Outch yeah ! thanks for correcting me !
What are the chances Blender can get these devs. though, the only time devs. with experience on commercial software came to a paid position within the BF is when they came back to Blender development after working on it sometime in the past (Brecht and Farsthary)?
Many of these people I would think will work to stay put in their current positions or consider an offer from another commercial vendor before looking at any FOSS organization (even if the BF can afford to pay a high salary with benefits).
There is a lot of fluidity with 3d software engineers.
I know many of the elite programmers that worked on c4d, for instance, in the past few years arenāt there anymore and seem soured on their recent experiences with Maxon. Iām talking about some of their very best leaving.
Otoy seems to have pulled back on aggressive advancements and seem to be relying more on their existing product and bundling deals to keep people subscribing. There simply isnāt that much more they can do to improve the product.
3d products are reaching a point of maturity where I doubt the yearly advances with Max or Maya remotely compare to what they might have been five or seven years ago, and I suspect the staffs have shrunk a bit. Autodesk can ride the leverage of captive subscribers.
If enough people would even modestly give to the Blender Foundation they could attract some seriously elite 3d programmers. My guess anyways.
5 Likes
Yep, what IceCaveMan said. Also, I know lotās of developers who would consider BF if the salary was competitive and if there was some sort of job security. Being in Europe helps as well, some devs have family over there and would prefer to stay close to them.
Big commercial vendors may not be as attractive for some experienced devs - itās adding nothing new to their resume and many of them feel like a factory, a tad soulless with lot of internal politics.
2 Likes
To be fairā¦ I feel the salaries, as far as I saw from job postings, are kinda within the European standard! 
3 Likes
Following up on my previous comment about 3d-job fluidityā¦consider two examples.
Brecht Van Lommel earned his claim building Cycles for BF. But look at his career at LinkedIn. Heās had two different stints at Autodesk working on the Arnold renderer along with his two runs at BF.
Raul Fernandez worked for Pixologic on Zbrushā¦then Apple on the Vision Pro. For the past 6 months Heās been working for the BF on sculpting tools!
This helps remind me that BF has some very impressive folks working on Blender.
8 Likes
Weizhen just got back from Weta as well. Was a shorter contract probably due to the unity thing, but her going back to BF is indicative of BF not being totally unattractive.
8 Likes
Patch for Rigid Body simulation through nodes, another step towards bringing the best bits of Houdini into Blender.
#124093 - WIP: Geometry Nodes for Rigid Body Simulation - blender - Blender Projects
From Lukas Tonne. For context, he presented a node-based concept for particles many years ago (when the BF began to toss around the idea for Everything Nodes but with nothing on the roadmap). The particle nodes never got past the initial concept stage, but it has become clear at this point why node-based modifiers was to be done first.
14 Likes
21 Likes
Looking at the node graph, it may seem complex at first, but when you read through it everything begins to make sense considering the physics world is being completely set up within the tree (as opposed to a general UI).
That will ultimately be good for Vfx since you will be able to create the physics world procedurally and with rules based on attributes, though I do hope that it will have quick-start assets to get things going quickly like we already have with hair and like what is planned for particles.
Now the example is not near as complex as some of the trees you can access for hair when you load those assets in, but a lot of people would rather just drop something in to get a starting point and expand from there.
3 Likes
A bug Iāve noticed recently: when I tried to drive Spline IK constraint by a curve procedurally deformed by geonodes, the constraint only followed unmodified curve. Same happens with, say, built in Bevel curve option. The bevel geometry ignores geonode deformation. Is it something which will be fixed in the future? Honestly, Iām tired of running into incompatibilities between geonodes and legacy tools
Quite fankly, this part:
Tells us clearly your problem is not an occurence of
at all.
Ergo, what did you expect?
It probably will, but be prepared to wait 5-10 years. Afaik, there are distant(ish) plans to eventually add something like āRigging Nodesā or āConstraint Nodesā, and once that is done and the dust has settled on it, you can reasonably expect your issue to be solved.
This document describes the longer-term, bigger-picture planning of what the Animation & Rigging module want to focus on. [ā¦]
This is a rough planning [ā¦]
This is not a promise of any concrete deliverable or even order in which things will be done. [ā¦]
- Rig Nodes
Implement a rigging nodes system similar to Unreal Engineās Control Rig.
Until then, your best bet is probably to export the procedurally animated curve (I suspect USD might work), re-import and use the constraint on the imported curve.
greetings, Kologe
I admit, I did not test if Spline Ik ever worked with modifier deformation (no matter if it was from geonodes or not). However, curve bevel certainly used to work with modifiers (I was able to rig curves using Mesh Deform, then give them geometry with taper and bevel). So geonodes indeed cause conflict in some cases where normal modifiers donāt. I need to test if it is a fault of specific node or not
Ah, ok. Might as well make this snake motion purely geonode feature (I do understand how to do it), but it still feels like reinventing the bycicle)
Last I checked, rigging nodes at least is intended to be part of the Animation 2025 project, but on the other hand history shows it is a rare occurrence for Blender development news and the actual timing of the project to line up well.
There is a good probability of the project eventually happening, but sometimes I wonder if the BF rests too much on the fact that people otherwise would be spending thousands in subscription costs if Blender was not around (so we put up with the issues when they come around and stick with them).
1 Like
No.
The underlying problem is simply users missinterpreting the BFs planning (due to its public nature) for a kind of promise it never meant to be.
Iām sure in (the development of) commercial DCCs things get planned too and probably often enough sees the light of day only much later.
The key difference (other than Blenderās limited resources) being commercial entities donāt usually make their plans public in advance.
But this gets very off-topic, letās better stop here.
greetings, Kologe
10 Likes
Hum, itās hard to tell if itās going to be fixed at some point, even tho it looks like it should be eventuallyā¦ Did you tried to report a bug ? itās probably going to be ignored but it might be worth notifying in any caseā¦
I think the issue is that something that goes through geometry nodes end up being a bit different : as itās an object, say a mesh or a curve, that can eventually contain mesh, curve, instances, volumes, point clouds, all at the same time. You can even instance some lights inside a mesh or a curve. Obviously GN does something special to manage that and itās very likely that many parts of blender arenāt able to connect the dots with that yetā¦
But itās just guess work here so maybe the issue is completely different !
The problem is described here: Path animation and the new curves type
Basically path animation in general has to be updated to support the new curves system.
7 Likes
I did some tests with curve and default modifiers, and results are all over the place. It wasnāt geonodesā fault, but still baffling to me
The selected curve has Mesh Deform and Wave modifiers on it, and used as guide curve for 2 other objects/effects. Spline IK and Curve modifier ignore Wave, but support Mesh Deform. Curve Bevel property support both, but bevel profile is deformed , like if Wave is applied after the bevel geometry is calculated. Of course, programmers cannot account for every wacko workflow, as there can be trillions of combinations, but am I wrong to expect more consistency here?
spline ik + modifiers.blend (928.9 KB)
I was sure the object stayed a curve in a modifier I made. When geonode applied on a mesh outputs a mesh, it seems to work properly with things that require mesh as an input. I did another test: on a mesh plane, I used geonodes to spawn a cube instead of plane. The cube works as expected when used as deformer object for Mesh Deform
sine curve.blend (1.0 MB)
Good news that it is recognized. Always found it dumb that to animate Path constraint, you have to go into curve properties
Hello
How are we supposed to use the āAxis Angleā option for this node now that it will be ādeprecatedā ?
Will they roll an automatic update in order to not break millions of end user working hour, or the end users are simply not taken into consideration in this equation?
