I am confused…The latest blender updates were focused on improving geometry nodes, adding new small stuff and little things…on the other side there is Cinema 4D, Houdini, Maya etc that are all capable of simulating cloth tears, very accurate liquid simulations, destructions and noise fracturing with constraints and smoke sims…of course all of that can be achieved in geo nodes but not for the avarege user…only a small percentage of geo node wizards, otherwise the only option is paid addons but they are a bit over the budget for some. Blender developers are capable of developing such tools, but some effort is needed. This is what it takes to make blender a worthy competitor for the industry standards. Lets raise some awareness and ask the Blender Foundation: Please, add some of these in default blender!
Dedicate the next update to this as long as it needs to be completed. We do not need a new version number to look at on the startup page, we need better version of the last, not in things we barely notice, in things we use or want to use but can not. Lets all send that message to Blender.org!
Despite all the above stuff, I would also like to thank the great developers for providing us with a powerhouse. This is a suggestion to raise it’s level to compete in the industry. Thank you all anyway!
This is an illogical comparison. Cinema 4D, Houdini and Maya cost anywhere from €500 to €4000+ per year, Blender is free and open source. The ‘hidden cost’ is that some advanced features come through third-party add-ons, often under €100.
And for the record: C4D, Houdini and Maya also have a thriving ecosystem of paid plugins, on top of their already expensive subscription. This is not a Blender quirk, it’s just how the industry works.
Complaining that Blender doesn’t natively include everything that thousand-dollar-a-year software offers, and then calling the add-ons that fill that gap ‘too expensive’, doesn’t make much sense. 
Worth noting that 5.2 has exprimental cloth sim with tears. Not finished but in progress. Hair dynamics also on the way.
They are geo node based but have pre made node groups, ( similar to hair)
Houdini which exels in physics and sims is also node based and is not an “easy” program to use either.
Hello and welcome here !!
Well, don’t worry developers are aware that physics are lacking and that geometry node in it’s state isn’t the answer for average users.
The goal of geometry nodes is to provide nodegroups that allows simulation and that will replace current physics system that are dated.
The goal is similar to houdini, most physics solvers are build with nodes and simpler building blocks.
Current addition to geometry nodes is just ground work so these simulation system can be implemented. The first one to come in 5.2 is going to be about hair simulation but it also paves the way for many others to follow in the next releases.
Well, it doesn’t work that way, first what you see lacking in physics others see it lacking in other areas and blender needs constant development in all fronts.
Also developers have specialties. I think the most capable developers in physics are already working full time on solvers. It’s just that things takes time, it’s probably easy and reassuring to add something quickly but if it’s to start over 6 months after because it was over seen… it’s going to be frustrating anyway…
I have two more advice to give from a long time blender user :
1/ get interested in blender developments, what is currently worked on, what is the process, look at the design pages, follow developers work even if some stuff is unclear. It will help a lot in understanding and following all that is needed for something to end up in blender.
2/ take blender for what it is and not what it could be if…
If currently some plugins are needed for simulation, that’s what it takes. Maybe consider houdini if that’s really what you need. Important stuff is always going to append but it can take years between the time it’s announced and the time it lands in blender. I claim that it’s probably possible to do any project in blender with minimal addition of a few software or plugins. It might not be simple , it could requires a lot of hacks and maybe cut a few corners because of technical limitations but for the most part blender has all the needed features. Today you have to limit yourself to those features and limitations to make your project, and maybe in 2 years the problems of todays are going to be solved. But you can’t wait for them to be solved by BF today because it doesn’t work this way and you’ll be constantly waiting for the next best things.
I’m working with blender for years now and we always managed to circumvent limitations given blender was the right tool for the projects for the most part. But it always involves going a bit beyond what it can do by default. Obviously some projects that were pretty challenging 10 years ago , today it’s way simpler… that’s the way it is but we couldn’t put these projects on hold for 10 years or maybe in 10 years they are going to be even simpler to make…
Sometimes you have to pay for nice things. You already didn’t have to pay $2,000 for Blender.
If the community were better organized, we could create all these add-ons to fix Blender’s limitations (in every sector) and integrate them into the Blender extension. The plan is simple, but difficult to implement.
WHO’S READY???
Well, where would you find 20+ engineers all specialized in each aspects of blender’s limitation who know blender and it’s API ?
Then who is going to organize their work so each of them is working on a particular aspect within a schedule and todo, without stepping on each other toes ?
Last but not least how are you going to pay them, so they can work on improving blender 8 hours a day, instead on a few hours in their spare time ?
Funny thing is that it’s what BF is already doing, since they already work with the most capable 30+ developers from the community + ~100 volunteers. They have 220 000€ budget each month thanks to blender development fund, and they have all the staff to organize their work and all the logistic required to manage the project… How do you plan to do better than that ?
If you want blender to grow faster, I think it’s either you can submit patch, or you can join the development fund. Indeed working on extension is good too, but I don’t see how we could do better than what is actually occurring but maybe I’m missing something ?
Yeah, go ahead, fix everything in Blender. It’s all open source, nothing is stopping you.
There’s 18,000 lines of code dedicated just to the Suzanne primitive, by the way, but yeah, it’s as simple as just finding the willpower and manpower 
That seems improbable, but the point stands.
You have access to the same tools the geonodes wizards do, if you take the time to learn them, you too can be a wizard!
Better skills will always be more meaningfully effective than better tools.
At one point, while working on a fork of blender, I took out Suzanne, completely from the code base. As crazy as it sounds, it was slightly over 18,000 lines of code. The blender code base is not something to take lightly
What takes so many? O_o Description of every edge and face line by line?
I don’t think you could describe Suzanne analytically, I don’t see any other way than declare every mesh component. But with 507 vertices, 1005 edges and 500 faces…
It’s here : https://projects.blender.org/blender/blender/src/commit/50eae7d4f9d08cd59961f378017931fc30da72d8/source/blender/bmesh/operators/bmo_primitive.cc
That’s just the component arrays (lines 68->709) but there’s also the code that creates the mesh, etc.
The mentioning of Suzannes code was properly to give some scale of the while thing…
…
Fixing something with a history of decades… thinking that one can do it better, faster.. and also without money..
..the enthusiasm of the youth..
<irony level="low">
<nostalgic level="rising">
Ohh yes.. what wonderfull times this was.. no smartphones.. not even mobiles.
One had to read articles about your favorite homecomputer on monthly magazines (printed on paper).
Fantastic movies and TV series (only redone or recycled today) and the music.. the music.. ahhhh… 
</nostalgic>
<nostalgic level="exploding">
And it is (and was) already everything here.. don’t you here it:
</nostalgic>
<nostalgic level="unimaginable">
Use the source Luke.
Da da da da-tada da-tada..
</nostalgic>
</irony>
This is a conversation I hear often, and I get where it comes from.
Yes, Blender requires more work for advanced simulations. That’s true. But before envying Houdini or Cinema 4D, you should actually use them not just watch them on YouTube.
Houdini doesn’t have a “ready to use” system. It has an extremely powerful system that takes months just to understand the basic paradigm. Cinema 4D is more accessible, sure, but those results you see online hide years of specialization and often professional render farms.
The point isn’t which software has the best features on paper. It’s how much time you’re willing to invest to actually master them.
And anyway, Blender has an ecosystem of addons that covers virtually any simulation need. The cost of even the most advanced ones is often less than a single month of a Cinema 4D or Houdini subscription. With Blender you choose how much to spend and on what, instead of paying every month for a whole software you use 20% of.
The limitations exist. But the grass is always greener on the other side when you’re looking at it without ever setting foot on it.
Well you are right about trying to compare a free open source program to industry standards but a tearing modifier for instance existed in blender 2.75 I thing…I am not complaining because I believe they are not doing things correctly, but I find it a little weird that it got removed after 2.75…Was there any reason behind it? Maybe, but I am sure they could have made it useable for later versions…
Στις Πέμ 21 Μαΐ 2026, 4:50 μ.μ. ο χρήστης Lorenzo Iemoli via Blender Artists Community <noreply@blenderartists.org> έγραψε:
So… Basically Blender is free but hard to master, while “industry standard” alternatives are expensive but at least equally hard to master (don’t tell me you believe Maya or Houdini are tools that need little to no training to use). I can’t find anything to complain about. Meanwhile Blender is getting better in quite a spectacular pace.
Exactly, you summarized perfectly what I was trying to say. Free and hard to master vs expensive and equally hard to master, not much of an argument against Blender when you put it that way. 
I would have tried to do things myself without posting about it on the blender community but I did not. I posted about it because with passion we can help our beloved blender developers by creating for example node trees, whatever can be done. Some called it illogicall to compare blender to C4D or Houdini, or that good things come at a prince and I get what you mean but is this really the spirit? I mean, do people nowadays want to help, even with something small, what they can do, or do they want to criticise others that for example can not afford thing that they can and take for granted? I am not saying that this is happening but just bare that in mind as a thought… What do you have to lose if you for instance share a node tree for simulations, or particles, or procedural generators etc with other? Nothing changes, it is just that you share knowledge and help others that can not use, afford or learn other programms… Team work makes the dream work!
Στις Πέμ 21 Μαΐ 2026, 9:19 μ.μ. ο χρήστης Baudrice via Blender Artists Community <noreply@blenderartists.org> έγραψε:
I don’t think the spirit is “good things come with a price”. You seem to underestimate how versatile Blender is and how easy to learn compared to many expensive alternatives. Sure geonodes can be daunting but so is Houdini. You’ll have to invest time to train yourself either way. And then I can only conclude that good things can be free and you can invest relatively low amounts to get plugins that make life easier.
Well that is the spirit