Problem is, that doesn’t faze conspiracy theorists at all. But I see your point =)
1 Like
Adobe has just bought a cheap and efficient crowd advertising campaign.
2 Likes
They decided to include spyware basically. Audacity was promptly forked.
The original authors have quickly backtracked but nobody cares anymore.
So, um, yeah, this is the worst case scenario. Not much to worry about.
1 Like
This makes sense. Dying to dig into that and the Mixamo addon.
2 Likes
Sorry, completely OT, but what the hell?
1 Like
Yeah, that happened too. Who knows what those sick asshats were thinking.
1 Like
Video showing the Mixamo addon:
Link to addon: https://substance3d.adobe.com/plugins/mixamo-in-blender/
3 Likes
Couldn’t find this right away so I am going to ask. After you create the control rig can you bake the mocap animation to it?
Blender animation layers have something to be desired but… This would be a start in the right direction.
EDIT: The site must be getting hammered right now as those videos were not playing. But finally got one to play far enough. The answer is yes. You can re target the animation to the control rig.
Sweet!
Exactly - this isn’t complicated. It’s actually validation from a big player in the marketplace that Blender is being taken seriously.
That is the biggest problem with tribalist fanboism.
Most (that I have observed) seem to truly think that any Money from any source outside of their fever swamp/echo chamber can only have a “corrupting influence”.
This fear of “selling out” has probably prevented some from acheiving anything in thier lives ,and kept many in “noble poverty”
In the case of Blender it is particularly ridiculous as every single person who downloads Blender Literally owns every bit of code that Blender installs
I am given to understand that even if Ton Rosendall himself
became bessotted by some trillion dollar offer to direct the software
development in a certain direction,
He would have no legal standing to prevent other individuals or groups/foundations from Continuing Blenders development as separate forks.
2 Likes
In my opinion, having data to know what kind of features the users are actually using would be invaluable for the developers. At the same time, I can’t imagine how this could be done in an open source project. If someone just does it, the blame is well deserved.
1 Like
When has Blender ever had any issues “working with the tech giants”. They’ve worked with Google for years on summer of code. They’ve taken Epic’s grants etc. The only people talking nonsense about “values” are here on this forum. I can assure you nobody else cares. Let’s take a look at another OSS project as an example. Linux. Linux would not exist in it’s current form if it wasn’t for continued corporate backing. Yet the Linux community still exists and march to the beat of their own drum with no issues. Hell Amazon just donated their game engine to the Linux Foundation.
It’s already been proven that community contributions aren’t enough to move Blender forward, now its time to try something different and the requires money and backing. Blender is better now than it was even two years ago due to the backing it currently has.
7 Likes
I don’t suppose the Nemetschek group will let go of Cinama 4D, Maxon is a subsidiary company of theirs. That’s the only way they can go about providing Archviz alongside their Architectural suites: Archicad, Vectorworks and Allplan.
Adobe probably did this to gain more exposure for the Substance suite, as others said, 30k for advertising isn’t all that much for Adobe. Moreover, if you get cheap (free) content creation software that pairs well with their texturing software (which needs meshes to work on!), that’s all the more reason users might pay for Adobe’s offering.
Oh noes, the brand and trademark that was owned by a single individual person rather than a properly set up non-profit sold the brand name and trademark. Oh the calamity, the huemanatee!
Yeah in estonian we have an old proverb: “Omad vitsad peksavad(own whips whip)”.
That’s specifically audacity projects own fault for not doing their own due diligence and besides, the open source license still protects the source code. Nothing of real value was lost. What so ever.
And if you don’t trust the source as it is now, don’t worry, the project got immediately forked. Again, I repeat. Nothing of any real value was lost.
2 Likes
ima head out here
So FOSS values are nonsense now?tell that to Ton and the Community.
If you think people like you who don’t stick to their values then you should look at the mirror, because it seems all of you who keep nagging about privacy…etc now suddenly happy with these companies in their own backyards.
If nobody cares then F it.
Linux Foundation has long gone and it’s no longer what it represents, so that’s exactly what’s happening, bought and sold.
Yeah lets trash the community that helped it reach what it had reached because cooperate backing is the better one ,and My point again is not about their money but rather with Blender itself and what it represents. because I’m seeing hypocrisy from the top to the bottom.
Might not lose any value but lost reputation and whatever comes out of it won’t be trustworthy.
I’ve read it in a different way.
Original project was compromised, sure. But the open source licence ensured that the value of the project were protected, so the fork could happen. This is the way FOSS can live on without much disturbance.
The only entities that lost trust were untrustworthy people. As they should.
1 Like
If I’m not mistaken there is FOSS (Free Open Source Software) and there is FLOSS (Free/Libre Open Source Software), FOSS is more about Open Source (like blender ?), while FLOSS is more about you having the freedom/right “liberté” of access to the software, they are both free of charge, but they differ on the base.
This article explains it better:
Source:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/floss-and-foss.en.html
In this sense, Blender isn’t violating any “values” of the FOSS model.
isnt the audacity flare up blown out of proportions ?
btw the adobe substance add-on is there 