Some days ago i restarted the project again! You can check it at project’s website
The project at first attempt was a fork. On a second attempt i tried to focus it as an Addon, but I found some limitations (some with some workarounds i did not like) so i ended developing some patches, and submitting it. Get a patch being included is quite difficult. If you consider it really should be included you can support it, and I’ll try to do the necessary changes.
So in this attempt I am focusing in development as fork, with more experience in backgrounds. Doing as match as possible from python or doing it possible in a general way, so can be reused from an script / addon scope for users. The project is available on
and collaboration is welcome.
Working on a project that is receiving such quantity of commits (changes, refactoring, and improvements) is hard if you want to keep in sync. So I realized that best way to proceed is to get all changes as patches, and have a way to get it applied automatically. This way, if something changes and conflicts, can be easily isolated and solved without affecting other parts. Also it’s clear what’s changes depend on others.
So, after i imported some things, tested things…, now I’m on getting old developed things working again. So don’t expect to have something functional. yet.
The original idea, some years ago, was to bring cad features to Blender’s core. But instead I was redirected to other opensource projects, like FreeCad
So considered that developing “outside” was allowing to test things and allowed to get further. But always in mind to get things as close as possible to bf-Blender.
I think that some of the patches would be useful for users, not necessary from cad/arch/eng environments. I can agree that others goals will not match Blender’s ones.
As an engineer who uses Inventor and Solidworks on a daily basis I can say there is nothing I would love more than an open source MCAD system based on Blender fundamentals and developed to a similar level that could compete directly. That would be truly awesome!
It is, however, a long hard road. There’s a tremendous amount of work to get to that level. One challenge I see is to get enough volunteer help because it’s not as flashy and fun as Blender’s target audience.
However, it would also benefit Blender users in a huge way. Parametric solid modeling would be a huge leap forward for many hard surface modeling people and having CAD type constraints in proper assemblies would be a massive boost to rigging hard surface models.
I’m hoping with all my will you will succeed but not holding my breath. Best wishes and hope you can do it!
If it could be done, it would be the first 3D package to bridge the gap and both sides would benefit in a huge way.
I can see the BF defending the trademark against commercial vendors, but against a fork of Blender itself (even though the FOSS nature means they can’t mandate they remove code)?
Would the BF take the risk of being seen as petty and hypocritical especially when counting the times they have made statements against Autodesk’s behavior?
Names are “the identity” of anything… so if there is a project with a well known name they protect the name mainly because “copies” can damage the reputation…
( …it is not clear for me what behaviour you are speaking of here…)
Also often big companies do not just protect their names but also fight against “anything” what may be similar in any way… ( like maybe using U and V for the mapping coordinates ?? so others have to use A, B ?? …hopefully this is just purely hypothetical ) or on any “patents” which are nothing else than a simple scribbeled sketch and no further description about technical advancement …mutiple touch… hand gestures …)…
So not being on top because of good developers or inventions but by number of employed lawyers…
…and as ton said lately… they just now… have a lawyer… one… AFAIK
I knew about Bforartists, but i never took a look on it.
I can see some differences in the approach
Changes cannot be easily isolated on sources; you could search for ‘bfa’ or make a diff on whole source…
Do not want to make a separate product, publishing blender’s features in it’s site
About branding, I do not want to enter in a discussion here, only appoint that Blender and the Blender Foundation is not same thing. Imho, we have a great and successful Blender thanks to Blender Foundation. That’s All.
…well… if this would be “just” a fork then i guess the blender foundation would even not bother about this… but you see… on the “Main website” under…
3.1.Give some Money
…so essentially you are asking for money for a project which is based on blender and even use the name… aaandd… the logo (!!!)
…so i think it would be a good idea to think about a proper name and so also be nicely befriended with the blender foundation… because… you do not want that drama…
That’s true. I’m looking for resources because development is time, and time is money, which I am not dedicating to other things.
If you continue on the section, not just the title, it also says
As this project would not exist without Blender and it's foundation,
30% of incomes will be donated to Blender development Fund.
I got the advice. I’ll change the branding, this is not my headache. The purpose will be the same, and supply patches that can be applied on blender source. Just as @engart I only want a blender that meets CAD users, and if this is on bf-blender, better.
I opened this thread to talk about the project not it’s branding.
@mauge There’s a plugin for the old LightWave 3D app called “LWCad”.
It’s seen as an essential plugin for LightWave users and that plugin single-handedly kept LightWave’s outdated modeling somewhat relevant for over 15 years.
If your project would add similar functionality/extended CAD functionality in the same vein - now, that would be brilliant.
Yes, i did some things on the past, I try to get all working again. Most work done in the past is listed on old and outdated page
Some of this, is already possible on actual bf-blender, so great!
AFAIK
Using ALT during transform, do not know if that was already possible and I lost some time there :S The blender’s solutions is better.
Using a Base point on transform, recently added
What is currently done (working on newer versions of blender) is what was developed on a second approach, more python based. Now continuing with UCS, the first step was object data created match the Transform Orientation.
I do not think some goals being able to be set at all as an addon. Also what happens with large scenes should be considered, because with just a cube, all is fun and fast. This motivated me for example to work on operator handlers: just do something when is needed.
You can link the two other cad addons, if you want.
hopefully this is just purely hypothetical ) or on any “patents” which are nothing else than a simple scribbeled sketch and no further description about technical advancement …mutiple touch… hand gestures …)…
)
