Raise particle count limit for 2.8 release
ClosedPublic
Actions

Authored by Gottfried Hofmann (gottfried) on Jun 22 2019, 9:42 AM.

Details

Reviewers

Jacques Lucke (JacquesLucke)
Sergey Sharybin (sergey)
Brecht Van Lommel (brecht)

Commits

rB3f208ed92747: Raise particle count limit for 2.8 release

Summary

Blender 2.8 features significant improvements in the creation of particles. Thus raising both the hard and soft limits seems reasonable.

For the new hard limit I propose 16M which is still below the object limit Blender can handle, thus preventing possible errors.

Note that for point density and other uses of particles that do not involve dupliobjects even more than 16M could be warranted. The viewport handles the drawing of even 20M particles just fine: https://twitter.com/BlenderDiplom/status/1138847617713094656

Diff Detail

Repository: rB Blender

Event Timeline

Gottfried Hofmann (gottfried) created this revision.Jun 22 2019, 9:42 AM

Eitan Traurig (EitanSomething) added a reviewer: Jacques Lucke (JacquesLucke).Jul 7 2019, 10:43 PM

Eitan Traurig (EitanSomething) added a reviewer: Sergey Sharybin (sergey).Jul 9 2019, 2:28 PM

I'm fine increasing limits.

But i am not sure what is this exactly about:

/* Hard limit is 16M to avoid reaching the object limit in Blender. */

Blender has N^2 complexity from number of objects in some places, so it will choke way before old hard limit of 10000000.
The only real limitation i can thing here is persistent id used to match dupli-objects, but it is 32bit signed integer, which should handle up to 2 billion dupli-objects.

@Brecht Van Lommel (brecht), unless i'm missing something, we can totally remove hard limit here.

Agreed.

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Jul 9 2019, 3:24 PM

In D5120#118071, @Sergey Sharybin (sergey) wrote:
But i am not sure what is this exactly about:
/* Hard limit is 16M to avoid reaching the object limit in Blender. */
@Brecht Van Lommel (brecht), unless i'm missing something, we can totally remove hard limit here.

I just tested and the I'm not running into that limit anymore. Maybe the error was on my side. Remove that line and the entire hard limit.