Version 2.6. Does this number make sense?

Let’s take a look.
Zbrush, for example, adds a few real nice features and raises the version by 0.5.
Now that it has many new features, they reached version 4, which is superior to version 3. But the difference between these two versions are not that much drastic in comparison to the new blender and the old blender.

However, Blender was completely rewritten from scratch. The difference between 2,4 and 2.5 is extreme. It looks like a whole different program now. There were many new things added and many will be added till version 2.6. A whole new generation for blender has started, and Blender 2.4 looks like the program of the past now. But what? The version razed only by 0.01 or 0.1 (for stable). This little number gives the impression that they just updated blender by fixing some bugs or added a few new features.

Wouldn’t it make perfect sense if blender was Called “Blender 3” since it opened a whole new page?

If after these drastic improvements, the version is razed by such a small number, how would blender 3 look like? A Brain controlled hologram?

this is not really important, but i just thought this was interesting.

Really, I couldn’t care less what they call it.

They could call it Blender 3000. I wouldn’t care…

Yea it’s just a number who cares.

I know what you mean, lol I love the above comments :smiley:

Blender 3.0?

Haha. Love the comments.
Sorry, i didn’t realise a thread like this already exists. This one may be deleted.

Nah, it’s important to discuss totally arbitrary things like this somewhere the devs rarely hang out.

I think it’s better to have the numbers slowly increase.

Otherwise in 10 years we would have “Blender 3297325269105748659.0” (Which wouldn’t be all that different from the current “revisions” but still)

A number is a number, right. Yet what marketing and communication is concerned, numering something can matter a lot.

  1. Don’t change it too much doesn’t only mean that it might be because of no big changes, It also sends the message to older user: “You won’t be too out of your element”. That can be reassuring, for some people.
  2. Change with a visibly higher number has good chances to be taken as a promiss for outstanding new features and potential. It’s good not to be too shy, though as put in point 1, it can scare veterans…
    IMO a nice brainstorming amongst the Blender team’s heads, about this subject, will probably give the best results. These people who work since years at it and yet have visualized some goals to reach, must be well placed to get the number right…

Commercial software needs to trick their customers into buying new versions of their program. They increase the version # by a significant amount so their users will think that it is worth spending the money on the upgrade.
If you already owned Maya 8.7 would you want to pay $2000 to get Maya 8.8? I didn’t think so.

Open source software has the option of using version #'s in the manner they were created: keeping track of different versions of the software.

But you’re correct–there is a huge jump from 2.49 -> 2.5

I like the Ubuntu way: just use a month and year digits and be done with it. Doesn’t matter if it’s really a huge step forward or just a few bugfixes: huge bold numbers always impress from a marketing standpoint…

You are all wrong the only people who do it right are google.
Chromium is at version 6.0.472.53 at the moment, now that is a sophisticated number.

I hope this is sarcasm…

As long as the version system makes sense and is consistent, I’m good with it.

It isn’t directly affecting me, but I think both 2.5 and 2.6 are milestone versions for Blender and from a marketing standpoint, the BF need to send that message to attract interest in the CG community and especially new users. 2.5 should have been 3.0 and 2.6 should have been 3.5. I know this is out of the norm for blender conservative numbering so far, but the work that has been done is out of the norm as well. When the cycle of releases go back to normal, they can go back to .01 releases, but at the moment the numbers don’t hint how much Blender has evolved since the pre 2.5 versions.

Why? Blender has a HUGE (and growing) user base, and has no need of marketing crap because “IT"S NOT BEING SOLD”.

People will discover Blender by what it does, not what some number or marketing hype makes them believe it does. This is where documentation and training (not marketing) would help.

Here’s the difference… marketing says “ooh lookey at our incredible (insert name) feature that will magically make your models look super cool” and comes complete with videos of how awesomely great the feature is so that everyone points to it and says “wow, if my app only had (insert feature) I would be a CG god, Pixar would PAY me to make these silly little animations and my life would be great” But when they buy said supercool program with supercool feature “x” it turns out that they can’t get that Pixar job with a demo reel made up of standard “feature tests”. Assuming said “feature” even works as portrayed in the marketing hype to begin with.

Documentation and training provides the end user with the underling fundamentals to CREATE their own unique art. (assuming their app isn’t total crap) With this, a hell of a lot of work, and a hell of a lot of talent, they just might get that Pixar job. Everything else is just posturing and toy envy / possessiveness.

Oh, and as long as I’m on a roll… what is with this consent need for people to validate their choice of application by how it’s perceived in the CG community? - Who cares. Do you REALLY believe that you would all get jobs if only the community knew how great Blender is? Or, is this a “my dad can beat up your dad” sort of thing?

In the end it’s just a number, and it’s already been discussed to death.

I completely disagree with virtually everything said by the previous poster. I also don’t understand the random use of capitalization as it gives emphasis to irrelevant stuff.

Why? Blender has a HUGE (and growing) user base,
That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t try to get a…HUGER and even faster growing user base.

and has no need of marketing crap because “IT"S NOT BEING SOLD”.
I think you lack some basic understanding of marketing and its concepts. Marketing is not solely meant for commercial products. If used correctly it’s not also meant to just push sales on crap products. Marketing, among other things, can help a good product reach it’s potential audience. A good example of successful marketing is the various screenings of The Blender foundation movies. A nice example of a good outcome from such an exposure, is those nifty findings the blender foundation receives from time to time.

Documentation and training provides the end user with the underling fundamentals to CREATE their own unique art.
Undeniably. Thanks for stating the obvious. It’s also totally irrelevant to our discussion.

Do you REALLY believe that you would all get jobs if only the community knew how great Blender is?
Who talked about jobs? What does this have to do with anything again? Did anyone say, “name the new version of Blender “3.0” so that we’ll get a jobs?”

In the end it’s just a number
The number that follows Blender’s major releases are actually crucial to the potential interest it could attract at the CG community. If Ati releases a new mind-blowing card and name it “Radeon 5871”, will it sell the message that this card is a significant advancement to the 5870? Would Photoshop CS5 had attracted the same interest if it was named Photoshop CS4.1? It’s just a number right?
Many companies even add to the name of the software after such a major release. 3d studio 4 was followed in 1996 by 3d studio Max R1, to illustrate the message that this version of the software is something radical. So, don’t worry about the version numbers getting big, you can always rename Blender at some point to BlenderMax XSI 1.0 and start over.

and it’s already been discussed to death.
Maybe because many users understand that such a small thing can actually have such a huge impact on Blender.

I agree with grafos, version number is all that matters, we should call blender 2.5, blender ONE MILLION, what way we are way ahead of everyone else.
3D studio max 2011 or blender 1 000 000, yeah, easy choice.

No one said version number is all that matters.

I have also been wondering about these micro updates of version numbers. For sure it does damage software visibility and new user base.

When I was new to Blender I had hard time realizing that 0.01 version differences actually contained new features. Then one day I just updated Blender to find out it it had evolved superior software compared to Anim8or. :slight_smile:

Same thing goes with so many other programs I’m using. I just think they are dead projects, when actually a update from 0.019384.323 to 0.019384.324 has added all those missing features I originally decided to not use that software.

Blender should at least have some kind of release “codenames” like Ubuntu. That’s one thing beside version numbering that draws people attention to new releases.

There are releaselogs on website that show new features and you should always use latest version, you can get it for free so why not?

I never cared about version numbers, I read articles and forums to find out what features program has.