User posts Yuri Kovelenov
26 January 2015 12:53
I like Duarte's idea of making a Blend4web specific "mode"; to help eliminate cumbersome options and tools which do not apply or are unsupported for blend4web output. There could even be specific tooltips regarding which items or options work together to create desired effects.This mode is our top priority to implement.
Also, I recall in another forum topic I mentioned constraints. The response was that they are not supported at this time; but that armatures are. I think many people coming from a mechanical or architectural background; already have a good deal of experience using simple constraints. They work quite well for simple maechanical systems, such as a rudder on a wing, etc. Armatures are powerful and would seem a bit overkill for most mechanical animating.That was me answering in this thread. Thanks for suggesting this! The constraints topic is related to inverse kinematics task which is in our roadmap. It is rather advanced functionality to be implemented quickly, but will greatly simplify the authoring.
24 January 2015 21:16
24 January 2015 18:44
24 January 2015 00:42
23 January 2015 21:36
23 January 2015 21:24
As for this current Firefox issue, I would suspect it is a Firefox problem to remedy as opposed to a B4W workaround to be implemented.Yes, it is a Firefox bug. However, we'll include a temporary workaround in the upcoming B4W release in order to solve it.
As for Internet Explorer and other cases when depth textures are missing and the low quality is enforced, we are now implementing a fallback (namely, packing depth values in RGBA channels) in order to support glow and other post-processing effects.
23 January 2015 11:38
http://www.c4dcafe.com/ipb/topic/86635-c4d-for-web/
Seems that Blender overcomes Cinema4D this way
Seems that Blender overcomes Cinema4D this way
23 January 2015 11:34
Человек хочет для Cinema4D такой же плагин как для Blender http://www.c4dcafe.com/ipb/topic/86635-c4d-for-web/
23 January 2015 11:29
22 January 2015 17:21
You would still export from the export menu, or if you were feeling really original instead of having a render button you would just have an "export" button which would actually just create the HTML or corresponding JSON file instead, this could respect the "output" field like other renderers do, allowing a quick explicit way to re-export to the same file. At the most this could call the default system browser on the created file if the user intended so.Interesting idea!
eventually set the viewport to the correct "mode" to support displaying of material and texture previews as closely to the web version as possible.Yes, that would be helpful.