As some may know, I’m coming to Blender from MODO because of MODO’s shortcomings with regards to character rigging, animation, hair and fur workflows. But despite all that, MODO is an excellent modelling, UVing and shading/rendering application - and this new release with its brand new procedural modelling system looks super interesting.
And of course it doesn’t hurt that MODO also has the prettiest PBR viewport on the DCC market. 
Blender is also getting procedural modeling in 2.8
Sent from my SM-G530H using Tapatalk
There seems to be a bit of overlap in the videos in terms of content, but there’s some novel stuff coming to Modo regardless.
Blender is also getting procedural modeling in 2.8
Blender already has that to an extent, but it’s limited as it’s based on a stack instead of a node tree (which will change in 2.8 with the generic nodes). You can check the mailing list to find that it’s still under active development (but it’s a pretty big system so it may be a while yet).
On another thing, I notice that Modo now looks like it has a history stack, I wonder if they figured out how to let you change complex operations while keeping things predictable (ie. creating or removing a lot of geometry)?
Meanwhile, Modo gets what I’ve been requesting for years in Blender… a UV constraint (also called “sticky” or “rivet”).
good stuff on the text editor.
Impressive toolset.
Now Modo just needs good 4k scaling (what it has now is a joke) and GPU assisted rendering/previewing.
Actually it’s not a history stack. At least not one like Maya or XSI. It’s actually just a modifier stack like 3DSMax/Blender with a few added bonuses. But with Blender’s stack, it’s meant more for procedural animation tasks/ more generalized. In Modo it’s meant more as a modeling paradigm. It’s just a lot finer grained in it’s tool set. For instance, you make a poly object like a cube select some faces and add a modeling operation like Extrude or bevel. So you build up your objects like this from the start. You can basically do a similar thing in Blender as long as the modifier has a vertex group input but that would be kind of silly.
I would say it’s somewhere between 3DSMax/Blender and Houdini. I think it’s headed in the Houdini direction but they haven’t added all the individual modeling operations in yet. So right now it’s just the basics.
EDIT: Also, as it stands now, there is no way to mix procedural workflows with non-procedural modeling. So, once you start modeling something using modifiers, you can’t just use the Element Mode tool and grab some points and tweak it. You’ll have to freeze the model first.
Eventually I’m sure they will have some kind of non-procedural modeling operator that you can stick in the stack. There’s been talk about it at least.
The nice thing is that unlike Houdini you can approach it in a nodal way or just use the stack. So it has the potential to be very powerful yet approachable.
So far I’m on the fence.
If we payed each €1.459 to blender foundation then we would have many more features than we have now. Either way. Modo does have very cool features.
Blender should have a fundraiser, like what Wikipedia does, asking everyone for a small amount to keep it running smoothly.
Blender development already makes use of sustained income via the Blender cloud and the development fund, I don’t see what it stands to gain from adding fundraisers (since it’s usually a one and done deal for funds unless it’s done repeatedly).
One might try to cite the fundraising success for Krita, but last I checked they don’t have the same web infrastructure that the BF does, so they see the fundraiser as cheap and easy to set up when doing it through services like Kickstarter.
It’s pretty simple actually…
More money>less money.
I don’t see anything wrong with this.
I would support the idea of a fundraiser also, I see nothing wrong with that.
It would only work if such a campaign raised a substantial amount of money each time it’s done (adding paid positions to the core team is not cheap), then there’s the fact that Kickstarter at least wouldn’t give them any money at all if they fell short of the goal.
Plus, is you’re ever thinking of having a fundraiser for Blender to have procedural modeling like Modo, I’m pretty sure that’s already funded due to Lukas Tonne’s activity in the object nodes branch (the latest string of commits being less than two days ago, and getting a second developer on it may require a month or so of getting them acquainted with the design and the code before his contribution can begin in earnest).
There are still tools in Blender that are half-a$$ed or missing, and before any fancy stuff, BDevs should fix / implement those. But because they don’t give a damn about game development, I don’t hold my breath any longer 
If you are more specific on what tools are lacking then it would help to list it.
Define game development? Because I’m thinking about how to make assets and animation, also fbx support.
Well Motorsep; the bright light of Modoland shines quite brightly for your entry into it. It even has an Unreal 4 mode.
Purchase Modo 10.1 then, purge your hard-drive of all Blender-related stuff, and find happiness. This goes with every other person who feels Blender does nothing but drive them into the ground and perceive its development as incompetent, there is an alternative that does not have the Autodesk branding on it.
Seriously man, I agree with Ace here. There are so many other 3D programs that have made game development their main bread and butter, money making feature set. Just about every other 3D app really… well, maybe not C4D but you get what I’m saying. Modo, Maya, Max, etc. are all very good choices for making game assets. Why not just use the tool that’s right for the job?
Ace is hypocrite, so I am not sure why suddenly you agree with him.
I’ve always made it clear what tools would be nice to see. Posted detailed feature requests, examples or workflow, etc. Most common response from devs was "it can be handled in Python " which meant “we don’t care, do it yourself”.
The latest example was devs asking for ideas for small hacks for 2.7x / 2.8x. I proposed to add a button to invert vertex colors. Needless to say it was ignored.
I’ve been using Blender for a long time and as modeling/animation (to a degree) package Blender is robust. However, game dev isn’t just about that.
It’s not that simple in open source projects. More money doesn’t equal to more development and features. If open source projects were developed in consistent manner they would be ready quick and who is going to donate then? Think about it.