nichtsowichtig @ nichtsowichtig @feddit.de

Posts

3

Comments

46

Joined

2 yr. ago

I guess discourse in software development is very normal (and needed) and in the case of free software, it is generally held publicly. Well they still give away their code for free. Everyone is allowed to do the same thing the blender foundation does - aquire resources to fund blender's development and sharing the product with everyone who wants to use it.

edit: reading the thread on blenderartists.. that developer seems to be a bit of a drama queen.. I can't comment on the technical things as I know close to nothing about it, but him being rude like that is not good for any working environment.

I don't really want to argue in detail as I don't feel like your critizism is constructive or specific. You're right though, the blender devs aren't the good guys.. they are the best!

as someone who works in that area, USD will be pretty awesome once it is well integrated in the respective 3D applications. Through MaterialX it'll even be possible to export complex shaders through different applications. It'll be much easier to use different programs on a single project.

Nvidia already pushes USD with their Omniverse thing. Whoever doesn't join the new standards shoots themself in the foot. I believe Autodesk is seriously threatened by Blender (Adobe, Nvidia and Apple have invested in Blender already), and if they don't implement the standards that studios demand they'll just remain on the losing side.

right, since blender 2.8 it has been way more accessible for users to get into. I've always really liked blender's unique approach to design though. The Blender Devs work in the same building as their in-house animation studio. This kind of synergy has always come up with unique workflows that are crazy powerful and useful once you get behind it. right-click-select is one of these things. The devs at the Blender Institute are always surronded by artsists who have tons of ideas on how to make things faster to use for the artists.

probably - I think most studios would be okay with paying more, the prices are pretty fair compared to what's common in the industry. And on top of that they'd probably have to do without tech support from the devs which is quite important for studios

its true, but Autodesk's walled garden approach is starting to crumble. FBX is on the way to be replaces by USD, Rendering is on it's way to be streamlined by Hydra Delegates, and there are a bunch of projects by the ASWF that work on new open source standards for the industry.

GPL or MIT is mandatory for any code-based product on the Blender Market.

All scripts, add-ons, and other code-based products may be licensed as either GPL or MIT. No other licensing options are currently permitted for code-based products.

Assets don't have to be free the same way code is, so there are mostly royalty-free products when it comes to assets.

It is true however, many addons charge more money for a "studio license". I've been confused about it too and I assume it wouldn't be enforcable with a GPL license. I don't mind it too much though as I think it fair to charge companies that generate more revenue a bit more than individuals

it has been truly wonderful to see it flourish throughout the years!