+100 on that, now is the time to make big changes before the final.PeterCGS wrote:No... Just go ahead and change! If people want backwards compatiblity they just have to use a older release of Octane. Added functionality is far more important than backwards compatiblity. Every other manufacturer breaks their previous implementation sooner or later, don't feel afraid to do the same!radiance wrote:On a side note, this might require some changed that could cause the next version to be released with these new nodes and concepts to not be backwards compatible anymore with previous OCS projects...would that be a big issue ? I thi the added large amount of functionality should make up for it.

I was looking at the low level nodes and was thinking that some of this might be more easily handled by a scripting system. Maybe a scripting node that holds some kind of script text that operates with the low level functions. I know that this goes against the whole "node" paradigm but it would be much easier for the user to do really complex/low level coding (e.g. narly complex math functions). Maybe tied in with matej's generic node type? I know that this will depend on how Octane is structured internally. Just a thought.
Grimm