Blender 2.8 will shocking average blender user

i mean a average blender user that dont follow everyday changes in blender ui,when 2.8 release it will be like a new program for those people
it will be very difficult for those people to adopt blender and maybe cancel blender for other programs like cinema4d,3ds max,maya programs that have more adoption from the industry,
what blender foundation going to do?

1 Like

I think that’s nonsense… at most half a day of catching up. probably a couple of hours. Everything is much more discoverable in the new layouts and it still works the same as ever : materials, modelling, nodes…

Substance painter had made it’s interface more organised with massive changes over the last year from update to update. all the knowledge is readily transferable and it’s become easier to use with each update. It will be the same with blender.

2.8 still has the same good stuff 2.x series had. it just seems melodramatic to suggest they will lose users… if anything they’ll gain loads more as it’s friendlier to users migrating from other apps.


People upgrade software all the time, including industry standards. We spend a week complaining and clicking the wrong things, and then we get over it and slowly start to like it (or at least get used to it) until the next big change. It’s the way software is nowadays.

1 Like

If ZBrush’s and iPhone’s massive success taught us anything is that user familiarity is an “urban legend” at best case scenario.

In the end users ask 3 questions

What this does ?

How much more productive it will make me ?

How difficult is it to learn ?

They weight the pros and cons and if the pros outweight the cons they dive head in.

If you can be certain for one thing in this life is that everyone loves progress , everyone hates change, but also everyone love progress more.

Don’t worry my friend, Blender 2.8 will be known as “The Blender tsunami” judging from the success of version 2.5 . I would worry a lot more about the above software you mentioned because the influx of the new users that Blender 2.8 will inevitable bring , will have to come from somewhere :wink:

Blender 2.8 has already turned a lot of heads outside the Blender community and is not even remotely close to stable release. The party has just began.


The fear of expecting people to catch up with the new stuff and replacement features is why a number of apps. like 3DS Max, Photoshop, and even Zbrush have gotten bloated. The reason being that the legacy tools that few people use are never removed and everything is built on top of existing systems one layer at a time.

The BF can always choose to keep all the legacy stuff around, but then you would have complaints of Blender’s performance getting worse with each release (even in areas such as startup time).


Ding ding ding.

My partner works in machining and his company just brought in a new precision machine for cutting parts. We’re talking easily ~$30k just for the machine, not including the software for coding and the hourly consultant to come in and do 2-3 days of training. Only one person can use this machine at a time. Absolutely staggering amount of money and production time lost to bring this thing in and teach people to use it, but the company is eating it now to increase productivity later because it’ll be able to do more complicated and precise work as well as change out its own tools in the middle of production. People will sacrifice comfort for productivity.

1 Like

I have to be honest, I have only played with 2.80 (though I’ve played regularly with the latest builds), and the only aspect that I haven’t got to grips with yet is removing layers in favour of collections. I’m so used to placing stuff on a layer that I can easily enable/disable for test rendering, and haven’t figured out how to accomplish the same with collections yet.

Everything else seems to be pretty much business as usual.

I am excited about how blender evolves.

Collections are much more suitable for bigger projects then bit-based layers. Toolbar got much cleaner. No need to scroll there to go for core functionalities.
And I love Blender 2.8 new workspace system. General menu items went out of ‘Info’ …
There is much going on.

Kudos for Blender developers, thank you for your efforts!

I believe the OP meant Blender will be SHOCKINGLY good for the average Blender user! :rofl:

Seriously though, I recall 2.49 users exclaiming similar sentiments over 2.5.

Change is change. And no matter whether that change is for the better, there’s always been and will be a part of any group of humans who are resistant to and fearful for any such change. It’s predictable human behaviour.

Where do you think the phrase "Better the devil you know (than the devil you don’t) comes from? Many humans are fearful to adapt to change. They like the status quo, because it is safe and well-known. Change means changing and adapting your own behaviour and thinking patterns, which that certain part of the human populous finds disagreeable.

Understandable, of course. Delusional thinking obviously as well, because change is the only constant in our universe. Heck, pretty much all of a human’s body’s cells are replaced in about a year’s time. After one year you are literally no longer the same person compared to 12 months ago.

So, sit back and enjoy the 2.8 show. It’s going to be a heck of a ride. :grinning:


Zbrush taught us that if you are trailblazing and have a sort of “monopoly” on that kind of product (meaning little to no serious competition), then users will grudgingly adapt because they have no choice. There is still very little serious competition to zbrush, sadly, which means they can ignore intuitive design and still do well.

Intuitive requires that feeling of familiarity. When blender chose not to use left click select, it broke that familiarity and thus intuitive aspect for example.

Blender is in a unique spot, in so much that it is the only serious contender for free and open source DCC apps, but at the same time its still competing with a somewhat saturated market of DCC apps. It has its the advantage zbrush sort of had with in the realm of accessibility, but still faces the disadvantage of competing against a handful of other professionally used packages.

Thus I wouldn’t say its an urban legend, but I would agree that users go through a process of analysis and conclusion, which includes ease of use/learning, as well as user goals, and value. Blender has always had a lot of value even more so now with 2.8 finally picking up some industry standard design choices, resulting in it being intuitive, it should certainly have a much wider reach.



I will go with urban legend.

Over the last 13 years I have studied and mastered interfaces and workflows in LightWave Blender, Mesiah, Softimage, Maya, Houdini, Zbrush, Mudbox and Motionbuilder. There are no real conventions I have found that made one easier over the other.

What Zbrush teaches us primarily is that they have many conventions they became married to early on as far as the interface is concerned. Seems like they can’t add modeling for example unless it is a brush. Kind of weird. And a new feature has to be cramed into an interface that had not been thought out far enough into the future.

It is not really like they don’t have the incentive to change. I think it more has to do with the practicality of doing so regardless.

What it teaches us about artists is that the ones who get good are those who have the proper perspective. They had a plan with Zbrush and stuck with it. A good artist tries to understand that plan. With zbrush the plan was first a 2.5D app. Later 3D was the thing that caught on. Maybe they are not the most brilliant ui developers. Doesn’t really matter.

Competition has no bearing because that is not what happened. Had competition happened we could say how it affected things. But it didn’t. So it is not even worth speculating.

I think it is fickle what makes one app adapted over another. But in the end I think it comes down to tools.

Blender is being adopted to the degree it offers better and better tools. A better user interface will certainly make things seem more palatable.

But Blender’s strength is in what it offers. Not that it is free. Not that it is open source. Not that it has a corner on this free end of that market.

Sure to a minority of people that is going to matter. And an open licencing scheme is great and economical for a small studio.

But these things will always remain on the periphery. They are not the core things that drive use. What drives use is tools and functionality.

A great interface and a free app might attract people. But only the tools and great functionality will make them stay.

I see this on a daily basis at my studio. We still have to rent software to get certain tools that Blender can’t give us.

This will stop being necessary when Blender offers an alternative to those tools and not before.

And I have seen this happen. Over time Blender has taken more of a center stage at my studio.

I think 2.8 and beyond is going to be a boom for Blender.

Interface improvements will be helpful. Of course. But it will not be the main reason people will stick around. The funtionality. The new tools will.

1 Like

There was a time when mudbox was serious competition. It was on a par with zbrush for features and has a great “familiar and industry standard logical photoshop style ui”… But zbrush slayed it with release after release of great features and free upgrades for life so Richard is right.

1 Like

When? Mudbox was never serious competition when it came to actual sculpting. You should go back and look at what came out of Skymatter at the time, mudbox had a lot of potential but zbrush really did run away with the market entirely. Don’t forget that Pixologic’s Pixols allowed for some incredibly high resolution mesh work with low system requirements. Afterwhile Mudbox was picked up more for its texturing workflow rather than its sculpting one. For a period of time that was its main purpose in the pipeline.

Zbrush was (kind of still is) the king of sculpting with very little competition, since that was consistently the case, digital artist simply had to adapt. As for the conventions, I was taught zbrush by one of their devs and had met a few of their core dev team. The subject of UI for them is common, it gets brought up a lot. The mindset they were working with was of an artist drafting table (see:, even for sculpting. The creator was a rich guy who had his own mindset and went with it. It was like a pet project that took off, now it has its cult following based around it. They are very stubborn about this fact.

Anyways, it really doesn’t matter at this point. The key thing to remember is that familiarity is what breeds intuitiveness, and that is largely what the “standards” are based off of. A lot of Blender’s success lay in this. Andrew price also brought this up way back during the whole UI debates of (insert date).

2.8 is looking good so far based on that… and well this:

ZBrush v2 vs mudbox 1! Mudbox was competitive back then and looked to pull ahead with texturing tools

Actually blender sculpt now is about on parity with zbrush v 3 bit with dynamesh as a bonus.

Zbrush 3 was when the clay brushes got added and it became a very tactile app. Since v3 it has gone stratospheric with features making it easy to rebase models, kit bash and pull away the old limitations. Every 0.1 sub release has added a boatload of significant features making it absolute undisputed king

Two common oversights. First that there is a native familiarity that can become naturally intuitive. This is false. Every single thing in life for every human being with the exception of involuntary muscle movements such as heart beat were first unintuitive and unfamiliar. Every single thing. Everything to survive or create has had to be taught and learned through varying degrees of arduous trial and error. Then over time it becomes familiar, second nature and then intuitive.

The entire process of becoming a good artist is exactly the process of working hard at things which are difficult unintuitive and unfamiliar until they become second nature and you are free to create and thus have an intuitive process.

Additional similar activities can be added to skills easily when they are built on intuitive skills which were the result of previous arduous training. New skills and progress always come at the payment of dedication and time with things unfamiliar.

Always waiting for things that are familiar or demanding that things be intuitive is actually coming from a minority group of people to speak loudly for a self-imagined mass of people usually by using general statements that have no statistical substance.

The majority of people instinctively realize that everything has to be worked at to get good at it.

The second misconception is that something tangible ever came out of anything Andrew did. He admitted it back then. He and Ton recently discussed that fact in an interview.

But people, despite this fact, want to keep pointing back to that point in time and re-write history as if to say it proves something about the interface. But no significant changes to the interface came as a result. Both Ton and Andrew have discussed this at length. It is a matter of public record. There were some small things yes. But nothing significant or groundbreaking. And nothing but absolutely nothing from the throngs of feedback from people who admittedly were not familiar with Blender and from which feedback was asked.

It did bring the interface to the front of discussion which was great. And it also I think led to an interface team. But beyond that nothing much tangible or useful came of that process.

What it did prove however, that some individuals seem to want to continue to ignore, is that there are no conventions. This came up over and over in debates and was proven so repeatedly.

Aside from just a small handful of things that are completely different. But those things are done with purpose and reason.

Some things done completely ass-backwards in my opinion like the quit dialog. But it seems that is finally getting fixed.

But everything else is true as with every single app. All completely different.

Presently. Right now as of this date. Every single app out there takes dedication to learn. And very little, aside from similar techniques, is transferable. This is a statement of fact from someone who has learned many of them.

The Zbrush -Mudbox comparison proves that making a wonderful and easy interface is a pointless pursuit if the tools don’t have the functionality to attract the best artists.

The reality is that even with a quirky interface Zbrush is far easier to sculpt in than Mudbox. The reason is not only performance but a toolset that is well designed and crafted for sculpting. Not because any of it is familiar. It all has to be learned.

And when it comes to high-level sculpting detail, a great artist can continue to push the limits of his skill unhindered by a weak toolset. For the average sculpting artist, you might see little difference between Zbrushh, Mudbox and Blender.

The interface and working philosophy of an app is probably less that 2 percent of what you need to learn. And it can be mastered in a few days.

The rest takes years. And artist skill, decades.

A great interface is wonderful. Always nice to see people get that right. And pretty annoying when they don’t. Blender has a lot of annoying things.

But it also has a lot of things that are not at all familiar. And not at all the same as some other apps. But the majority of them were put there intentionally and with the purpose of a more useful or ergonomic experience.

Most artists get to understand this because intuitively they understand everything has to be worked at to become familiar. Just how it is.

In the end, the fruits of hard work and learning lead to familiarity, and then, an intuitive experience. And very very rarely does it go the other way without the sacrifice of advanced functionality.

Everything we labor at when it comes to skill is to achieve better functionality in a tool or process.

And every single major advancement in technology that increases functionality or ease of access requires learning unfamiliar things.

I am typing on one now with my two thumbs.

Its getting faster.

You either crawl around like an animal your whole life and live off berries on the ground. Or you stand up and learn to walk. But that takes falling down all the time, skinned knees and frustration before it becomes familiar and intuitive.

Once walking becomes familiar you learn to run.

Everything in life is this way.


Wow, a very sensible and plausible view on things. Would you mind I store this for citation purpose ( of course with proper attribution)?

The old adage, hard work is often mistaken for talent. I am a very slow learner and have to work hard at everything, but, as you say, eventually, one reaches a point where things start to become second nature. It’s easy to assume that is either due to something being very easy to learn, or a natural talent for that particular thing.


There was some Blender tutorial I was watching for modelling a character design. 4 or 5 part video series. One of the comments three years ago pointed out the drop in watch rate between the first and second part was 70%. That rate had stayed consistent over three years. Presumably people who thought it would be fun to make a video game, realized how much work it would be just to model a face, and quit immediately.

Everyone wants to make good art. No one wants to spend 10,000 hours learning how to make good art.

I’ve been using blender since 2.4 or something in those lines… I LOVE the way everything is going. I’ve long since stopped worrying about changes, because the developers and Ton has a very clear view of where they want to take it, and i seem to agree on all points every time… :slight_smile: I don’t think people will start flopping up large sums of money just because blender changes… :slight_smile: The ‘free’ is a good motivator in those respects too… I’m willing to adapt to just about everything they can dish up, and mostly the changes are good… :slight_smile:

1 Like

@chalybeum Sure.

And @colkai

I think the things that define an artist are the following:

Innate talent, willingness to work hard. tenacity, willingness to always lean new things, IQ, aptitude and last but not least personal interests and creative drive.

Software only enters the equation if the tools have physical limits that the artists skill begins to outgrow over time.

Being able to survive in a competitive market of artists means availing oneself of the best tools available. The best tools available allow great artists to work quickly and flexibly. That said, the best tools do not guarantee anything.

But hypothetically speaking. Two artists equal in talent using two different tools. They are both able to create the same level of work. Looking at the final results might be indistinguishable. But that does not mean that it is the artist not the tool.

Because as soon as you pull the lid off and look inside you may find the following:

One artist with great tenacity and talent was able to apply loads of workarounds and spend endless time to achieve a result. And the result may not be flexible. Making even the slightest change might mean days of work to redo.

While on the other hand, an artist of the same caliber, using another “modern” tool set - and techniques - could have achieved in hours what it took the other artist days to achieve. And changes could be made in minutes. Whereas the other artist it will take days.

In a purely hypothetical - and for purpose of illustration - the artist using the modern flexible tools will work faster, get more done, and see much more work opportunity than the artist not using flexible modern tools.

By the way I am not trying to say Blender has the best and most flexible tools. And I am not trying to say Maya or 3D Max do not have a place in the industry for no reason. And yes the majority of the work goes to those two platforms. And for good reason. The reasons I have just described.

The point I am making is that the interface by itself, and the familiarity alone is not the issue. The three top apps Maya Max., and C4D all have drastically different ways of working. There are virtually no standards between them that Blender does not also share to the same degree percentage wise.

Companies and organizations tend to need tools that are flexible and artists who can adapt quickly as well as prepare for changes. This is not always at the software level. It us mostly the workflow. But, and this is the big one, if the software hinders such a workflow, then that becomes another issue. And the software is then at the forefront of the issue. And if a software has not had major updates to its workflow in 20 years… hint hint… then people stop using it for the reason that the tools thwart modern flexible workflows. And they can no longer compete with their peers.

The interface never even enters the equation unless the interface holds people back from better more flexible ways of working.

That this might take time to learn, is not an issue, as long as it leads to faster ways of working. And more flexibility.

And interface should have the focus of giving support to the tools as well as giving artists a fast and flexible (not to mention ergonomically safe) way to work. Familiarity is not a factor. Better functionality is way more important.

And some software (even if familiar and popular) gets the ergonomic thing completely wrong. Maya is this way as well as 3D Max. Blender has contributed a very forward-thinking way to work, with key shorts and a very low-impact mouse experience compared to other “standards” that can cause physical injury over daily use over long hours. In fact unless you are using a tablet, Blender is the safest app to use for the long term health of your fingers. The older you get the more you will see the value of this.

And the people daunted by an interface are not going to succeed at using software and are not going to succeed and learning new things.