The devs over at marmoset are probably working 24/7 to take advantage of this opportunity that Adobe has handed them.
Hopefully when the dust settles we will have 3 players, substance, marmoset and quixel.
The devs over at marmoset are probably working 24/7 to take advantage of this opportunity that Adobe has handed them.
Hopefully when the dust settles we will have 3 players, substance, marmoset and quixel.
Substance Painter might not be immediately replaced, but at least Substance Designer has some nice open source competition already: https://rodzilla.itch.io/material-maker
You can even make your own nodes with shader programming if you want to.
I don’t think Adobe’s 3D stuff will threaten Autodesk (or Blender for that matter) anytime soon. New whiz bang features that no one else has are still locked behind a monthly subscription.
At work we use the Adobe Creative Cloud suite and it comes with tools we’ll never use but still have to pay for (37GB worth). The only thing I do like is that apps get updated in the background, but there’s no warning - I’d have to open the CC management app to see what got updated and when.
This is a problem, and is a large reason why some of us who have actually used other apps see the development of Blender at times as a bit myopic. It is not that we want Blender to be like app X. It is that we want Blender development to get why we want it to be like app X. There is a difference.
There is another way of approaching a software design, which is prioritizing handling any arbitrarily big amount of data. The main selling point of these software is that it can actually render and edit the data, leaving interactivity as a “nice to have” feature when it is technically possible to implement. So, when you are designing for handling any data size, you can’t assume that the tools will just scale in performance to handle the data. Software designed like this will try to make sure that no matter how many textures, video files or polygons you want to edit, you will always be able to do it in some (usually, not interactive) way.
So, development and new technical innovations regarding the asset creation workflow will focus on having the most advanced real time interaction possible instead of handling large amounts of data. This means that performance will still improve (new features will need performance in order to keep the real time interaction working), but the features and code design won’t be targeting handling the highest possible poly count or the largest possible UDIM data set. The focus on performance won’t be on how high the vertex count in Sculpt Mode can be, but how fast Blender can deform a mesh, evaluate a geometry node network on top of it and render it with PBR shading and lighting.
So to this point, it seems completely lost on the developers why we need to focus on performance by way of handling large amounts of data. Because simply.
Any serious large scale production has to deal with large amounts of data. It isn’t any more complicated than that. And if a developer can’t understand that, then they have missed the point entirely.
There was response in that thread that says it all.
Quoting Pablo – “We also know that handling large amounts of data is important for some studio pipelines” – I, with all the respects, completely disagree with that statement. Pretty much anyone using Blender for any purpose would instantly notice the performance issues with Blender right now, whether it’s simulation, sculpting or high-poly modeling or animation with high poly meshes. I don’t discourage or disagree with the idea of making a real time interactive Eevee workflow but if that means the ongoing issues with blender with performance and the fact if I have over 20 million particles in the viewport blender would crash and if I have high poly mesh, blender would become very laggy and same with sculpting then I’m not in for the support. I was really looking forward to the future of Blender as blender gets fully node-based geometry creation tools, node-based physics, node-based animation and rigging etc. but if Blender devs don’t fix the ongoing performance issues with sculpting and modeling high poly meshes and high-res simulations in the viewport and very laggy performance in the viewport and then crashing a million times and getting 2 fps playback then I’m not in for it. So far all the examples and the blog post suggest that it makes blender good for only cartoon and NPR art and not high end, realistic movie or game asset creation tool. I don’t think making Blender an unreal competitor is a good idea rather than making Blender robust and being able handle high poly count meshes with high-res textures so user would be able go back n forth between other softwares and game engines. I mean I don’t know how many people would choose to sculpt in Eevee render view just because they will be able to see the pink hair or the anime character over sculpting really high detailed models with millions of polygons for an AAA game or movie. I truly do not support this direction of Blender. This is the exact same reason why people are not just moving to blender from Zbrush and Maya, it’s simply performance, Blender guru asked on twitter, what would be the biggest improvement for people to switch to Blender for sculpting and 99% answers were performance, that’s like the single thing holding people back, similar stories go for Maya users. At the end if the goal is to do sculpting in render view but in reality, pretty much all studio or pro freelancers use a separate program for texturing, so it would be similar to having a fancy matcap while sculpting. At the end, everything in the blog post with real time interactive workflow seems and looks like making Blender the best tool for cartoon style creation or concept art and not for serious production tool for either game or movie which is okay but at the end of the day for concept artists, tools and techniques doesn’t matter, what matters is the render image at the end of the day, and if a new tool comes out tomorrow with better and faster workflow, concept artists would probably switch to it and if Blender can’t handle high-poly meshes then people wouldn’t be able to use it for production work so it would become obsolete. Please don’t do this. Please. I really like and support the idea of real-time interactive workflow but if that means sacrificing being able to do detailed sculpting high-poly meshes or high poly hard surface modeling or simulation with millions of particles, then I don’t support this direction of Blender, I’m sorry.
So the largest thing missed here is this. We create assets one by one. Even if you say, Blender can handle a reasonable amount of data but has all of these interactive tools to create assets. Well that is great. But at some point all of these assets need to play together in a large scene. Mostly we edit assets in external programs. Painting sculpting and so on. Then we bring it into Blender. Does not matter if we could paint and texture and all of that like Substance in Blender, if when we are done with our city we created stone by stone in separate files, we can’t render it together as one.
That is what a large scale production is. Tons of assets in one scene.
We might be going off topic on this thread (from alegorithmic stuff to large amount of data, so feel free to move this discussion to a new separate topic)
but anyway, quoting a “missing part” in the above reply:
We also know that handling large amounts of data is important for some studio pipelines. For those tasks, the plan is to handle the data from a separate editor that does not interfere with the rest of Blender interactive workflow. When it comes to meshes, this can come as a separate editor with its own viewport optimized only for rendering as many polygons as possible and non real time mesh processing operations. This will keep the high poly mesh data isolated from the rest of the scene, making the tools, real time viewports and the rest of the features perform as they should. Having this kind of data into its own container will also help with features like streaming directly to render engines without affecting the performance of the scene.
This if I understand it correctly, looks like we will get a mini Clarisse/Nanite like viewport solely optimized for that “final” scene assembly phase, where editing is done, and it’s all about putting all them assets in one big scene, ready to render. (correct me if i’m wrong).
Well it is relevant, I suppose since it was quoted here in respect to alternative workflows which Blender will be getting. However and this is huge. At the expense of performance.
Again, this feels more like Blender 101 and the mentality of arbitrarily segmenting Blender. It is a bad idea to have a separate high performance area of Blender for rendering. In fact it makes little if any sense at all.
And this is what the person was referring to in response.
On topic. I depend on Substance products and I am totally fine with using them under Adobe.
I don’t want to see developers wasting their time making these workflows in Blender.
Just make Blender handle data better period first, Scrap the idea of “Blender does everything” and make it perform well with day to day tasks. Right now it fails miserably there. And porting that over only for rendering makes no sense at all for day to day use. In fact it feels more like a hack.
The point I was making here and over at the developer site, is just trying to bring the idea home to people who are clamoring for “Substance” in Blender and so on is the truth that Blender still can’t handle data - in a way maybe it would hit home with regards to a typical asset workflow.
Having a render-only area of Blender is not an answer to this. It is a hack.
Looking at the Adobe store page just posted here, it is not obvious at all which icon goes to which software, your only clue is that all of the icons are green (so you won’t click on one and get Photoshop, Animate, or Dreamweaver on your screen instead).
In a way, the trend to simplify, simplify, simplify in icons might be getting out of hand, Autodesk replaces neat looking imagery with simple origami letters, Mozilla removes the fox from the Firefox icon, other companies axe smaller details to make their icons more like blobs, ect…
As someone who studied some graphic design, simplified design actually helps brands to be easier to recognize. It’s not always the case though. What they did with the icons for the Substance software isn’t even within this category, they just used letters in order to align them with the branding. I’m kinda salty that they threw out any of Substance’s personality for something so bland and generic for the splash screen too. As long as they don’t screw with the Steam version, everything is okay for now…
Those icons make me laugh.
Looks like those incomprehensible abbreviations used in the interface of the compositor Fusion. I never knew what to click there either.
Adobe™ and those who sell out to Adobe™ create more of a software “problem”, than offer up a software “solution”. Thank goodness there are some decent alternatives out there, with some new ones popping up.
Thanks for spelling that out so clearly.
I think exactly like it.
And I completely disagree with his assessment and have just lost all respect for Pablo.
He is a good developer when it comes to developing tools, but he is full of hubris if he thinks he knows what the Blender community wants, and what the people working in the industry need.
He is NOT an authority in either.
One step forward and 2 steps back - a sure way to piss off a large amount of users, me included.
Back to the actual topic of this thread.
The new “design” is ugly, but I expected that degeneration into Adobe conformity. At the end of the day IDGAF. Usability and efficiency is not touched by that re-branding.
It’s telling that with the rebranding it also becomes more infantilized.
I get it, they want to sell this product to their main customer base so they need to explain it more, but do they really need to make it more “fancy” and communicate as if they are retards or their customer are?
God I HATE advertising/branding.
Fake people selling fake emotions.
Adobe and it’s customer base are not creating a problem in software.
Adobe is offering a solution and customers are taking advantage of it. In the normal day to day life people pay for stuff. They rent stuff. They use it and sell it. They borrow stuff and they steal it or give it away and loose it. This is the real world of stuff which software that you can neve ever own (according to all EULA even Blender) no matter how you pay or don’t pay is a part of.
Blender capitalized on the concept of giving something away. Something that previously was costing nearly 10 grand for other products.
Blender wasn’t anything for anyone to worry about until it was. And then it was too late.
Whether you agree to Blender’s roll in it or not, the statistical fact is that software prices have dropped and companies have scrambled to make software available as painlessly as possible or even free in diect ratio to Blender’s sucess.
You can look that up if you want.
So who is creating the problem here?
A growing community of people unwilling to pay for software? Or the companies caught without any way to fight back other than to either reduce prices, offer a free licence or subscription.
Subscription is a direct response to FOSS and also to a parallel economic crisis called inflation. And none of us are responsible for that. Unless you want to say anyone who sold out and bought a car or took out a loan for a house or rented an apartment is responsible for inflation which is caused by a central banking system.
Regardless it is almost impossible for young people to buy houses these days on the average salary. Wages have not matched the cost of living which is skyrocketing in most metro areas.
Unless you are going to live in tbe jungle and grub for worms you are a part of “the problem”.
And the problem is people can’t afford to she’ll out several thousand for a suite of software anymore. That is the problem that exists today. So you either use Gimp and Inskape, Blender etc. Or you pay a few dollars a month for software.
That is just the way it is.
Companies like Adobe saw this coming. But they did not ceate the problem. They responded to it. And I really don’t think you can fault them for that.
And you certainly can’t fault people who are navigating the treacherous waters of an ever-challenging economy for availing them selves of the tools they need to make a living.
And you definitely can not be the final word of some altruistic standard and tell people “don’t use the best software available according to thier needs” and use software that fits your personal perception of an alternative world where all these issues just go away if they don’t.
They are creating problems. Its a much deeper subject though, the problems involve everything from pushing (in large part through market dominance) anti-consumer trends, push back against innovation on a larger scale and often destroy competing software, much in the same way some of the big game publishers have caused the demise of many famous game studios. There is always causality.
Software is licensed, yes, and no one claimed otherwise. Its pointless to bring it up as a result. One big issue is software as a service as opposed to software as a product. The consumer does not win out with the software as a service model, especially when it comes to tools. They answer not to the consumer either, but to a board of investors, there is very little incentive to develop and build a good product, only make sure they keep market dominance through various means, including buying up smaller players which could grow to compete with them in the first place.
The fallacy in that claim is that Adobe was never really competing with Blender, which was seen as a 3D DCC application. Adobe had very little to no good competition for their flagship products, which were largely focused on the 2D side of things, with markets that rarely overlapped with anything Blender could compete in.
In other words, Adobe was not competing for the same space Blender was in, and vice versa. Thus one cannot try to claim Blender some how was the reason for Adobe’s subscriptions.
I think you are the one who has the burden of proof to back up such claims. To say “look it up” as the excuse that Blender is some how the cause for software as a service, and thus lower prices, is not really an argument, its more of a confirmation bias based projection.
Also don’t forget we are talking specifically about Adobe here. To reach further out you could see the rise in indie friendly software packages and prices, it was not specifically tied to Blender, especially pre-2.8. Cmon now.
You are objectively wrong on that, and are projecting way too many emotionally based excuses to back up some assumed belief.
No one who has been professionally part of this industry would claim, with a straight face, that FOSS is the cause for subscriptions.
I had to double check for a sarcasm tag when I first saw you claim that.
Look, it was the studios who were requesting subscriptions at first, and subscriptions were originally made for the studios. You see, some projects would last anywhere from a few months to a few years, and they would only have that setup for that one project. It made no financial sense to buy full licenses when people were coming and going on those projects. Often at the end of the projects the studios would (if it was in the past with the CDs and license keys) try to second hand sell them (which caused a lawsuit at one point). Adobe didn’t like that either.
Thus it was easier to have a temporary license via subscription for the studios themselves, it was not ever meant to be for the average user at home. This is common knowledge.
Adobe realized the profit potential in putting everyone on a subscription, which they picked from licensing to studios. They also had to struggle to constantly make upgrades worth it, how to prove to the customer that they should shell out more money for a new version. That meant they had to spend more money on R&D, which is not good for their profit margin. They want profit without putting in the effort. Without software as a product, and only as a subscription, they don’t have to develop the software further. It was not in the consumers best interest, but it was for Adobe and the other studios to get you onto a subscription over a perpetual license.
To say it was all because of FOSS not only ignores the timeline of events, but is just not based on reality.
On that note, I actually met the main players at Allegorithmic when they were in LA, showing off an alpha version of Painter to a private audience. Many of those who were beta testing and even buying into their products, did so with the idea (that allegorithmic themselves reinforced in the meet ups) that they were going to grow to compete in a field dominated by Adobe and Autodesk. A lot of the support was to get them up to that point, to pick them over other software solutions and to “evangelize” their software to others.
When they admitted to taking Adobe’s money for over a year before accepting positions at Adobe along with selling their IP to them, that is the very definition of selling out. This is not a subjective claim, it literally is selling out. They gave up their independence and their software’s ownership for money and a position in said company. That is selling out. Period. You can claim its a good thing, as they have done, or a bad thing as many of their fan base believed, but it did happen regardless.
I still remember a lot of early adopters moving to the software from Quixel, which at the time required use of Adobe’s Photoshop. They said they wanted to get away from having to rely on Adobe to use another piece of software, many even hated the cloud requirement. Now here they are, with the software they helped prop up, back as Adobe. Ironic since Quixel did everything they could to detach their product from Adobe reliance. Talk about inversion.
Anyways, I recommend you do your research and not just come to conclusions on what makes sense to you or what you think might of happened. FOSS had little to no impact on the rise of software as a service. This is just a fact.
I tried not to comment on this, but I can’t help it. Over all, that is not an absolute truth. It is only dependent on certain areas and based on the demand as well as supply in the housing market. Some areas, even in the cities, have far less demand and way more supply. In the US, there are plenty of places where a young couple (or even one person) can buy a house with their wages, which have still gone up over time. They need as low as a 3% down payment, and with low interest rates they could be paying either less or around the same as if they were renting. It is really dependent upon multiple factors and is absolutely NOT an absolute.
Actually whats making it harder today is when people sell their properties in a high value location (certain states like California for example) and move to previously low value areas, driving up the prices because they are willing to pay way more than the listing price. It has less to do with the wages and more to do with cash buyers moving en mass to cheaper areas, low interest rates, which in turn cause competition and thus higher prices.
I just wonder how long will it take for Adobe to try and remove the access to the software I already paid for. Talking about Allegorithmic tools before it went subscription only.
I dont think they have mentioned of “taking back” which would be an insane thing to do as we purchased a perpetual license…
“Nods are the new nodes ”
“The resurrection of the Brotherhood of Nod is nigh!”
James Tiberium Kirk
If subscription is solution to some problem for some kind of people who can’t afford to pay full price for a software - it does not make sense to cut out ability to buy software completely and thus forcing your clients to only use subscription. Subscription should be an option, not something mandatory. Else that means company have $ome ulterior motive$.