This is exactly why I post my answers for everyone when I find them
What in the hell did they find out? Still don’t know how to install a complicated zip file into blender, nothing shows up when I select the zip file to install from the user preferences (no new addons show up).
I’ve selected the zip file to install over and over from the desktop but it never ever shows up in the user preferences, even after I refresh and close and open the program.
What zip file? A zip file could contain anything. Even if there’s an addon in there, it may not be in the right format to install from “User Preferences -> Install from File…”.
Did you not get any installation instructions with the file? Maybe the instructions are inside the zip file, or maybe you’re trying to install an incompatible (Blender 2.49 and earlier) addon.
All of the installation instructions were in some installation python text format that can only be read after installing all the python script. In other words, I need to install it to know how to install it. It’s from the very software you somehow claimed you used every day. It’s hard to think that when there’s clearly no way to install it.
Later software should be able to install earlier addons, there’s no reason for it not to work unless Blender Foundation is really that incompetent. If that’s what’s happening, it would be the first and only instance I’ve ever seen in any remote way of updated software being unable to incorporate primitive script.
I’ve replied in your other thread.
I never claimed such a thing, you must be mixing me up with someone else.
Later software should be able to install earlier addons, there’s no reason for it not to unless Blender Foundation really screwed things up, each successive generation should only become more sophisticated, not less.
This is just a side note, but nobody maintains compatility with third-party plugins written for older versions of the software indefinitely. It’s simply not economical.
Alright, well if you didn’t say it then that’s possible.
Incorrect. From all my experience in my years of working with graphic design, videography, audio-design and mathematics, I’ve never ever seen that to be the case. The issue isn’t the compatibility itself, only the way Blender is updated, it is the only software I’ve ever seen that is incapable of maintaining compatibility with older plugins, ever. Software that is correctly programmed doesn’t change at a fundamental level with every update, it only becomes more complex, allowing it to use previousl plugins as well as new plugins, perhaps with occasional changes that switch on or off a select few source files and configuration files. It is done this way precisely to avoid the issue of incompatibility, there is no reason to throw away hundreds of thousands of dollars, perhaps millions of dollars of work from various developers, it is simply not economical to not maintain compatibility.
Incorrect. I have years of experience working with graphic design, audio-design and mathematics that says otherwise. The issue isn’t the compatibility itself, only the way Blender is updated, it is the only software I’ve ever seen that is incapable of maintaining compatibility with older plugins.
You must not have seen a lot, Autodesk software breaks plugins with pretty much every major release, because they use C++ plugins and C++ compiler output is not binary-compatible across different compiler versions. In theory, you can create an interface using the C ABI, in practice they don’t give a shit and developers have to keep updating their plugins. (usually just a re-compile, but still)
Blender did a major rewrite going from 2.49 to 2.5, and they also switched from Python 2 to Python 3. Python 3 is not compatible with Python 2, so all scripts would’ve had to been modified anyway.
Software that is correctly programmed doesn’t change at a fundamental level, it only becomes more complex.
There’s no “correct” way to program software. Sure, you can maintain compatibility, but it costs money to do so. At some point, it’s uneconomical. Some companies value it more than others. I certainly value compatibility highly. But nobody maintains it indefinitely.
Autodesk had one major change that made a lot of people mad as it lead to many smaller changes, but they did it for security and integrity reasons and it was intentional, it was planned. Companies that go bankrupt are the ones don’t care about their developer/user communities in this day and age, that’s not what happened.
Which they should have anticipated pre-hand.
You’re right, just like there’s no “correct” way to act in society, it’s simply that we have a consensus not to murder and steal from each other. The standard or “consensus” is what makes something correct. It is the industry standard to maintain compatibility with software that is not publicly deemed outdated by the consensus of users and computer scientists. Otherwise without that concensus, all software would be going out of date every single week, but people don’t want things to change that fast, users prefer stability over the course of their career, so overall people agree that changes are should be slow.
I’m just gonna repeat myself: Autodesk breaks compatibility with every major version, on major applications like Maya. See here:
“You cannot load a plug-in for any version of Maya that predates or post-dates the version it was compiled for. That is, if a plug-in was created for Maya 2011, it will not work with Maya 2016.”
Which they should have anticipated pre-hand.
They have anticipated it. They told everyone: “The API will break”. Not everyone ported their addons, so from time to time, people come up with with outdated addons, wondering why they don’t work.
You’re right, just like there’s no “correct” way to act in society, it’s simply that we have a consensus not to murder and steal from each other. The standard or “consensus” is what makes something correct. It is the industry standard to maintain compatibility with software that is not publicly deemed outdated by the consensus of users and computer scientists. Otherwise without that concensus, all software would be going out of date every single week, but people don’t want things to change that fast, users prefer stability over the course of their career, so overall people agree that changes are should be slow.
I’ll tell you what I told you in the other thread: Your (wishful?) perception of the world is not the reality we live in. Software compatibility breaks all the time, sometimes for minor reasons, even if it’s major companies that are involved. Apple likes to breaks things all the time, Microsoft not so much. Maybe breakage didn’t happen in your little part of the software world, then you can consider yourself lucky. As soon as you use Blender, you’ll have to get used to addons breaking.
Your right QuestionBlenderLLC, consensus rules. Slow down and get a grip on reality. Software add-ons, especially software add-ons written by enthusiasts and given away for free, do break. It is not the responsibility of the host application to ensure all third party add-ons are functional, especially host applications written by enthusiasts, and given away for free. That’s just the simple reality. If you honestly believe Autodesk products and their add-ons don’t break, then they are a viable option for you. Having done technical support for them, I know they do break, but they pay their people well to deal with rude customers. Consensus rules.
And how exactly does repeating yourself magically change the universe? You’re doing nothing more than begging the question. Besides, this was only done so they could better secure their files and assets overall, and it doesn’t mean a majority of users agree with their decision either, blender needs no such thing being open source. Not only that, but Maya has been around for nearly two decades, people can agree they are more inclined to want the latest of what such a professional software has to offer anyway.
They announced it very shortly after deciding they were going to do it, they did not anticipate this change when they first made blender.
And your wishful perception of the world doesn’t change the legal system or anyone’s standards. MS has already testified multiple times as to its compatibility, so either it is lying, or you are wrong. Do you really think a multi-billion software dollar company would make a mistake for that many users? It’s either intentional, or blender needs to be configured differently.
In either case, this is getting no where, nothing you’ve said has allowed the software to function as intended.
Oh, so I guess MS is just an enthusiast and not a multi-billion dollar company.
Let me make this clear, I’m the last person to argue for breaking compatibility, but it happens all the time. Maybe it doesn’t happen that much inside your little bubble, it really depends on the industry. Once you move out of your bubble, you can bitch and moan about “incorrectly” programmed software (even though clearly you’re not a programmer), it changes nothing. Welcome to the outside world!
I’m repeating myself because you’re (still) incapable to accept information that contradicts what you believe. They’re not breaking plugins with every release in order to “secure their files”, they’re breaking it because that’s the simple thing to do when you’re offering a C++ plugin API and you use a different compiler version with every major release.
Microsoft releases a new version of their C++ compiler every year, the results are not binary compatible with previous or future versions. You need to use the same compiler that Autodesk uses, to build the C++ plugins. If Autodesk updates the compiler, then the plugin developers must rebuild their plugins with the new compiler.
The reason for this is that there is no stable C++ ABI and compatibility breaks regularly. Yes, it’s a headache to deal with this, but it’s the reality.
They announced it very shortly after deciding they were going to do it, they did not anticipate this change when they first made blender.
When they first wrote Blender, nobody could anticipate that Python 3 would exist ten years later, breaking compatibility.
But let’s say they could’ve somehow anticipated every change for every dependency (not just Python, tons of other libraries) and somehow managed to maintain compatibility. How much extra work would that have been, what would’ve been the benefit? Old scripts still work, but lots of new features couldn’t have been developed, because the development budget is finite.
The majority of the userbase will choose new features over compatibility with old scripts, I will bet. Maybe you work in an industry that moves at a snail’s pace (e.g. “education”), bu then don’t expect everyone else to follow your example.
And your wishful perception of the world doesn’t change the legal system or anyone’s standards. MS has already testified multiple times as to its compatibility, so either it is lying, or you are wrong. Do you really think a multi-billion software dollar company would make a mistake for that many users? It’s either intentional, or blender needs to be configured differently.
I don’t even have the energy to reply to this. All I can say is that I pity the customer support that has to deal with you.
In either case, this is getting no where, nothing you’ve said has allowed the software to function as intended.
I don’t think you should be using this software, it’s not for you.
And most people are the last people to argue for supporting the kkk, but that doesn’t somehow mean we should accept it when it happens, that’s not consistent reasoning.
Does not follow. A majority consensus does not logically mean actions against it are impossible. Do you think most people want plugins to constantly become outdated? They don’t, but it’s an equilibrium between how much people want newer software and how much people want to avoid the cost of making a large change.
But that’s mainly a concern for the compiler, a majority of software built from C++ continues to function and furthermore autodesk wanted it to be this way, it makes their up-to-date software more secure which is a concern of theirs. Have you noticed how you can’t import certain other 3D software files into blender anymore? They want it that way specifically for that software because they have the demand for their product to get away with it.
But they would be guaranteed to predict it if what you were saying is true, that everything always breaks all the time.
Not how much extra work would it have been, but how much extra work would it have saved? If it’s too expensive to make a change, then your software is just dead in the water, you won’t have the budget to update it and fix bugs. The more work you put into dealing with the future, the less work you need when it arrives.
A majority of users will choose new script so long as it does not impact their previous capabilities. I garuntee you if blender released some new version where their animation plugins were the best of their kind in the world but all modeling plugins were disabled, blender would just die out or at the very least it wouldn’t be anywhere near as popular as it is now. Even maya, which is primarily chosen for animating, still has many modeling and texturing abilities that allow you to consistently work with adjusting 3D animations.
Google sure doesn’t after I gave them money to be my render farm, no thanks to you by the way, you’re clearly just here to waste everyone’s time instead of finding solutions.
Then that would have to mean it’s not for a majority of users, so I guess you’re saying to get ready for blender foundation to go bankrupt, not that I don’t have several other 3D softwares anyway.
We’re talking about software compatibility, you’re resorting to comparisons of murder and white supremacism. How am I even supposed to take you seriously?
Does not follow. A majority consensus does not logically mean actions against it are impossible. Do you think most people want plugins to constantly become outdated? They don’t, but it’s an equilibrium between how much people want newer software and how much people want to avoid the cost of making a large change.
That’s not the point at all. Here’s your claim:
“Autodesk had one major change that made a lot of people mad as it lead to many smaller changes, but they did it for security and integrity reasons and it was intentional, it was planned.”
This is factually wrong, I’ve shown it to be wrong, that’s all I set out to do. I don’t like it, either.
But that’s mainly a concern for the compiler, a majority of software built from C++ continues to function and furthermore autodesk wanted it to be this way, it makes their up-to-date software more secure which is a concern of theirs.
Using a newer compiler doesn’t generally make your software more secure, security-related compiler bugs are very rare.
As I said, it is entirely possible to create a plugin API that doesn’t rely on C++ ABI compatibility, it’s just more work and Autodesk just doesn’t care enough about plugins not breaking.
But they would be guaranteed to predict it if what you were saying is true, that everything always breaks all the time.
I’m not saying everything always breaks all the time, I’m saying something breaks all the time. Sure, they could’ve predicted that something will break, but that’s a pretty useless prediction.
In fact, the Python3 breakage was highly controversial and it’s a problem to this day, lots of projects never switched. I’d be the first to argue it shouldn’t have happened, but it happened.
Not how much extra work would it have been, but how much extra work would it have saved? If it’s too expensive to make a change, then your software is just dead in the water, you won’t have the budget to update it and fix bugs. The more work you put into dealing with the future, the less work you need when it arrives.
I can’t stress this point enough: You have no idea how software development works.
If I break compatibility, it saves me work, right away and indefinitely into the future. It may create work for other people, but I’m not paying for that. I have to choose the balance between pissing them off and maintaining my flexibility to make changes. Furthermore, the more you plan for an inevitably uncertain future, the more you will be wrong when it actually arrives.
A majority of users will choose new script so long as it does not impact their previous capabilities. I garuntee you if blender released some new version where their animation plugins were the best of their kind in the world but all modeling plugins were disabled, blender would just die out or at the very least it wouldn’t be anywhere near as popular as it is now. Even maya, which is primarily chosen for animating, still has many modeling and texturing abilities that allow you to consistently work with adjusting 3D animations.
What actually happens is that Blender developers make some change, some scripts break and then scripts are updated, unless they’re not actively developed anymore. If they’re not actively developed, it’s the scripts that die out, not Blender. This happens all the time. Again, not saying I like it, but that’s how it works.
Google sure doesn’t after I gave them money to be my render farm, no thanks to you by the way, you’re clearly just here to waste everyone’s time instead of finding solutions.
I’m talking about the actual customer support people dealing with you. Does Google even have customer support? Did you ever contact them?
Then that would have to mean it’s not for a majority of users, so I guess you’re saying to get ready for blender foundation to go bankrupt, not that I don’t have several other 3D softwares anyway.
I’m talking about the Azure script. It’s clearly not for you and I won’t give you support for using it. Maybe Blender isn’t for you, either.
How am I suppose to take you seriously when everyone should let the kkk do whatever it wants and let people own slaves and let people commit genocide according to the premise of your very own reasoning? Ridiculous, and that’s in addition to making random personal attacks. If you’re not even paying attention to what you say, why should anyone else? Nothing you’re saying is providing any remote solution to any problems relating to zip files or blender, you’re clearly here just to troll and waste everyone’s time.
If this really is your conclusion, I’ll have to seriously question your sanity. I’ve demonstrated that software compatibility is broken on a regular basis, I have not condoned it (to the contrary!). There isn’t even any reasoning there, it’s just facts.
Given your other statements regarding Microsoft’s “illegal lies”, my diagnosis as a hobby psychologist is that you have a delusional disorder of the litigous kind. My sympathies go out to all the people that have to deal with you on a personal basis.
Nothing you’re saying is providing any remote solution to any problems relating to zip files or blender, you’re clearly here just to troll and waste everyone’s time.
It was you who brought up “incorrect programming” and your “years of experience that say otherwise”, I’m just giving you a different perspective. You already received your answer as to why you couldn’t install that zip file (it was the wrong file).
Except it’s not my conclusion, it is one of yours based on your own reasoning and it is your fault that you did not pay attention to the inconsistencies in your statements. You’re still not only refusing to remain germane but still throwing around personal insults. Reported.
Please just take a moment and read through the entire thread again, try to find any statement that supports your claim that the “premise” of my argument is that we should “let people commit genocide”, then cite it and defend your claim.
If you truly are delusional, which is my strong suspicion, you may simply misremember things that I never said, just like you did earlier. You may want to seek medical attention.
It doesn’t matter if you directly said it if you’re reasoning supports it, you’re completely missing the point. No one said you directly stated it so I’m not sure why you keep trying to strawman me with that, I only said it can be derived from your own reasoning which shows that your reasoning is inconsistent, thus your statements should not be trusted. Anyway, you’re still off-topic, and still throwing around personal insults which shows you are clearly not vested in finding solutions problems and goals in blender which further supports that your posts should be disregarded.
I didn’t say that you said that I said that which you said can be “derived” from what I said. I want you to say how it can be derived from what I said. Otherwise, I’d say, what you said simply does not follow from what I said.
You know what I’m saying?
This thread has gotten stupid and off-topic… and apparently was solved.
Closed.