That’s the thing I find with Blender a lot of the time.
Many things feel like a WIP feature. And i constantly see this argument. Just wait for the next point update then it’ll be the go to 3d software.
The reality is, it will take time. It’s definitely speeding up, but still has some way to go.
It’s by no means impossible to see more adoption.
I’m very optimistic when it comes to the future of Blender, but I also think we have to be realistic about it.
Yes exactly my thinking.
If it would happen or not I don’t know, just a thought.
To be honest I can imagine a ‘feature fatigue’ if Blender’s development pace keeps accelerating with more and more active developers who are relatively free to add tools, features and UI changes.
New features, tools and UI changes are added to the Blender alpha master builds almost every day at the moment. A stark contrast with the yearly updates of Houdini, ZBrush, 3ds Max, etcetera, introducing a maximum of about ten major new features.
It’s becoming harder to keep up with Blender’s frequent changes and additions. I’d personally like to see more structure in the additions and changes, for example with a multi-person judgement panel evaluating whether a change or addition is really worth it before having it added to the master builds, so there would be a filter, to avoid Blender users becoming oversaturated with new features and changes.
This is just my personal $0.02. 
I’m interested to read your opinions about this, so I decided to start a new topic:
That is not really what I tried to expose.
2.8 series is an unusual one. All parts of software are engaged into a big move.
That is a really different period that 2.7x series where users were not waiting UI changes, important workflow re-organization but just a specific feature.
I am not saying “There will be a denoiser in 2.79.”
I am saying “Nobody knows what 2.84 will look like.”
Exactly why I steered clear of it for many years from the ramparts of my castle walls on the hill of the industry. 
Seriously though, the ‘industry’ sitting up and finally seeing Blender as a viable pipeline tool is fantastic for every single person that uses the program. I don’t think this can be overstated enough. Companies like Epic or Ubisoft AAA pushing tools and workflows back down the pipe and those tools getting added to branches or master is a very exciting prospect.
Not to mention the fund and number of devs has jumped by a huge amount in the last 8 months alone from this industry excitement.
That’s a good point. The rapid new features drive excitement, but for a studio, its a bit of risk to stay up to date.
I could see a Blender LTS version being useful. New versions get all the new features, and the LTS release just receives bug fixes.
I was just about to post this. Maybe we’ll soon see Framestore becoming a sponsor.
With supporting of development funds from major players in the industry (NVIDIA, AMD, EPIC, UBISOFT, etc.) that the signal Blender soon will become a major player in the 3D industry.
I expect in mid-2020.
When that happens, then business rationality will work. CG companies will recalculate their expenses to pay for licenses. they prefer to use reliable software for free.
Wait and see.
Everyone knows why. Because Blender does not have industry standard shortcuts.
Now poking aside, the reason why it is not adopted widely because of old habits and custom tools integration. I think that most Blender users underestimate the experience in production proven software. The total number of Blender hours used (artist hours) in real high stress production is next to nothing compared to the total number of hours of Maya or Houdini artists hours in such productions. Obviously those Blender hours will go up over time, it is just not going as fast as the Blender community would like to see. And I doubt that messing with keymaps will fix it. When I had to learn Maya in 2000 for game work I had no choice but learn the Maya keymaps, instead of crying about it and before that I was using Lightwave (was total culture shock). Maya was new Lightwave was old, and Maya did not give a shit about what other apps put out as such standards. 20 years later Maya is still strong and Lightwave is barely holding its shaky ground.
I thought Blender was already being used in the industry ? It’s already been the primary 3D and animation hub app on several features and TV series ? I work in the industry and I use it all the time. It’s super stable and becoming more and more easy to work across other apps and into a bigger pipeline.
These things do change fast though. After a fair few years in the industry, I clearly remember when Maya surpassed Softimage and before that when Lightwave was everywhere in TV VFX. I also remember how quickly ZBrush came from nowhere and totally changed the whole workflow.
I think a lot of what has happened is that we have seen a sort of establishment group of apps and workflows remain roughy consistent for the last several years and that this has mirrored the growth of 3D industry focused collage courses and online learning.
I think this can help create this perspective that things don’t change very fast or that there is only one right way to do things. From what I have seen in past times change comes very fast and almost is upon you without realizing it.
I like these guys videos. They are very good on ZBrush workflows in particular. But they do come from a very specific part of the industry. And the creative industry’s and the creative frontiers and career opportunities opening up working with digital media and tech are far bigger that just the big Soho VFX houses. And much broader and wider in scope. 3D technology runs through almost all of the creative fields now. What exactly is this industry standard ?
I’m not going to get into any Blender vs anything else stuff. But I am recommending strongly to people just getting started in this field and wanting to work with 3D content in general that they should be learning Blender now.
A lot of the potential Blender offers is the advantage of an open source ecosystem which seems about now to really be coming into it’s own. So this partly negates the argument that says … But Blender has been around years. The speed of Blender development right now is dizzying. And the open source system has so many unique advantages. All I can imagine of the future is it’s doing to be interesting for sure. But I think events have surely moved beyond this ‘ Why is Blender not the industry standard ‘ stuff now ?
Above all I would say let’s stay open minded and focus on being as flexible and adaptable as possible.
theres only 2 major hurdles in the way why Blender is not being used much in the gaming industry;
big companies only look at the stability and performance. Maya/Max just deliver on this much better so there is no reason for them to switch unless Blender delivers the same thing.
Meh.
Once it’s an industry standard people will look for the next new “rebel” software. Kind of like people who listen to an obscure indie band but lose interest when the singer quits in an alcohol-induced tantrum and the remaining lineup grabs a perfectly talented yet non-angsty singer and then releases their first mainstream album with an actual radio single. 
I’m not sure that’s the case. Ton has said “Blender is for Blender users”, and that the primary focus should be making Blender better for the people who currently use it. If that attracts new users, then great, but they shouldn’t be the focus.
Now try to prove this to:
A) Animators
B) Modellers
C) Video Editors
D) Coders
E) Printers
F) …farking list goes on for People using Blender for all sorts of nonsense.
In a nutshell Blender’s success (or Goal) is the audience which they reach.
…if you can point out to me a specific crowd that should only be using Blender?.. good luck on that…
Its goal is to be for everyone (choose one from the list above).
Edit: Heck G) Scientists
Prove what? It’s not a fact, it’s a statement of intent.
This:
You question that Blender isn’t for everyone based on Ton’s statement… yet it hasn’t changed where Blender really stands… Again, you see the broad use within the audience and Ton who himself focusses on making animated movies, it should in fact be for who exactly? “People that use Blender already” …See my list(!)
what do they think about that?
Shall they start looking for something else now?
Small Rant. I’ve worked in several different studios and I still have no idea what people are talking about by “industry standard” Ctrl-X, Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V are the only standard things I can think of.
Every studio has the own way of doing things depending on the software they are using. Most will write their own tools for their own pipeline. The reason Maya is used a lot is TDs can get into Maya and write their own tools for it. The big question does Blender work well with other tools?
Can you animate in Maya and get the animation out as a Alembic fille or MDD and texture and render it? Can you import Substance painter files or Substance materials? How hard it is it to work with Zbrush and go back and forth? Can 5 people be working on parts of the same shot and update it without it breaking? How hard is it to do multiple revisions of shots in a studio?
What happens when they update the character model and you already have 20 shots animated? How robust is working with Houdini Files? Can you import and export Cameras between Blender and Nuke, Maya or Houdini and maintain pixel accuracy? Those are the kind of question you deal with in the industry. Not keyboard shortcuts.
The days of one artist one shot are long gone. Lightwave was good for that because one artist could do an entire shot by themselves. Now the volume of shots and time crunch is so much that’s impossible. You can do modeling or animation etc in blender but someone else will be texturing in substance or doing cloth sims in marvelous designer and VFX in Houdini or Maya.
Don’t judge success by if it’s used by X studio or not. A lot of times that just boils down what the supervisors know and likes, or is more prejudiced against. And having great software does not mean success. Just look at Rhythm and Hues. All the talent and great software tools and an Oscar couldn’t protect them from Studio scheduling.
I think that’s an interesting point.
Features can be great for innovation, but focus on features too much and you might run into the ZBrush dilemma where you’re blinded and only add but don’t fix.
There is definitely the danger of too many “exciting new features” which could mean that even very basic features that are missing, never get added.
I like your idea of a panel to vet what get’s added to master builds.
But we also have to consider how companies view this. Traditionally, a production might stick to the same version with the same features for multiple years because of in-house dependencies.
So if a selling point is, all these features added, that might not be something bigger companies are interested in right way.
Unless Blender could help change the way productions are being run, and allow for mid production updates. Though, I see this as unlikely. Just due to the risk of updating mid production.
Personally I think Blender should be for more than just current users. Especially if we want to talk about adoption. Adoption leads to more rapid growth as there will be a bigger user base.
So having a focus on the future use of Blender I think is equally important.
You have to consider more than just what is, but also what can be in a business.
