Can I dent Suzanne for a rate?
A lot of documentation and tutorials are based on current Suzanne.
I think this kind of change can only happen at beginning of a series.
When changes are expected.
It is not perfect moment to change it. But we can debate of what iteration we want if we want one.
I did an all quads Suzanne, too.
In fact, anybody can do one.
Why do we want a test primitive ?
Is it for mesh modeling, phone app testing with a low bandwith connection, sculpt testing, Cycles testing, phŷsics collision …?
What constraints does it imply for the model ? A low poly count ? Quads of approximately same size ? Concave and Convex shapes ?
Do we want to keep a test primitive that looks like Suzanne ?
Maybe we could create new piece of art that have absolutely no link to it with another name.
Maybe we could make several test primitives.
It could make a cool contest near 2.8.
Attachments
@pitiwazou, i’m a big fan of suzanne and I like this new one very much. I like that it comes already uv unwrapped. That will save me time the next time i make another suzanne art. But I do agree that the ears should match the original more closely. suzanne’s ears have a certain soft rubbery look that i feel is lost on your model.
It’s definitely a welcome improvement on a great icon and it’s nice to have the extra option. I’m surprised there are so many negative opinions. I’m 100% in support of this. Would be nice to have it as an addon.
I am amazed that some people are touchy with that.
It’s only a mesh primitive ! And a pretty useless one on top of that.
UV unwrap, better topology, similarity with the classic Suzanne: why pull the handbrake ?
I like the new Suzanne presented here. I think it should be updated. I don’t see why you people have to defend something that is laughable in the 3D community. The new one looks good and is better in every way.
Sentimentalians are what hinders progress in everything.
Let’s not kid ourselves about the amount of progress to be gained by improving Suzanne’s topology. Now we can see even more stunning works of noob art. Hooray.
So long as the design stays intact, I don’t see how minor topology updates do any harm. I never use it for anything though. So I can’t say that I particularly care much one way or the other.
It’s not really meant to be used in final art other than maybe as a very well hidden easter egg. It’s just a shape to test shaders on. The current monkey having no seams or UVs doesn’t serve that purpose very well and should be updated because of that if nothing else.
Even fixing the topology, it still isn’t a great test object for shaders. If you really want to test out shaders, you can make or find a much more appropriate model. It’s really easy to copy or link in a model, like the one provided here, if you really want to use a distorted monkey head to test your shaders. This whole thing just seems like bikeshedding to me.
There’s really a thing which is not being considered. I won’t argue whether it’s art or not, i don’t want to and i don’t think it would make sense to argue about it.
The thing is: suzanne doesn’t exist only in an unique copy. It won’t disappear as soon as it gets replaced. That model can easily, very easily be kept as an archive copy for future memory.
To bring back the mickey mouse example: the character got updated, one tv show after another, comic after comic.
The original drawings are kept for future memory and as works of art, but they aren’t actually USED any more.
With suzanne the same can be done, and it’s even easier because of its lack of uniqueness. It exists in millions of copies, and all of them can be considered as being the original one.
So pick one, call it “the original one”, and put it in a virtual collection.
No, it isn’t. It’s the Blender mascot. It was put into Blender as an easter-egg, not as a tool. That’s why all your utilitarian arguments (topology could be better! it has no UVs!) are completely missing the point.
That’s really the core of our disagreement, you don’t see Suzanne as what it is because you’re all criminally uncultured and frankly you shouldn’t legally be allowed to call yourself artists with such a frame of mind.
What’s next, are you going to demand the Mona Lisa to be painted over with acrylics, because those outdated oil paints are so dull?
wow? i didn’t know it was a crime to want to use a modified suzanne in an art work :eek:
i have a digital copy of a repainted mona lisa image. that’s gotta be illegal too 
the only legal way to appreciate art is to visit the museum and stare at the ancient original. [ in case it’s not clear to non-native english speakers, it’s sarcasm 
]
even older more popular mascots have been updated several times. mario, mickey mouse, sonic. i guess the whole world is criminally uncultured then for not sticking to the 1928 mickey mouse or the 1981 mario.
@Beer Baron. You are limiting self as a madman to a puritan fan(atic) logic. Chill :rolleyes:
Show me a natural non-modified egg. Will you stop using computer? Call your God on me?
What’s with that angry trumping, while life is love?
… in the end, in your mind, who commands? Who shows the path to blind?
You are singling out and attacking another opinion, as yours is, just because you are weak. Static in mind.
… and it’s all about the rule and order as decided by… YOU!
Also stop mixing “one of a kind” with “unlimited edition”. Heinz.
Suzanne is just a product, never mix it with a classic art, while knowing it’s a simple fan art.
Ain’t she lovely as is. Yes, it’s an object with function and it deserves to live, to change, to be respected as she moves forward. She is free & allowed to adapt. (have a poll and vote)
Suzanne is blended & open.
But, please do, have a bombon.
No more updates for you 
I am for a change.
To all who intend to shoot down anyone who suggests making changes to the Suzanne model.
Suzanne is just a primitive, with the right changes it can become an object capable of really test-driving tools, workflows, and materials. The teapot that comes with Autodesk apps. is already capable of those uses, why can’t Blender have a really usable custom primitive for the same purpose (which we are so close to actually having if not for those defending its current state as if it’s some sacred idol)?
If needed, as I mentioned before, one could always have a little checkbox in the last operator panel that brings back the old Suzanne (for whatever sentimental or pseudo-religious reason you need it for). Would that be a tolerable compromise?
The only problem with Blender artists is that they just have no taste. They have absolutely no taste, and what that means is - I don’t mean that in a small way I mean that in a big way - in the sense that… they don’t think of original ideas and they don’t bring much culture into their craft.
It’s official. BeerBaron = Donald Trump.
Mmmmmm taste
Someday I hope to have the massive artistic knowledge and skills of BeerBaron.
Attachments
Someday I hope to have the massive artistic knowledge and skills of BeerBaron.
Good artists copy, great artists steal.
It looks like the power of ratiomal argumentation is failing.
You’ve turned to calling each other “ignorant” and “fascist”, though nobody used those words directly.
Those are not good ways to defend an opinion, and it surely won’t convince the other part that you’re right.
It actually won’t convince anyone that you’re right.
Note: with “you”, i’m referring to both sides of this discussion,not one in particular.
Remind me again why it can’t serve both those functions simultaneously?