after testing I want to do some more code reorganization. It seems that also later we always need the renderpass_fb, what leads a different interface.

At Airbus Defence & Space, we are using ensurepip (and then pip install) to install 3rd party packages inside Blender, for addon and pipeline development, based on buildin python from blender. Hope we can continue to perform it even on PC without system install of python

Hello, can you please be a bit more explicit on the exact steps i need to follow since this is the first time i do it?

@KiJeon (0o00o0oo) One could indeed suggest or request specific improvements to animation layers compared to what we have. But at least it does exist, and since 2.80, layering actually produces correct results, unlike in 2.79 and earlier. It's one of the bigger 2.80 features that not many people discussed.

Congrats on the build setup :D It's going to be useful I'm sure.

I would also appreciate to have pip in blender. I'm struggling with using numpy or scipy inside of blender. It would make it so much easier to use scientific data for visualising in blender.

Suggest not to draw the point if it's not needed:

While I don't have the build-bot setup - as far as I'm concerned this patch can be applied as-is.

If there is a way which avoids use of environment variable i'd choose that way.

Suggest not to draw the point if it's not needed:

I support bundling pip with Blender. It would have helped me in quite a few cases. I did not have any issues with binary compatibility after installing it myself yet. That does not mean that there are none of course.

To clarify for @Hector Alexander Galindo Escobar (h3ctor3scobar), there is actually no straight forward "Animation Layers" in Blender like in Maya, but you can replicate the behavior by using NLA strips in the "Nonlinear Animation" Editor.

build/carve

@Brendon Murphy (meta-androcto)
Hi Brendon, I have made some updates to this add-on and would like to include these improvements in a future Blender release. The current version that was auto-updated for the 2.80 release has a few bugs in it.

I like 'contiguous extrude' seems succinct and descriptive.

Indeed, Push/Pull has a conflict with the old Push/Pull tool, even if it's rarely used:

OKi, closing then...

For the records, P1156 (manual entry, waiting for 2.81 manual to be out of the way so I can commit this).

Extra text can be in the tooltip I think, or in the task. Committing this to master then.

In D5336#143480, @CandleComet (CandleComet) wrote:

• Extrude Manifold, Smart Extrude, and Push/Pull sound like good options to me.

Addressed comments from review

In D5336#143471, @William Reynish (billreynish) wrote:

Push/Pull could indeed make sense I think. @CandleComet (CandleComet) you OK to change the name?

Press/tug extrude
push/tug extrude
drive/tug extrude
in/out extrude
to/fro extrude
back/forth extrude
plus/minus extrude
give/take extrude
build/wrack extrude
buld/crush extrude
build/smash extrude
push/draw extrude

Looks good. And it’s nice that you included links to phabricator also. Do you think it’s worth adding text here, or should we just add that in the Phab task instead?

This is not a bug.

The only thing I would add, as that for quats, the XYZW channels really mean something quite different from normal Euler XYZ. One could argue that it’s better to use a separate color scheme for quaterneons.

Checked. Problen was fixed in 2.81 beta :)