alright guys, I’ve been learning 3D in blender and using it off and on in my production workflows when it was applicable. I’m not a great fan of the internal renderer, and I prefer to use Octane to render. So now I am seeing that Refractive software is building integrated plug-ins with direct interaction for various 3D tools, but it seems that there may be some problem with building a directly built in version of non-gpl licensed software as a directly connected interface because non-gpl tools would never be willing ( nor would I expect them to ) create open up their code to get it into a gpl licensed software.
Now I’m wondering if I’m going to have to learn and make a different 3D application my main tool, instead of using blender because I realize that this could become a pretty substantial hindrance for me as I develop 3D as part of my production workflow and for example would want to start looking using some 3rd party tool that is not able to be avail. for blender because of the GPL license.
I’m not sure how many people on her use Blender in a professional production workflow environment, but I’m concerned that I might be building myself into a corner by staying with the program that I have learned on and really do like for the most part.
This is not a flame thread, so please don’t think I’m here bashing Blender, I just wonder if anyone else has come to this sort of issue and what they may have decided based on that dilemma.
Also, my experience with cycles is less than enjoyable compared to Octane, not to mention that it’s still missing things that are necessary for some things that I do right now. While Cycles is great and all, Octane is more mature and has a couple of years on Cycles. I know that repeaters always get there faster than innovators, but succeeding innovators are usually the better horse to bet on when it comes to having an edge.
It’s only a matter of either using the Render API, or linking copyrighted DLLs or any libraries for that matter, correctly.
And to point it out if you’re unaware of the development, its true that Cycles is not nearly as matured as Octane, but pacing along much faster in development.
Personally I think there’s just no one 1) intrested in doing the blender integration for octane and 2) fit enough to do it without stepping on legal landmines.
… i WAS going to just respond with a simple, “No.” to your basic thread title …
reading tho, I just want to say that transferring assets between applications is rather normal in production environments, and Blender IS fairly capable in that department … altho Collada needs work, but that’s kown and being worked on.
ALSO, one generally DOES have to learn multiple applications effectively. Like Blender? Use it for what it CAN do for you, then pass that data into the next part of the pipeline etc …
and, of course, the whole thing about “it’s the user, not the tools” is in general true … tho there’s no accounting for pure talent
I believe I pointed out that repeaters always get there faster than innovators (eg. cycles is maturing faster than Octane has)
I think this is exactly my concern… I’m in the process of using a tool that I, being a small company, would like to function as a one stop tool for my 3D modeling/animating/rendering able to use 3rd party tools directly, etc… (not something I think is an outlandish desire). But the tool I’ve begun with is not financially desirable for people to invest time in developing non-opensource tools for, and 2, is full of legal landmines even if they were inclined to do so. It’s not exactly what I’d call conducive to encouraging 3rd party developers in a professional environment.
Again, don’t get me wrong, I like blender, I would like to keep blender as a primary, I’m concerned though, because the ability to use blender in time sensitive production seems to be problematic. I don’t claim to be a guru or anything of the sort, I just do some 3D and can accomplish basic modeling, particles, physics, simulations, etc… but I need the result to be suitable from the renderer to function in a commercial environment w/o spending a year just learning the renderer.
I’ve been looking into possible applications, and I’m thinking about Lightwave10/11 and/or Cinema 4D Broadcast. I like the all in one nature of C4D, and I’ve been told it’s pretty logical/nice user interface, however I’ve been told that LW is one of the best tools out there. Hard to tell when there are so many fanboys out there and you’re looking for a really good unbiased opinion. Anyone here have any thoughts on the matter?
I use Blender Internal for professional work and have done a broadcast piece with it as well. Blender is certainly not a hinderance when you are working on the Client’s site. It is actually a savior. Remember, your client typically is serving their client and you are just the middle man. Sometimes you are just given a machine and expected to get your work done on site. And while some projects may have a built in budget of $3,000-$4,000 of wiggle room, no one likes to hear that they need to purchase an expensive license just to get some 3D into their project. By using Blender, there is no need to go back to the client or the TECH department asking for assistance in acquiring or installing new software into their pipeline.
Cinema4D Broadcast is not as good as Blender. You will miss features immediately and feel a bit ripped off and wonder why you are not using Blender. But Cinema4D Studio is a very good package well worth learning. If you think Maxxons Advanced Renderer is somehow faster then Blender or other third party systems you may want to think again. It, of course, depends upon the scene but unbiased rendering is not typically used on every project. At least the work I do. Almost every project I work on has a different look so basing a career decision on leveraging one-look seems kind of silly.
Octane (apparently) has a renderman api and there are renderman exporters for blender so…
All it would really take is someone to get a copy of Octane, a copy of the API docs (an NDA, really?) and a bit of time to get a proper exporter going.
They are also looking for someone to write a blender exporter (their terms are a bit much for me on ‘speculative’ work) and during research on the matter it seems the GPL isn’t really a hindrance – well, unless you believe the extreme viewpoint of FSF that is.
Hell, if I had the cash to buy a computer capable of running it (my poor little netbook isn’t methinks) + Octane I could get something working in a couple days since I already have a C++ renderer exporter half written for the renderman API but It would be quite easy to add any renderer really.
Anyhoo, the point I’m trying to make is the GPL isn’t really a problem for ‘pipeline integration’.
Out of curiosity, have you looked at using Luxrender as an OS replacement for Octane? It’s a lot more mature than cycles. I’m not a luxrender expert, much less an Octane expert so I don’t know what features you’d be missing?
but I need the result to be suitable from the renderer to function in a commercial environment w/o spending a year just learning the renderer.
If it takes you a year to learn how to use any renderer, you’ve got a much bigger issue holding you back.
Maybe one tool turns out to be better than another for the work you do, but no one has ever said, “Man, I really regret learning how to use Blender.” Your brain is not a 1.44 MB floppy disk-- Learn both.
I personally feel that Blender, at this point, has n-o-t-h-i-n-g to prove, not to anybody, at this point in its development. Nevertheless, is it the right tool for your job, in your total environment, with your clients? I think that this is an absolutely-pure-business question, with no easy answers, that only you and your business can truly decide. There are lots of angles to consider, and “money” and “open source” really don’t have too much to do with it at all. Ponder carefully, then, what does “have much to do with it,” for you , for now … and why.
lol, don’t get your panties in a bunch, I’m not asking people to prove anything about blender. As for your statement that “money” has nothing to do with a “pure-business” question, that is (unless I’m understanding you wrong) absolutely nonsense. A hobby doesn’t have anything to do with money, however business most certainly does. Again, I’m not trying to flame here, so please be sure to understand that I’m not dissing blender, I LIKE BLENDER What I was asking is if as a business, there are problems with going the route of open source because of the GPL licensing that apparently seems to discourage any sort of really good integration from 3rd party for profit developers.
The BF can always try to work towards changing blender to LGPL and all problems are solved.
IMO discussing GPL or LGPL is a rather religious issue, at least for me logic would dictate to use LGPL for anything that has to work in a with other software/plugins/tools or should work neatly in a pipeline.
While using the GPL protects for instance GPL libraries to be linked to proprietary software, the sword has another edge. You can’t link proprietary libraries to GPL’d software. In Blenders case I don’t really see the benefit for Blender using the GPL, only the downside like the Octane integration, unless the BF wants to ensure Autodesk can never use anything of Blenders code.
And there’s also the GPL linking exception and many other ways, it really is a license jungle by now.
And just maybe Blenders license needs some rethinking, after all it’s GPL2 licensed, which is over 20 years old and the question is how applicable it is today.
And while I am certain Ton has his reasons why it is GPL, I have no idea what those reasons are.
I know though that changing a License, especially of a project with that many contributers, is not really a trivial matter.
And the past has shown that Ton would add an exception, if you remember the FBX incident, and it didn’t really fail because the BF was unwilling to do a step forward, but becaues the Autodesk EULA would have limited Blender, although I don’t really understand the paragraph
If I remember correct from the game engine licence discussions, it’s been said multiple times that a less restrictive license would have been chosen for all of blender if they had foreseen the potential issues. Haven’t most of GPL alternatives been created because of stuff like this?
GPL is a small problem when it comes to the integration of Octane into Blender.
There are 2 unofficial exporters but they only do some work for you.
Basically they are OBJ exporters and you can change some basic scene settings but it is slow because of the in/export if you want to render an animation.
GPL is not a small problem, it is the problem - not making it impossible, but multiple times more complicated.
And you seem to mix up exporter and integration.
An exporter usually has a 3rd party file I/O, in octanes case our beloved .obj and doesn’t really require any linking, thus not violating the GPL, that’s why there are two Exporters already, written in Python, not using any proprietary non-GPL libraries.
Integration has “no” file I/O and requires to link against the Octane SDK library/libraries, for instance with the 3dsmax integration, what took you around 5 minutes to export, re-import and render takes now 20 seconds. It means to call Octanes functions directly from Blender, like Luxrender or Yafaray.
Like Radiance explained you’d need to write a communication layer.
If Blender was LGPL you could “just integrate” Octane via linking to the SDK and using the functions, but with it being GPL’d you’d have to write an “interface”.
The question is, if the GPL allows LGPL with linked proprietary stuff.
If so, it’s doable but a lot more work for whomever is going to take on the task.
At the moment the problem with Octane is the nonexistent developer interest due to low potential uptake, and expectation of low price from the customers. The GPL complicates things, but is basically solvable.
