Why not crowfunding specific tasks?!?! I would pay for that "Seamless Nodes".

Checking the GSoC project list (https://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Dev:Ref/GoogleSummerOfCode/2016/Ideas) I have seen the “Seamless Nodes” project, I would pay as much as I can for that, maybe Substance Designer is the best soft for that but if we could have a nice texture creation nodes I would not need SD.

Why the BI does not launch crowfunding campaigns for the most demanded features???

They may do it for the 2.8 features, but that will most likely be the whole package and not specific features.

The suggestion to crowdfund individual features appears on a regular basis. Individual developers can do it, but thankfully the Blender Institute doesn’t. A lot of the money they get is not invested in new features, but in maintaining the Blender code base. That’s a huge amount of work that has to be done. If users can pay for single features, it would become tricky to find money for everything else that has to be done too. If there were a lot more people willing to give money, it might be an option, but that is obviously not case.

I’ve been wondering this same. Some kickstarter blender projects, I think would get some good funds. For example particle system, cycles updates, etc.

I know that Blender Institute has previously done some paid updates to blender.

Because it’s not how open source funding works. It’s important to get people donate, that’s why there are these uplifting events and news about features that might be developed, if… you know… you give money. There are enough believers so it actually works. What you can’t do is create a consistent software that gets all important features at logical order. It means less donations which is kind of ironic.

BPR wanted to do a kickstarter on the game engine,

but doing anything related to the game engine is strictly haram.

On a more serious note…

I actually don’t know

One of the main criticisms I hear about blender is that some of the money goes to making short films(some goodsome… eh… imho bad)
instead of to the development of blender.

This seems like it would fix that,

but maybe it’s because it’s risky because sometimes projects could go under and it would diminish the reputation of blender

These things can be done. Ask Todd McIntosh! That’s the only reason we have the ocean simulation tool! (which needs to be improved. That’s a project that I’d pay for.)

Actually. The movies are for testing/developing all the new features and making sure that it can work in a bigger production.

have coders take the job, if they fail, they only get a hourly rate
else they get the rate + a bonus.

this way, the money is still there for the next coder*

‘try’ -> do -> Push to master -> hope?

well perhaps if you want to pay for a new future, rent a (new) coder.
Or learn to code (its free to learn, but only costs time).


If you supported a Blender Open Movie in the past, you obviously didn’t only support the development of Blender. There is the choice to contribute for the development fund since a long time and this money is being used for actual development. If you subscribe to the Blender Cloud, the money is mostly used for content creation, but not exclusively.

There was one point where money from Valve that was used for the development, was also advertised as supporting an open movie. Even if the money was used for development, there were complaints by some community members.

Everyone who is interested to only support development can actually do it!

Particle System crowdfunding has happened before. The dev created an initial prototype, found out that deeper changes are needed in the Blender core. Now we have a better node system and python nodes, but no new particle system…

The new particle system should be openCL based right?

maybe even built on bullet 3?

One reason, I would think, the new particle system hasn’t happened yet is because that ‘better node system’ is currently not in master yet.

That node system you talk about is in heavy development inside of Lukas Tonne’s Object Nodes branch (granted, it’s been taking a while, but the reason for that is the sheer size of the system being put in place). Once it does it get into master (probably as a 2.8 target, I’m not holding my breath for a 2.7x inclusion), it will open the floodgates for Houdini-like functionality in Blender.

The crowdfunding was back in 2012: http://graphicall.org/905

Just a new, modern particle system (node-based of course), I don’t remember any mention of OpenCL or Bullet…

well, if the physics, and rendering of the particle all live on the gpu, and shader for the particles** for realtime mode**

not much would need to bounce back and forth between the cpu and gpu right?

for offline, the gpu could dump a table that was a cache?

I kind of find myself repeating this at least 2 times a year; but anyway. All we need to do is donate the lowest amount of money to the blenderfund (5 Euros) every month.

Blenderfund is strictly for maintaining , bug fixing and development of blender.

Another idea is that Blender should do its own “Code Projects” like “gsoc”. The projects can be decided and mentored by existing core developers and then maybe opened to community for funding (bounty / crowdfunding).

This way, developers will have the control of the project management and users who like the projects can fund it.

I’m paying that 5e/month and I’m happy that I do so. That makes me feel that I’m doing even little for the help. If I some day start earning more, I think I’ll start giving bigger monthly funds.

too many brach, too few merged in master

What do you want do say with that? How is this related to crowdfunding?

Install a compiler, build your own Blender. It’s not that hard.