Wed, Dec 6
Applied already - rBe6404274a1eb0ed5f50445f5c7840720a03713fa - depth also needs skip save.
@Matt Hoecker (blazer003) After talks on IRC with developers, the Collision was UI disabled for a reason, as it would produce undesirable effects with some scenes. Modifier tools will skip them for now.
Yep, built this in macOS and works there too.
Mon, Dec 4
Tue, Nov 28
This was my conclusion as we’ll. There would not seem to be an apparent reason that the collision modifier would not be like other physics modifiers and have the same UI design, with the enable/disable icon. There have been some times I’ve wanted to disable it, but instead had to remove and reapply it in the physics panel (luckily it retains its settings.) I’m sure that there is a reason, there always is.
I can confirm the issue. From a standpoint of the add-on it just loops through the modifiers and flips a property. However it can be frustrating for sure.
Nevertheless, I'm not sure why Collision not available in the UI in the template_modifier or it is not exposed in the Physics panel when calling physics_add?
Mon, Nov 27
Just dummy objects. That's what I thought you meant by "alternatively, delete hidden objects. "
Sun, Nov 26
Played at about 5 fps,
then deleted Dummy Hair and Dummy Clothing, no difference in playback.
That was with 2.79
Fri, Nov 24
Sun, Nov 12
I don't have rights to merge task. So, I closed it and you just have to subscribe to previous report to be kept informed of treatment of the issue.
You are correct, should I close this one or do I merge it somehow? (first time posting a bug)
It looks like a duplicate of T51010
Nov 9 2017
Nov 5 2017
Oct 31 2017
More than a week without reply. Due to the policy of the tracker archiving for until required info/data are provided.
It looks like array modifier is not using name but index of vertex group.
Oct 30 2017
Oct 27 2017
Thanks, I'm aware of that, the diversity itself is achievable quite easily. The goal was in interpolation of that diversity (like "clumping" in hair) and at moment that takes considerable amounts of magic, that instance modifier being compatible with skin modifier would alleviate in some cases. Sure, it may not be worth the time investment if the PS system will be rebuilt, but it's out of my competence to judge.
You can use Particle Instance with hair. But workflow is strict and ask an object oriented to its Y axis.
Then, you can use several objects and PS to add diversity into shapes.
Changing the order eliminates the purpose. Which is to create impression of particles being bent differently with a controlled degree of cross-neighbor relatedness (think flower petals, mosses - lots of small scale repetitive structures). Because if the deformation texture scale is large enough for that to work (affecting particle mesh as whole, not just shifting separate vertices randomly), it begins also affecting particles as a whole, not individually.
A tested alternative for such cases is creating individual objects instead of particles with noise*location based driver deformation modifiers, however that has to deal with mass application of drivers, them using "self", etc, grinding performance of anything but unique cases to a halt.
A theoretical work-around would be having custom object hair PS, but objects seem to replace hair, not following their shape.
Oct 14 2017
Oct 9 2017
I can confirm that there is a problem, here.
I had to open an Image Editor, modify Number of frames, Start Frame settings and enable autorefresh into Image Properties.
In 2.78 I can redo this, but I can't redo this in 2.79 or master e360d003ea45ee233c6f10c03ff57c956929b383
Oct 8 2017
This a known limitation.
Oct 7 2017
Sep 29 2017
Found this page when I'm trying to create a lightning effect using texture nodes and a line (with many segment) with displacement modifier. Glad to know it is on the todo list.
Sep 28 2017
Can confirm the behavior, unable to say if this expected behavior though. @Sergey Sharybin (sergey) ?
Sep 26 2017
Sep 25 2017
Yeah sure, I will put it on my todo for Wednesday.
Closing. This sounds like a known limitation with geometry-altering modifiers and motion blur.
Sep 22 2017
Well it seems Vertex Weight Proximity is not the problem, another modifiers like Subsurf or Triangulation placed before second Displace also break simulation
Sep 21 2017
This is a known limitation of Motion Blur that modifiers altering geometry may have an undesired impact.
Sep 20 2017
Note, this is caused by the epsilon being measured in different spaces, it's possible for the vertex not to be detected on the face, and the edge not detect intersecting.
To add to what Yury included above, if the models use Weight Paint Groups to determine the values for width and segments then multiple objects with different settings can be joined together.
Sep 19 2017
Thank You very kindly for looking into it!