Why the apricot proyect didnt went so well as it should ?

I re-watched yesterday the interview to pablo at blenderntion and they say 2 or three memebers of the group left the proyect :eek:, also pablo says they proyect is actually 3 months of work not 6 , why there was this problems ? im sure if pablo and the blende team had been working on the proyect for 6 real months the proyect would have been muh better , it is great now , yes :yes:, but does anyone know why there was so many obstacles on the road ?:confused:

EDITED

Im a bit ashamed i asked this, i feel like gossiping , and i am actually. so sorry if anyone didnt like my question .
I just wanted to know as i read there where some difficulties.

I think it all went very well man…

I would agree.
I think it went better than well.

I would not say that the project had any problem at all. It brought so many new features so in fact the thread question is quite let say “non-diplomatic”.

I think it ran into the same issue that causes most projects to fail ( but in this case, it caused the GE to reach for the skies ) - people / personality problems.

im not saying the proyect didnt ended up good , but is a fact that 3 or 2 members of the team just left the team , this is not a what a group want.

pablo says that they had actually 3 months to do the job , he says its not a 6 month job its a 3 one , this is what i mean , i know the main blender team pablo , brech and the other guys did an awesome job , but there where some issues that werent in BBB.

Those other 3 guys that for you so calledely “left the team” which is partly true, but I mean they had to go back! They had to do other things which required them to leave. But even so according to the posts campell(aka ideasman42) is still working on coding from Australia. So they did technically leave but in a different way from “Quitting” the project.

then why they promise some stuff that finally they would not included in the final release? as a better crystal space implementation, etc… I thought they would focus in crystal space, now no one want to speak about this…

I would say Apricot was a success, just not the mind-blowing-out-of-this-world success that Peach was. Maybe BBB set the bar unrealistically high.

SamCameron: I think the reason there’s not a lot of news or discussion about Crystal Space here is because this is a place where people normally discuss Blender stuff…

While the Apricot project was a joint venture with CS people, our whole side of it went better than expected. Look at the leaps the Blender GE made. One of the reason they paired with CS in the beginning (IIRC) is that Blender’s GE wasn’t supposed to be able to handle the final product. Turns out that it can.

Somewhat of a failure to get CS working with Blender : too much to do to bring CS up to the point where it would be quick and easy for the artists to interact with it from within Blender, where they are developing the assets. But Apricot has been an incredible (and unexpected) shot in the arm for the BGE !
I still have to see Blender’s willingness or capability to play well with others:

  • Verse is a failure if you ask me;
  • Yafray is going the way of the dodo and Yafaray backs off the degree of integration that was attempted for Yafray.
  • Make Human was once available as a plugin and also took its distances.
  • The Collada script is less than a priority although it would do a lot to help to integrate Blender in a pipeline I hear say.
  • The projects Orange, Peach and Apricot are all supposedly a demonstration of the FOSS pipeline but when does one hear about anything else but Blender.
  • The render API never got developped.
  • The decision to not to have a proper plugin API in C.

Look, I am quite content of using Blender as it is and the Apricot project has been a boon for the BGE for which I am extremely grateful. Nevertheless are all these semi-failures to collaborate just coïncidences ? Are they even a bad thing ? I remember when so many wanted Blender to let go of the BI to adopt Yafray : that would have been good ? Not IMHO.
I just ask the questions.

From what i understand there was a lot of frustration/friction/issues with the crystal space side of things right from the start, which ended up in the blender guys changing plans and working completely in Blender and developing the BGE. I dont really know though, not much of what went on in the first months has been described to the community.

But yeh i agree with what everyone seems to think, its been a very projective and successful project, and in many ways its had positives which i never expected.

The problem IMO is that there not exist a proper way those external application can interact with Blender and the YafRay 009 model not longer works, because it makes the external application to depend too much on Blender, second it polutes Blender with alien code.

Blender is the leading open source tool in the 3D field, a thing only comparable to OpenOffice, the Gimp or Firefox cases, and the Blender Foundation guys have yet to make a choice about what kind of application they want, a generalist application that tries to cover all the technologies spectre, or a more compact application that builds bridges with external application for specialised tasks.

In my opinion the former case can put Blender in a vulnerable position. I don’t think there are resources enough to make Blender a generalist application that covers all the spectre of 3D tecnologies, and at the same time do it well. It is a classic oportunity cost problem.

That’s why I think that the later option is more intesting and probably more realistic, it would be sad if Blender turns out to be just a collection of mediocre tools.

Just my opinion.

PD: YafRay was even going to be used in Elephants Dream.

it didn’t go perfectly because of human nature

If there was a loser in the Apricot project it was Crystal Space, they weren’t able to get development up to speed on the Crystal Space side and intergration into Blender didn’t go well. On the other hand, I don’t have to re-code my old BGE games because I can now use the BGE for really good end products with normal maps and per-pixel lighting like Yo-Frankie.

I must say, I’m just a little bit concern because the way the plan it, not the way they did it finally, since the beginning of apricot I wanted them to push BGE over crystal space, but they said clearly that they would focus on crystal space for my disappointing, so they wrote a plan for apricot and at half of production they change completely , and is there way I’m disappointing because they SHOULD focus on BGE as a priority since the very beginning instead of testing with crystal space, now we would have even a much more powerful BGE version if they would focus on BGE only at the beginning, is not the same to end a product in 1 month than to end 2 products in the same period of time and in the middle of production changing their minds to focus in one of them and deliver a product where they have been wasting time in the other one, do you understand my point?

If the project even existed it was because of CS involvment. AFAIK, besides the DVD pre-sales, Apricot received grants and sponsoring from many sousces :
http://www.yofrankie.org/?page_id=8
Discarding CS from the start would have been highly dishonest wouldn’t it ?

The BGE advanced pretty far ahead of where it was for that short period of time even though it wasn’t until later the BGE was used. We had superstar coder Brecht behind the GLSL, Ben provided advanced logic features, and now Erwin is back upgrading Bullet in Blender.

If there were lessons learned during Apricot it wasn’t a failure, but instead there is a clearer path to what is needed.

@CD:
You’re forgetting Campbell Barton…
Also drop the ‘superstar’ epithet : it makes you sound like a groupie.