Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Intel Ramping Up Their Investment In Blender Open-Source 3D Modeling Software

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Intel Ramping Up Their Investment In Blender Open-Source 3D Modeling Software

    Phoronix: Intel Ramping Up Their Investment In Blender Open-Source 3D Modeling Software

    Intel Software has increased their developer funding provided to Blender, the leading open-source, cross-platform 3D modeling software...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...e-Blender-Gold

  • #2
    This is obviously great news for Blender.

    However I am getting a little worried that Blender is getting too big and professional for my uses. I am not in any way a decent 3D modeler but I do need to use it occasionally to make test data for my projects. If it gets too complex and requires a professional workstation; this is obviously not going to work.

    Alternatives I am looking into are Wings3D for the models and a slightly hacked up GtkRadiant to export and bake lighting to .obj.

    I would just look into maintaining an old version but because they have Python interpreters and things like that, it becomes too difficult to keep fixing breakages.

    Also interested in AC3D but it is proprietary and only works on a limited number of operating systems. I suppose Wings3D is a bit annoying because it drags in a JVM required to run.
    Last edited by kpedersen; 03-27-2020, 11:36 AM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by kpedersen View Post
      However I am getting a little worried that Blender is getting too big and professional for my uses. I am not in any way a decent 3D modeler but I do need to use it occasionally to make test data for my projects. If it gets too complex and requires a professional workstation; this is obviously not going to work.
      Being big doesn't mean being complex,... Complexity and size aren't tied together.

      For properly structured software, complexity is "logarithmical" to it's size. For improperly and badly structured software, complexity is "exponential" to it's size,... Same rule applies for UX and code/internals. So,...

      If blender gets bigger, but in good way, then it can remain simple to use. Just disable feature sets,... or, even start with some base feature pack, and optionally enable more features. For properly structured software, it should be simple thing to do. As,... for beginner and occasional hobbyist, lots of options doesn't make sense, and it's confusing to see them all at once,... However, for professional user, it might be even desired to see all options at once, because he know precisely what each options is doing.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by kravemir View Post

        Being big doesn't mean being complex,... Complexity and size aren't tied together.
        For usability I agree but for maintainability and bug fixing I notice that the larger a project is; the harder it is to maintain on less common platforms and the larger surface area for bugs.

        I guess I am also worried that they will drop OpenGL 3.x support simply because "Professional users are using professional workstations capable of at least OpenGL 4.x". Kind of the same culture as to why UE4 or Maya are not useful to me.

        But this is just guessing. At the moment Blender is working fairly well. Though the dropping of OpenGL 2.x made me a bit nervous.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by kpedersen View Post

          For usability I agree but for maintainability and bug fixing I notice that the larger a project is; the harder it is to maintain on less common platforms and the larger surface area for bugs.

          I guess I am also worried that they will drop OpenGL 3.x support simply because "Professional users are using professional workstations capable of at least OpenGL 4.x". Kind of the same culture as to why UE4 or Maya are not useful to me.

          But this is just guessing. At the moment Blender is working fairly well. Though the dropping of OpenGL 2.x made me a bit nervous.
          Well, I never used it myself, but I heard a lot of people saying it did not have the best UI compared to other professional software, maybe because of this it flopped as a commercial software.

          As for OpenGL 4, well, is a 10 year old technology, no need for panic. The reason to drop older versions of OpenGL is to keep the code lean and easier to handle, exactly what you want. If they say they will drop OpenGL for Vulkan tomorrow, then you can worry for your old hardware.

          But that day will come, do not kid yourself. But by that time you already have the compatible hardware, unless you are too stubborn to upgrade.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by [email protected] View Post
            to keep the code lean and easier to handle, exactly what you want.
            How is having to re-implement something like OpenGL 2.x support easier to handle?

            Originally posted by [email protected] View Post
            If they say they will drop OpenGL for Vulkan tomorrow, then you can worry for your old hardware.
            Vulkan-only wouldn't just take out old hardware; it would crucify most open-source operating systems and drivers. Luckily that won't be a problem for our lifespan (or even that of our children haha).

            But yeah, like you said; we are probably fine with whatever these commercial companies are going to do with Blender. And if not, I am sure there will be a fork.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by kpedersen View Post
              ...I suppose Wings3D is a bit annoying because it drags in a JVM required to run.
              I believe Wings3D is still written in Erlang and uses BEAM

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by tsuru View Post

                I believe Wings3D is still written in Erlang and uses BEAM
                Hmm, I could have sworn Erlang compiled to bytecode for the JVM. That said, BEAM looks like very similar technology.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by kpedersen View Post
                  Alternatives I am looking into are Wings3D for the models and a slightly hacked up GtkRadiant to export and bake lighting to .obj.
                  What about Dust3D and TrenchBroom?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by [email protected] View Post
                    Well, I never used it myself, but I heard a lot of people saying it did not have the best UI compared to other professional software, maybe because of this it flopped as a commercial software.
                    The UI had a huge improvement with the 2.8 release. Prior to that I was not comfortable using it either, previously using Maya.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X