No, I use Photographer for my work and will keep it in a working state ad vitam eternam, or until Blender devs decides to add every feature that Photographer is adding. I’m saying that it will be maintained until 2022 because if there is a version 5, then Photographer 4 support will be dropped at some point, probably end of 2022.
This is a good question because I forgot to mention it: Photographer 3 support ends this year. If it becomes incompatible with Blender versions that are released after 3.0, you will have to upgrade.
If there is a Photographer 5, this will very likely be the latest version, so this will be a perpetual license of some sort. And if there isn’t, then you already have a perpetual license if you own Photographer 4
I’m pretty sure there will be a version 5 . There are so many things you can add, that aren’t useless but important for professional work!!
But as far as I get what you say, is: Version 4 loses support 2022 when there is a version 5 coming.
And if no version 5 is coming we have support longer than 2022 for version 4 but without new stuff, only support for the existing stuff of version 4. right!?
Add-ons are coded in Python and cannot be merged in Blender’s code.
What can happen is adding Photographer as a community addon, included with Blender. There are a few issues with that:
As far as I know, it’s pretty much a life commitment for me to fix the add-on for any new version of Blender, I don’t think it’s Blender devs who will be in charge of it.
In the event Blender devs take over, my code is gross. I’m an artist who made tools that work, but programmers would pull their hair out reading what I wrote.
I would be more than happy to share my knowledge and functions behind the addon if Blender gets inspired by what Photographer provides and want to add features natively. They know my add-on exists as I shared some of my updates with Clement (EEVEE dev) for instance.
Changes in blender’s policy will not allow it as soon as there is a “commercial version” of the addon available anywhere.
Was the reason invoked to remove archipack from blender 3.x
hi, i would like to ask when the new version Archipack pro (commercial version) for blender 3.X will be released. Will the update from 2.x to 3.x be paid? It is possible to get similar information or the current roadmap somewhere.
Hello Fabien, I have some important questions about my current workflow.
I’ve found the issues with scale in Blender. Most of the modelers working in metric system with 0.01 scale (UE, Maya behavior), so do I and it was fine for me for few years. But since I’m going deeper into real photo aspects (but still pretty dumb on that territory), and I’ve start spend more time with Lighting setup. And here is my questions about the things I’m that struggle with currently.
If I put one of your Lightpack model in my current scale system (0.01) it have x100 smaller size.
On one hand it isn’t a problem. On the other hand it’s overbrighting the scene after refreshing the Photographer settings (or if I changing any of the value of the light source).
Btw same things happen when I’m using CG Cookie ExtraLight presets (in the end it’s looks incorrect due to size and scale system which is 1.0 too).
I’ve been trying to modify the original files, trying to scale it right in scene after import, new blender asset features (doesn’t work at all with parented objects).
1- Rescaling the files right after import (append) and tweaking the light manually (to avoid the overbrightness). But as I understand light isn’t a linear value. So decreasing light intensity by x100 isn’t a right choice, right? In the end - the value’s of light source doesn’t corresponding to the real one (candela\lumen value) but at least looks close and similar.
2- Creating the stage lighting scene separately with rescaling the meshes itself (reverse scale from 0.01 to 1.0) on purpose to render it properly.
So basically the main question - is the 1st variant is correct (in terms of lights values)? Or is there any way to reach the result without scaling the meshes\lighting and so on?
Yes, that’s because Photographer sees that you are not using a 1:1 scale, so it updates the values to be correct. It’s overbright because the light is correct, but the object is tiny. If you scale the object up, you should not have to touch the light intensities. You can always disable the “Follow scene scale” or something like this in the add-on preferences Lights panel, but… that would be wrong.
I’m not in front of my computer so I’m just doing it from my memories, but I think… I think if you import the lamp as an instance, you can scale it the way you want without any problem. If you want to create an instance from objects already in the scene, put them in their own collection, then create an empty and under the object properties, Instancing, select the collection. Then you can scale that empty.
Thank you I will try. But notice that the Lamp is going overbright the scene right after the import (append) with the correct size - approximately 14cm tall of the lower part (no rescale in current scene). That thing confused me more (instead of in the case with a tiny object). I guess this happens due to some floating-point issue in Blender or something like this.
I am working on a vfx shot and tried to use Photographer addon to match my camera settings and light intensities to real world, but seems that exposure is only taken into account in viewport. There is a hint that in can be applied in compositor, but I save out exr directly and I have all post processing in Blender disabled. Is it still possible to get somehow the exposure I settings still applied to my saved exr files?
Did you try the “Apply at compositing” option? To get the exposure applied to the saved EXR, you need to render with compositing rendering enabled (checking “Apply at Compositing” will turn it on automatically).
I do not know if it has already been mentioned,
in blender version 3.0, the panel of the 4.4.6 version has
small columns through which you can see!,
I find it annoying , in the 2.93.7 the panel was one unit
Now this is not bad but maybe it is worth mentioning.
, in the 2.93.7 the panel was one unit
Can’t do anything about this.