
Collaborator

Added subscriber: @jaggz

Added subscriber: @jaggz
karja commented 3 years ago

Added subscriber: @karja

Added subscriber: @karja
Vyach commented 3 years ago
Poster

Here is another example. Even if you apply Subsurf, switched Mirror will be calculated on every move. You can test it with this file (if lags are not so noticable — increase subdiv)
MadMirror.blend

2.79 has small but noticable slowdown in this case. 2.9 have heavy lags.

Is it the same problem? It is very annoying, and become more dramatic, because mirror duplicate geometry instead instancing it.

Here is another example. Even if you apply Subsurf, switched Mirror will be calculated on every move. You can test it with this file (if lags are not so noticable — increase subdiv) [MadMirror.blend](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F8759575/MadMirror.blend) 2.79 has small but noticable slowdown in this case. 2.9 have heavy lags. Is it the same problem? It is very annoying, and become more dramatic, because mirror duplicate geometry instead instancing it.
Owner

Added subscriber: @dfelinto

Added subscriber: @dfelinto
Owner

Hi @Vyach - this is already marked as known issue, so although more information can help, the report already has all the information a developer would need to look at it. In your case you can just report your issue as a new bug, and the triaging team can handle the investigation and eventually merge the tasks if it comes to that. Just please refer to this task when opening a new one.

Hi @Vyach - this is already marked as known issue, so although more information can help, the report already has all the information a developer would need to look at it. In your case you can just report your issue as a new bug, and the triaging team can handle the investigation and eventually merge the tasks if it comes to that. Just please refer to this task when opening a new one.
Vyach commented 3 years ago
Poster

@dfelinto Got it! I thought this was exact the same issue, so I didn`t new report. But if U suggest so, I'll try.

@dfelinto Got it! I thought this was exact the same issue, so I didn`t new report. But if U suggest so, I'll try.
iss commented 2 years ago
Collaborator

Added subscriber: @3di

Added subscriber: @3di
iss commented 2 years ago
Collaborator

Added subscribers: @viadvena, @iss

Added subscribers: @viadvena, @iss
Vyach commented 2 years ago
Poster

In #73199#876123, @Sergey wrote:
But that' s an optimization rather than a bug fix.

Of course optimization/design.
But very important optimization, that will affect total performance much.
I hope, this will be fixed once.

> In #73199#876123, @Sergey wrote: > But that' s an optimization rather than a bug fix. Of course optimization/design. But very important optimization, that will affect total performance much. I hope, this will be fixed once.
Vyach commented 2 years ago
Poster

I suppose, this is the same issue.
2020-11-06_17-56-43.mp4

I suppose, this is the same issue. [2020-11-06_17-56-43.mp4](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F9218933/2020-11-06_17-56-43.mp4)

**Crucial Bug!**With bugs like this one Blender stay too far from proprietary apps. It's confusing me how often new releases coming but bugs that corrupt whole workflow isn't resolving for so long. I hope devs will take all efforts to squash this bug and others.

**Crucial Bug!**With bugs like this one Blender stay too far from proprietary apps. It's confusing me how often new releases coming but bugs that corrupt whole workflow isn't resolving for so long. I hope devs will take all efforts to squash this bug and others.
jaggz commented 2 years ago

If we can flag modifiers as targets/dependencies of drivers, that could allow at least a workable solution.

In fact, if that's possible, a little notification of it being such a target would be useful, maybe with a mouseover:
"This modifier (or its visibility) is controlled by drivers. It will still be calculated even if you disable its visibility."

In #73199#876123, @Sergey wrote:
This is indeed a known issue.

There is no easy solution here, since modifier "visibility" can be driver/animated. So if we want to be smart and completely remove relations from disabled modifiers then we will very quickly run into feedback loop: we need to know whether modifier is enabled or not during dependency graph construction, but to know that we need to evaluate dependency graph.

One possible solution is to have heuristic similar to collections: ignore collections which are not visible and which visibility is not animated/driven. But that' s an optimization rather than a bug fix.

If we can flag modifiers as targets/dependencies of drivers, that could allow at least a workable solution. In fact, if that's possible, a little notification of it being such a target would be useful, maybe with a mouseover: "This modifier (or its visibility) is controlled by drivers. It will still be calculated even if you disable its visibility." > In #73199#876123, @Sergey wrote: > This is indeed a known issue. > > There is no easy solution here, since modifier "visibility" can be driver/animated. So if we want to be smart and completely remove relations from disabled modifiers then we will very quickly run into feedback loop: we need to know whether modifier is enabled or not during dependency graph construction, but to know that we need to evaluate dependency graph. > > One possible solution is to have heuristic similar to collections: ignore collections which are not visible and which visibility is not animated/driven. But that' s an optimization rather than a bug fix.

Added subscriber: @jstaniek

Added subscriber: @jstaniek

Fi>>! In #73199#876123, @Sergey wrote:

This is indeed a known issue.

There is no easy solution here, since modifier "visibility" can be driver/animated. So if we want to be smart and completely remove relations from disabled modifiers then we will very quickly run into feedback loop: we need to know whether modifier is enabled or not during dependency graph construction, but to know that we need to evaluate dependency graph.

One possible solution is to have heuristic similar to collections: ignore collections which are not visible and which visibility is not animated/driven. But that' s an optimization rather than a bug fix.

My thoughts 16 months later: fixing critical performance degradation versus animation features.
It depends how we define meaning of the visibility. If we separate the "viewport/design-time" meaning of the visibility flag from the "animation/render-time" visibility we might find a solution at conceptual level.

Is it true that Blender 2.7 or older had no such issue or not so clearly noticeable? As a heavy user of booleans with hi-poly I remember using the modifier visibility was a help there (as well as for subdiv, etc).

Fi>>! In #73199#876123, @Sergey wrote: > This is indeed a known issue. > > There is no easy solution here, since modifier "visibility" can be driver/animated. So if we want to be smart and completely remove relations from disabled modifiers then we will very quickly run into feedback loop: we need to know whether modifier is enabled or not during dependency graph construction, but to know that we need to evaluate dependency graph. > > One possible solution is to have heuristic similar to collections: ignore collections which are not visible and which visibility is not animated/driven. But that' s an optimization rather than a bug fix. My thoughts 16 months later: fixing critical performance degradation versus animation features. **It depends how we define meaning of the visibility.** If we **separate** the "viewport/design-time" meaning of the visibility flag from the "animation/render-time" visibility we might find a solution at conceptual level. Is it true that Blender 2.7 or older had no such issue or not so clearly noticeable? As a heavy user of booleans with hi-poly I remember using the modifier visibility was a help there (as well as for subdiv, etc).
Vyach commented 2 years ago
Poster

@jstaniek so changing driver-values should also count as «animation time».
As stupid person I can`t understand why checking modifier == executing modifier.

but to know that we need to evaluate dependency graph.

Then, there should be parallel method to check it without touching depsgraph.
Or even just memorize, whats animated/drivered and what is not, and only check it on load.
Then update only when user make something animated

@jstaniek so changing driver-values should also count as «animation time». As stupid person I can`t understand why checking modifier == executing modifier. >but to know that we need to evaluate dependency graph. Then, there should be parallel method to check it without touching depsgraph. Or even just memorize, whats animated/drivered and what is not, and only check it on load. Then update only when user make something animated
Collaborator

Added subscriber: @vasiln

Added subscriber: @vasiln
mano-wii changed title from Switched off modifier still recalculates if there is second one, that switched on to Object referenced in a disabled modifier still force the other modifiers on the stack to update 1 year ago
Collaborator

Added subscribers: @HooglyBoogly, @lone_noel

Added subscribers: @HooglyBoogly, @lone_noel

Added subscriber: @EnzioProbst

Added subscriber: @EnzioProbst

[Edited to correct] I presume modifier visibility is rarely used by drivers, although possibly heavily by some users / in some projects.

Perhaps I'm not understanding the implications correctly, but isn't there some balance that can be reached here? What about a default, toggleable from a Modifier's pulldown menu, that INCLUDES it in depsgraph updates (opt-in seems like a good default). Additionally, if you manually add a driver to a visibility/renderability, it can auto-toggle it on for you; however, if you're using python/drivers to "externally" modify it, you have to go turn it on, or have the "default" preference checked.
So, in prefs somewhere: "- [x] Modifier dependency graph test default" <-- no clue what to call this.

Seems like a strange thing to be unable to resolve, and it impacts a lot of people who are working on editing things that are slow with their modifiers, and they only want it later when they enable it, or during render.

In #73199#1151169, @Vyach wrote:
@jstaniek so changing driver-values should also count as «animation time».
As stupid person I can`t understand why checking modifier == executing modifier.

but to know that we need to evaluate dependency graph.

Then, there should be parallel method to check it without touching depsgraph.
Or even just memorize, whats animated/drivered and what is not, and only check it on load.
Then update only when user make something animated

[Edited to correct] I presume modifier visibility is rarely used by drivers, although possibly heavily by some users / in some projects. Perhaps I'm not understanding the implications correctly, but isn't there some balance that can be reached here? What about a default, toggleable from a Modifier's pulldown menu, that INCLUDES it in depsgraph updates (opt-in seems like a good default). Additionally, if you manually add a driver to a visibility/renderability, it can auto-toggle it on for you; however, if you're using python/drivers to "externally" modify it, you have to go turn it on, or have the "default" preference checked. So, in prefs somewhere: "- [x] Modifier dependency graph test default" <-- no clue what to call this. Seems like a strange thing to be unable to resolve, and it impacts a lot of people who are working on editing things that are slow with their modifiers, and they only want it later when they enable it, or during render. > In #73199#1151169, @Vyach wrote: > @jstaniek so changing driver-values should also count as «animation time». > As stupid person I can`t understand why checking modifier == executing modifier. >>but to know that we need to evaluate dependency graph. > Then, there should be parallel method to check it without touching depsgraph. > Or even just memorize, whats animated/drivered and what is not, and only check it on load. > Then update only when user make something animated
mano-wii changed title from Object referenced in a disabled modifier still force the other modifiers on the stack to update to Editing an object that is referenced in a disabled modifier (of another object) forces the other modifiers on the same stack to update 9 months ago
Collaborator

Added subscribers: @kursadk, @PratikPB2123

Added subscribers: @kursadk, @PratikPB2123

Added subscriber: @F_Scociety

Added subscriber: @F_Scociety
lichtwerk removed the
legacy module/Modeling
label 23 hours ago
lichtwerk removed the
Interest/Modeling
label 23 hours ago
lichtwerk added the
Interest/Core
label 3 hours ago
lichtwerk removed the
legacy module/Core
label 3 hours ago
Sign in to join this conversation.
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/Collada
Interest/Compositing
Interest/Core
Interest/Cycles
Interest/Dependency Graph
Interest/Development Management
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/Modeling
Interest/Modifiers
Interest/Motion Tracking
Interest/Nodes & Physics
Interest/Overrides
Interest/Performance
Interest/Performance
Interest/Physics
Interest/Pipeline, Assets & I/O
Interest/Platforms, Builds, Tests & Devices
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
legacy module/Animation & Rigging
legacy module/Core
legacy module/Development Management
legacy module/Eevee & Viewport
legacy module/Grease Pencil
legacy module/Modeling
legacy module/Nodes & Physics
legacy module/Pipeline, Assets & IO
legacy module/Platforms, Builds, Tests & Devices
legacy module/Python API
legacy module/Rendering & Cycles
legacy module/Sculpt, Paint & Texture
legacy module/Triaging
legacy module/User Interface
legacy module/VFX & Video
legacy project/1.0.0-beta.2
legacy project/Asset Browser (Archived)
legacy project/BF Blender: 2.8
legacy project/BF Blender: After Release
legacy project/BF Blender: Next
legacy project/BF Blender: Regressions
legacy project/BF Blender: Unconfirmed
legacy project/Blender 2.70
legacy project/Code Quest
legacy project/Datablocks and Libraries
legacy project/Eevee
legacy project/Game Animation
legacy project/Game Audio
legacy project/Game Data Conversion
legacy project/Game Engine
legacy project/Game Logic
legacy project/Game Physics
legacy project/Game Python
legacy project/Game Rendering
legacy project/Game UI
legacy project/GPU / Viewport
legacy project/GSoC
legacy project/Infrastructure: Websites
legacy project/LibOverrides - Usability and UX
legacy project/Milestone 1: Basic, Local Asset Browser
legacy project/Nodes
legacy project/OpenGL Error
legacy project/Papercut
legacy project/Pose Library Basics
legacy project/Retrospective
legacy project/Tracker Curfew
legacy project/Wintab High Frequency
Meta/Good First Issue
Meta/Papercut
migration/requires-manual-verification
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 & Devices
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 Information 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 Milestone
No project
No Assignees
19 Participants
Notifications
Due Date

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: blender/blender#73199
Loading…
There is no content yet.