The "New Blender" project and planning...

(Cessen) #1

First of all, if there is going to be an OpenSource Blender project, Ton should be the it’s leader. Ton is not, after all, dead.

Secondly, the project should start with a design and planning “phase”. Blender’s architecture should be designed from the ground up, based upon the desires of the community and common sense.
The planning should be done by, perhaps, a group of 2 to 4 people, including Ton (obviously). Those people should, collectively, have a solid background in the neccessary areas of programming in practice and in theory (for instance: GUI’s, 3D geometry, computer animation, file formats, rendering, software architecture, etc.)

To summarize:

  1. Ton should be a part of the project
  2. The initial project group should be very small
  3. Planning and design comes before coding

Oh, and one last thing: I think that we should wait to see what happens to the existing version of Blender before we start any “New Blender” projects.

(Dittohead) #2

Stichting Blender Foundation

While NaN Holding keeps persisting in its non-cooperative attitude towards finding a new future for Blender, a ‘stichting’ will be founded (a non commercial public benefit corporation) aimed at obtaining Blender’s IP and putting this in the public domain as a community oriented open source project. Currently, legal and financial consequences are being evaluated.

GoTo and READ.

(CubeFan973) #3

And I just started making header icons Monday. I’ve already finished the first four Headers!

(darkbyrd) #4

it’s down. how about you just share the salient points with us and let us try to get to when it’s up again

(Spiral Man) #5

i would have to disagree with several of your points. first

First of all, if there is going to be an OpenSource Blender project, Ton should be the it’s leader. Ton is not, after all, dead.

ton is also not god (no offence to ton, of course). there are several reasons i do not think ton should be required to be project leader (of course, if he wants to, and has the time, thats fine). first, ton is busy at the moment trying to determine what will happen to blender, and this project will take a long time. personally, i would rather not have to wait two or three years for a working app. second, ton needs a job. It is looking more and more like this job will not involve blender, and so any work he does on this project would be in his spare time, just like anybody else (unless, of course, you want to pay him, which he probably wouldnt mind :wink: ). Of course, i do not speak for ton, so all of this may be wrong, i am just saying, do not assume ton will even be available to work on this project.

Oh, and one last thing: I think that we should wait to see what happens to the existing version of Blender before we start any “New Blender” projects.

no, i do not think we should. A project such as this, from the ground up, will take a long time to mature (think years), and it will probably be a long time before the fate of blender is decided (perhaps also measured in years, many months at the very least). When you add these times together, you are looking at probably two years or more before a reasonable replacement for blender is available (from this project anyway). also, (speaking from the outside, just like most of us are), i do not think the chances that blender will be opened up are very high (of course, it would be great if i am wrong), which means that you may be waiting a year or more without doing anything before you find out that no, you will not have a working base to start coding on. In that time, you could have gotten very far in creating something as powerful as blender, and probably with the potential to be more powerful than blender was.

You also have to take into account how long the community will last. without any new software, the community will probably dwindle, as people see no tangible solution on the horizon, and migrate back to those consumer level 3d packages (or give up on 3d). One of blender’s main strengths was its community, and that is something a new program can carry over from blender, regardless of what happens to it.

in short, it just does not make sense to have to wait 3 years for an alternative, when it could be done in 1.5

lastly, we have to take into account how usefull the blender source would actually be. lately, development had slowed down on the 3d still/animation features. some of this was because there was too much emphasis on game/realtime blender, but there were also rumors that NaN was planning on a major rewrite of a lot of code. rewrites are expensive, and not common, especially for a company that wasnt doing too well. This indicates (to me anyway, without being able to look at the code), that perhaps the blender code was at the end of what was capable with the current design, and need to be re-designed before it could be extended properly. If this is the case, then access to the blender source wouldnt do much good, cause it would need to be almost entirely rewritten from scratch anway, to extend it much further.

disclaimer: all my theories are just that, theories. i have no more information than anybody here, this is just what i believe to be true, given the information available. please do not take it as fact.

also, i hope this is not construed as blender bashing. i really like the program, and use it a lot. however, if we can create an even better alternative, then i think we should do it (learn from peoples mistakes, dont repeat them).

(kayosIII) #6

Hello all news of this possible project has reached the land of wings
an opensource modeller.

My suggestion would be to consider working in with the wings project and concerntrating on the animation aspects early on…

Heres hoping anyway :slight_smile:

(Dittohead) #7

The website it IS up go check it out.


(darkbyrd) #8

my apologies… didn’t load on my linux box, came up okay in windows… go figuer

(Dittohead) #9

we should wait to do this and see if the ‘Blender Public Liscense’ thing goes through with NaN Holding.

([email protected]) #10


This is the most logical post i`ve read in 2 weeks!



(Kid Tripod) #11

hi there, i use wings and blender together quite a bit, as their approach to modelling is totally polarised. It’s for that reason i feel that were this to go ahead wings should still be viewed as “external” although tighter integration would always be good. a blender style modeller (which favours detail out as opposed to wings/nendo top down style modelling) is still very useful (often for tidying up wings models), that isn’t to say there aren’t features we may want to borrow (hehe).

i do agree with you that modelling wouldn’t be the primary focus of the application (but wings doesn’t have real time subsurf cages yet, i’m constantly smoothing and then undoing), and personally i conceive any future application as a mechanism for procedurally applying deformations and operations to meshes (i’m tempted to write such a thing anyway) and then processing a batch render, probably externally in something like BMRT/lightflow.

the foundation looks like good news in the short term, but a rebuild from the ground up was always going to be required, so we might as well start thinking about it now, rather than whining later . . . of course theres no reason this couldn’t happen under the auspices of the foundation, but thats obviously tons decision.

(micabr) #12

As far as I feel putting both Blender and Wings together in an open source project, that would be the way to go. I was invite to a Softimage xsi demo and training class here in Dallas and what I saw that software do was amazing. I don’t think Blender is that far removed from some of the best programs out there and maybe with the open source community it would be one of the best. Heck I would go as far as getting rid of windows if it was only for linux boxes.

(Kid Tripod) #13

truth be told writing a modelling component (mesh modelling) is the easy bit. the tough stuff is sensibly organising the rest (something which is becoming increasingly apparent is a problem in the current blender).

wings is good, but it is fundamentally different to blenders modeller, and you really need a blender style modeller to tidy up wings produced work or for really detailed stuff (i find detail out the only way to make things like good heads whereas the top down approach of nendo/wings lets you get vaguely there, but i can never finish it off) its a question of taste, but i think for integration into an animation prog (as this is) a wings style modeller would be inappropriate

if you want to get really nasty i’d suggest people think about implicit surface modelling (and subsequent animation), like metaballs but juicy