I wonder what you think about the future of blender. It’s not developing as fast as other 3d packages. Does this mean it will eventually die? Or you think blender will actually still be around in 20 years?
Will it always be below maya and max or is there a chance it could surpass them?
Is there a chance it can surpass them?
Challenge excepted.
http://www.blenderguru.com/the-big-issues/
I think mr. guru has the battle plan here. Or at least the starts of one. Really there does just need to be a solid, firm plan for foundation to stick to; it needs to use some really good ideas to gain support; from there it’s just up to the community to run with it.
Other 3D packages have large, full time, paid developers to work on them, so obviously they’re going to be developed faster. The development community for Blender is much smaller, spread across the globe and done mainly in people’s spare time, so it will be slower.
Will you still be using Blender in 20 years time? Will you even still be using 3D creation software? Honestly, who cares? I’d love Blender to still be here in 20 years time, but what’s more important is that it’s here today and we can use it today to create awesome 3D art. Also, it’s still being developed and improved so why not focus on how much better it’s going to be in a years time? No one can predict 20 years down the line.
Blender’s UV mapping acutally surpasses them I believe, there are also other features Blender can do better. Again, who cares? I love Blender and I love the community. I don’t care that max and maya might be better, I don’t think they’re as fun to use as Blender. If I’m going to be spending hours using a program it might as well be one I enjoy using. Pro Tools is more or less the standard in the recording industry, I hate it, I much prefer using Cubase or the lesser-known Reaper even if they’re not as powerful or have as many features as Pro Tools because I enjoy using them so much more.
Do you have any examples for packages that develop faster than Blender?
I would think nearly all areas of Blender except the Internal Render engine have a bright future.
I mentioned the BI renderer because the Institute has no active developers for that part at the moment (though Brecht may still work on it despite his new job developing the Octane engine), but I can easily see Yafaray and Luxrender filling the need for a professional grade-renderer with active development.
Really?? Why do you constantly bring down the internal renderer AD?
Ive explained before (as have countless others) that it has its place, and I dont see it ever being removed. If you want photo realistic renders then sure, use Yafaray or Lux, those options are becoming more and more intergrated into Blender which is great, especially now with 2.5. But the internal renderer has countless applications, and is a really nice and fast renderer, when used properly (especially when used with nodes).
We’ve seen many, many users come up with amazing work using only internal renderer, and it doesnt surprise me anymore.
If you think its too slow - take time to actually learn how it works and how to speed up your renders. Its not that hard and the techniques can apply to most other renderers out there as well.
If your renders suck because you used the internal renderer - DONT blame the renderer. You cant just slap something together and hit F12 expecting amazing results.
OMG when I hit render it looks liek crap! … We need more developers to work on it and make it better with new features so everything will render amazing!
:no:
I personally have developed some techniques to squeeze more realism out of BI when it comes to lighting and the like, but once you use true GI you still see a notable difference.
I do know I could do additional compositor work to give a better impression of color-bleeding with BI’s AO on top of the multiply map method that I’ve used in many of my most recent images using the old engine, but then I tried the render25 branch and saw just what GI can do compared to the technique I was using which already gave realistic lighting.
I then tried Luxrender and as a result, I don’t think I’d want to use BI’s lighting system so much anymore if I need realism (even in a very artistic scene that you wouldn’t see in real-life), translucent meshes and caustics that work in a physically accurate manner in passing light can add so much more to a scene.
BTW: The Lux. team has recently given the engine a couple of new volumetric-related features that can be used for things like halos, this on top of the two new materials that can simulate various SSS effects, the leap from 0.7 to 0.8 is likely to be greater than 0.6 to 0.7, and someone on the Luxrender forum even demonstrated that the everything is animatable axiom actually extends to doing material effects in Luxrender.
You might respond by bringing up the fact that a physically based renderer can’t do a wide variety of NPR effects, I think Luxrender would be able to have such functionality by way of a comprehensive post-processing module as such effects like rim-lighting can be done with the help of basic scene data like normal passes to apply as a filter to certain materials.
blender internal isn’t a great renderer. But it’s a good way to preview your models if you plan on rendering them. I think blender will be a good modeller and animation program. But materials textures and rendering probably will be left behind. And you would have to do that in some other program. This is just a guess though…
I think the future looks bright for Blender. True, it may not be developing as fast as other 3D packages, but I feel that will eventually change. Blender is not going to die; there are too many within the community who would keep it alive and going strong.
I see Blender around in 20 years. In a lot of ways Blender has surpassed Maya and Max. As with any program, though, it is lacking in certain areas, but I feel that will be rectified once they hit Blender 2.6 and are done rewriting the source code, I am eagerly waiting for version 2.6 but can’t wait to see what Blender 3.0 has to offer.
Blender is the Chuck Norris of open source.
I doubt that this thread can seriously add to what has been said in its many predecessors.
There are several commercial-grade 3D packages out there, being use to do paying work, and Blender is one of those packages now.
Every package, including the other ones that you named, will continue to be influenced most-heavily by the needs and wishes of its customer base. You can be sure that if George Lucas calls up Autodesk and says, “gee, it sure would be nice if package-X could do this in time for ILM’s next picture… just a suggestion …” Autodesk will move Heaven and Hell in response to that “suggestion” from a major client. Also, they will not do anything to their product that their major clients do not want. (If those clients have smart lawyers … and they do … then the vendor can’t.)
You can see that Blender, in its own way, is doing the exact same thing. Its development is shaped by the wishes and prerogatives of its users, who also happen to be its developers. It is unique because it is the first 3D package to be developed almost-completely in a non-proprietary business structure, and this can be seen as both a blessing and as a curse. But it certainly isn’t a “Mark of Cain.”
The smart thing to do is to pay attention to several packages at the same time. You can get “educational” versions of every one. (Who cares if they have a watermark?) You can always be sure that “software does not ‘go away.’” Therefore, you can’t predict what any particular “shop” might be using, so you’d better be somewhat-prepared to “land four-paws-down no matter what.”
And please bear in mind that, these days, the tool which they are using for professional work just might be … Blender. Seriously.