There are thousands of hours of patch development just waiting for someone to even take a look in the blender tracker (some of them waiting for month - when not years to get a review), and countless discouraged talents who have simply given up trying to contribute.
5 Likes
- Rig animation issues - see KWDâs thread, the new OpenSubDiv evaluator means posing a lot of models with subsurf on goes from being completely unusable to being quite interactive. See the benchmarks, why the artists working on
Springdecided to not just walk away and go home is beyond me. - Cycles/Eevee - the big Eevee rework has seen delays, but Cycles X will resolve a lot of performance issues for version 3. There is also a developer working on MNEE sampling, which means much faster and much better caustics (to note, it is by the same guy has made Cycles SSS finally capable of anisotropy).
- Questionable implementation of tools - in the world of Blender we refer to this as tradition. When it has been engrained in development since before NaN went bankrupt, it is surprisingly hard to change the development mentality to making sure all tools are polished and complete before release.
- Solvers - I can see that, unfortunately we do not have a lot of people who can dedicate their time to working on these things, though it might soon get a boost because solvers in general are planned to be a central part of Everything Nodes.
- Patch Review/onboarding - The BF has been taking steps to address the issue for a while, the problem is you canât just commit patches unless it is looked at by a dev. who knows the area of Blender it is adding code to. The core team also does not want to run the risk of it being added to their maintenance duties, so there is the additional challenge of ensuring the contributor will fix any bugs that arise.
- The license - if this is the single most important issue, then the idea of Blender becoming industry standard is probably just a pipedream (as the problem is unfixable). The only way it wouldnât would be if the Blender core became powerful enough to literally not need a secondary application (or if open model and scene formats managed to completely take over, meaning .fbx and friends go extinct).
1 Like
If by taking steps you mean communication, then, yes bf does a lot, but on the âdirtyâ side of real world cases it still is by far not the case.
Unless bf find a way to make those things become a true reality, the team will only remain âcore devsâ who shoot themselves in the feet by neglecting the valuable external input that such a project requires.
1 Like
I am not sure how much improvement could be made without removing the ability of the core team to get their own projects done in a timely manner (as the current structure already has some of their time allocated to the patch tracker). Unless of course you believe that Blender would advance in a better way if the core team stopped writing their own code and just focused on committing and following up on community patches instead (which could hurt the ability of the BF to get major refactoring projects done).
I know the guys over at Godot did not have much of an issue with committing patches in a timely manner, that is until the project grew and the paid devs. started major projects that were needed, but would take a lot of time to get done (not to mention the management overhead that went with that). The land of Unreal meanwhile, in spite of all of the praise it gets, has had a lot of people complaining about how difficult it is to get their patches looked at and committed. This is despite the record breaking rate of development at the hands of a billion dollar corporation.
If you think you know how to create some goldilocks environment where the major rewrites keep going while every bug is checked while every patch gets reviewed or committed, you might want to post it to the devtalk forum.
UUUUUffffffff
My answer is: I donât care, as long as it keeps developing I am happy!
3 Likes
18 Likes
Love you man!
2 Likes
oh yesâŚand maybe this is the forbidden word in a society where emotions are repressed, but a lot of frustration.
and people with lower level of coding have no chance to be heard. the system to access things in blender dev is just not easy. some good ideas are waiting on right click select too (even this name is symptomaticâŚ)
there is a lot of code, and a lot of old code in blender. I think some coders are unconsciously afraid by changes. and so even simple things are not improved. some new developers enter but after a while they are mainly working on correcting bugs.
but in this free world they are âdictators for lifeâ. so nothing to reportâŚ
I think the whole organization of blender should be reviewed. I see some separated things with a system of communication of datas between.
I still wonder how paying softwares are doing? I see Modo around modeling and I dream. Houdini around organization of the software and the restâŚ
having a community behind helping with ideas and code should be a large advantage, but no.
because the base is not adaptable enough (and ok this is super advanced).
but ok we have a VIP Pablo ^^
Well, this thread is still alive⌠Some people think that they will improve his personal life if Blender Become Industry StandardÂŽ. Itâs ok. I guess, we all have some dreams. But reading all this posts I think that people are on wrong track. Almost all deal with features⌠Blender lack this or this, Blender must improve this or this, etc.
But I think that main obstacle is something different. Iâm interested in CG in general, look entire field, not only software which I use. Many times I talk with people which know more than I and have much more experience ( I start with 3D in 2010, and Iâm self-educated, without experience in big studios which work on big projects ).
So in time when XSI-Softimage was axed I talk with one âveteranâ which are in 3D from beginning.
He in details talk about all advantages of XSI over Maya⌠but he admit that Maya have just one advantage, but in this case crucial advantage. And this is that Maya are best software on market for big, collaborative projects. He even mention C4D as one of best software for individuals / small studios⌠but C4D fall apart in big projects which where are involved studios around the world.
TL;DR features have nothing with Maya broad usage. After all, ask any Maya user to describe his experience with Maya 
Same thing I hear many times from other people. Dude which are cofounder of one moderate big studio here, talk how his company start as group of Max users, but when project become bigger and bigger and more complex, they start to change. On the end they use Max for âfast and dirty modelingâ , Houdini and other software for VFX⌠and Maya⌠In fact he describe his studio as Maya studio.
And be sure, this was bitter pill for many people there. Blender is not only software which have fans 
There is two reasons. First Maya is âuniversal languageâ and they receive and send files with Maya. Second, more important, they find that Maya is much more appropriate for his job.
So Blender lack some other stuff to be adopted in industry much more. I donât see that BF look in this direction. Just like user base, they think that geometry nodes or some other features will change stuff.
Nope. Blender is very powerful software long time ago. Many new users like are not aware of this fact.
Many, many years ago I see top tier work which are done in Blender alone. Very complex projects.
So just number of features are not crucial.
This is real world, CG is very competitive, there is no room for emotions. I respect Blender Bob, but on one Blender Bob there is numberless veterans which say somethin different about Maya.
Again, they are not satisfied with Maya. Everyone who follow 3D know that after yearly releases, Max, Maya, C4D, Modo users start bitching on forums. Sometime moderators must âcool downâ threads.
Interestingly, as far I remember XSI users are mostly quiet, without complains⌠sometime they even cheer new release, very different from other users.
PS. Also remember Blender users as friendly, humble, noble-minded people⌠totally opposite than these days.
1 Like
Link for those interested:
Well here it goesâŚ
Multiple standards is a thing
Anyone can take Blender source code and make his own Twister or Mingler or whatever if they think they got more fire under their ass than Blender devs. At any given time. Youâll get more âfairâ starting line compared to current situation when you have to make everything from scratch.
That reminds me of âPablo only developing for his anime girlsâ opinion. 
- There is nothing wrong with high-end being some kind of priority. That will not necessary mean no gain for others
- Patches are still a thing - your priority might be also a priority of someone who could code and make a patch for it
- Individual donors are still a thing, so neglecting them is not an option. Even if they are not really high % of overall income itâs still a couple of devs work.
- Current BF management does not appear to be vulnerable to that
Pressure from what? Non-existent investors?
Create more bugs than currently in this code that have places compared to âcan of wormsâ?
And all of this despite ability of any person to fork Blender at any given time and move at a lightning speed compared to âmulti-month process that involves a large committee of decidersâ?
Are we really talking about Blender?
Ah yes, because there is definitely some standard of workflow set in stone.
There is some misunderstanding that âindustryâ will rule Blender. That somehow software adapts to âbig guysâ and not the other way around.
If that was the case, would ZBrush still had itâs UI?
And I fail to see how current BF management are allowing it to happen.
I donât see this idea anywhere since like 2.80 era and in this thread in particular.
3.0 is in December and LTS is 3.3 with around 3 months between releases so make it next Fall.
Itâs alright. Catching up to a specialized software as a jack-of-all-trades is all about small but consistent steps and in all areas at once.
Nah itâs too boring and difficult. What Blender need to do is offer unique offer that (by definition of âuniqueâ) canât be replaced with competitors. And once they hooked up, else is just a matter of time.
Yes.
So question becomes, when do you think those issues will be tackled?
What issue?
Isnât it better than current âstart from scratchâ entry to 3D software development?
What other license would be better and why?
How licence prevents in any way for Blender to become âindustry standardâ?
Would you say that current situation is worse than it was before? That is to say, do we have some progress/regress in that area?
I want to note that many current devs are contributors of the past.
BF recently hired a person to do just that. Just poke him every once in a while and he will make you heard. 
Ideas is overrated. Action (patches) is where itâs at.
Iâm pretty sure they are consciously afraid of touching old code.
What you mean by âsimple thingâ, do you have an example or two?
I think I follow Blender development pretty close and I canât say thatâs the case.
For example, Richard Antalik was hired precisely first to triage and only after a while to submit own patches. Now while he does triage he also very involved with patch review and own patches.
@KWD is very involved with own patches since he was hired (or more precisely got a grant) and mainly do bugfixing if they are caused by his commits.
While William Leeson for now definitely mainly involved in bugfixes, 1) he only started in summer 2) his bugfixes seems quite knowledge and experience demanding and 3) seeing as he was responsible as feedback for HIP implementation for Cycles-X he is nore involved than âjust bugfixingâ even now.
Do you have other examples?
How is it not large advantage when you have 99 contributors to latest release of which is like 1/5 at most from BF or BI?
3 Likes
To me it seems too early for that, Blender wasnât on the same plate as the others before 2.8 and still has a long way to go before it reaches the same âfeatures polishâ.
Also there is the whole license thing & tech support that the Studios have to figure it out by themselves.
Itâs more likely for a new Studio to start a Blender pipeline rather than an old one switching to it.
The most decisive things are now done in other Softwares like rigging, animation, groomingâŚetc which leaves blender only a little room to squeeze in and itâs mainly concepting or modeling, thatâs why we see it often used in pre-production and a little bit further.
4 Likes
Iâm glad you pointed out how powerful Blender is. Like it is really powerful actually! But so many people miss the obvious
But why do you think people complain about Modo with new releases (not all of course)? Modo is very polished when it comes to modelling. Look at their name⌠the first 3 letters is the first 3 letters of the word modelling, and they did that deliberately. Itâs like theyâre saying: This software is for that; namely modelling
You apparently have never worked in a large enterprise comprising of hundreds of employees and dozens of departments â because if weâre talking about Blender becoming a de-facto industry standard like Autodesk is today, then weâre talking about it needing to expand its footprint substantially. But youâre entitled to believe your personal fantasy as this entire thread is kinda nonsense anyway.
3 Likes
Of course that Blender is powerful and feature rich software⌠But users are never satisfied 
And this is normal⌠and good. We canât allow developers to sleep well 
Now more seriously. As far I know Modo have very slow development, users complain that they pay for⌠nothing. Also Modo capabilities are overhyped. And like one old users say: Modo is only software which have âcure meshâ function. Foundry donât make stuff better with his aggressive pricing and licensing politics.
I use Modo 8.1 couple months. And donât see any drastic advantage over C4D modeling capabilities. In contrary I download tons of free scripts to have functionality which are basic in C4D. And⌠C4D is not famous with his modeling toolset 
And if we talk about features, I hope that with bigger Blender popularity and âmarket shareâ, some developers give a more love to Blender.
For example Realflow have plugin for C4D. You can very fast make decent simulation with little effort and very Art directable. this will not be cheap, but for people which often work with liquid simulation this will be life - money savior. Same is with smoke, hair, etc.
This is reality. Tools are not free - cheep. Ask every craftsman about this. So itâs normal that 3D are not exception.
For hobbyist, semi professionals Blender native tools are good enough. Very good artist can do more, although there is limit what one general software can do against specialized ( one trick dog ).
Having some of this 3rd party âtoysâ deeply integrated in Blender will be great.
1 Like
Your fallacy is in assuming everything has to be covered by one single organization. Blender is a community.
Plenty of the things that Autodesk does as a single org consisting of multiple departments can be done, and likely better by multiple separate orgs each focusing on their own niche/area.
Being more autonomous allows them to take the necessary decisions for rapid progress or issue resolution without the comm overhead and if one such org should fail at their specific niche another can simply step in and fill the void.
On the other hand open communities take significantly longer to grow and foster. And they do so inherently chaotically.
There isnât an âindustry standard,â because âthe industryâ is too big. (Movies, videos, print, motion graphics, games ⌠âŚ)
It might even surprise you that, today, a rather significant percentage of âthe industryâ has already âstandardizedâ on ⌠Blender.
Inevitably, studios âstandardizeâ on the best-available technologies of the time in which the decisions must be made â then, they stick with those decisions, and the (very lucky âŚ) vendors stick by them. Once having made those decisions, the studios very likely are never going to âswitch.â Because it would be fairly insane for them to do so.
They have contracts to fulfill, and customers to satisfy, and they have found a predictable way by which to do so. The âlicense costsâ ⌠are merely âcosts.â And the software which they have chosen (or developed) â works.
2 Likes
And your fallacy is assuming that an exponential Blender growth in the industry would retain that type of organization.
My entire point is that Blender as an âindustry standardâ is no longer Blender.
I cordially disagree with you, Midphase: the Blender âcommunityâ has by now developed a professional grade product, and therefore it actually now has "professional, industry," stakeholders.
Today, a great many âprofessional studios,â in various graphic disciplines large and small â not just âmoviesâ or âgamesâ â have cast their lot with Blender. And not simply because âit is free.â They did it for what this product can now do.
Blender doesnât have anything to prove to the professional community anymore. In fact, today it enjoys the [financial âŚ] support of that community as well as ours. âBlender has arrived.â