if you never really followed blender development it will be hard to get the whole picture.
But to sums up, the big major problem regarding c++ plugins is the GPL license (there is another GPL license that would be much better but that’s not what Ton decided).
So basically the first issue you need to find a way to communicate with the plugin (like Reshift) because anything that is using blender api will need to be open sourced. So you have two options a python bridge (wich is usually slow) or an entire fork of blender which is really annoying as cerberus said.
Another issue is the mentality of the community, they are not really used to pay and want everything for free (not all of them ofcourse) but there was a huge debate about paid addons and Ton saying that is fine to take the code of someone’s paid addon and redistribute it freely to the community.
And we are talking about addons that on average cost 10$ to 30 or 50$ wich is nothing compared to plugins you may find on other DCCs.
So pluggin developpers usually are not really inclined to go this road, or they really need to test the market.
Right, I personally don’t like plugins - extra headaches and costs to manage. When Houdini starts supporting Blender, then I’ll feel much better about Blender being ready for prime-time. IMO Houdini is hard to beat in terms of capabilities, so if they bridged over to Blender, then IMO that solves the high-end production capabilities issues.
Open source is great, but developers can just stop working on things at any time. I mean, look at Natron. Did anyone ever pick it back up and start carrying on with it? I REALLY wanted Natron to put a dent in Nuke as we can’t justify paying for Nuke for basic compositing. Instead, we use AE or Fusion to comp.
I’m routing for Blender and all things open source. But at the same time can’t deny there are certain things paid software just do better and are easily worth the money in terms of business productivity.
well for the houdini bridge we fall into exactly the same problem of the license thing.
Few months back a guy started to code a first taste of a modifier to bring houdini engine and rather than showing support Ton etc started another debate about how it’s not legal blablablaba.
They are just not into that and will not help with it at all. It always been the case, only recently Ton started to be less stubborn at listen a littlel, and looking into what other software/industry is doing. but still really boring
Also you better just wait for houdini to cover other aspect, it will probably be faster, at least they know what they are doing.
Yeah my thoughts are that Houdini is expensive enough as is so teaming it up with Blender to offset its costs might make sense.
I wouldn’t feel great about using a Blender knock-off of Houdini Engine. IMO that should be driven by SideFX or you risk the Blender version always lagging in features behind the current version of Houdini.
That’s not the problem at all, the limitation of blender regarding C++ plugins is that Blender don’t have a C++ API and it won’t have any, do Autodesk does the .max file open source? nope, do you critisize that? nope then why do you have to have such an strong opinion about the path taken by Ton and the B.I. ?
That’s not the case, you have a few more options, one is using Cython instead of pure Python (which is what Animation Nodes uses, otherwise it would not has the performance it has), and the other options is to do pointer communication, which is as fast as a native C++ plugin in other software, it needs more work though.
How do you explain then the success of BlenderMarket?
The fact is that the assumption that the Blender community don’t want to pay for anything is not true, there are people that don’t want to pay for anything, as much as in the max/maya communities, or does piracy don’t exist?
Do all the employees of big studios pay for their own license at home?
But what the Blender community don’t want is to have a plugin which price it’s IMO absurd, like 500$ for a mesher.
I’m sorry but there is no discussion there, that’s a fact that comes clearly stated in the GPL license of Blender, any addon that make use of the Blender API has to be released under the GPL license, that means that the addon can be freely distributed by anyone that purchased it, not only that, that also means that any customer of it has the right to request the source code of it.
THe beautiful thing of the Blender community is that an addon like Flip Fluids is a GPL licensed addon, and it’s totally legal to distribute it, but if you ask for it in general people will tell you to purchase it to support the developer, it’s being a hughe success so far and I’m not sure if you could be able to find it in any “pirate” site, I dont’ think so, but in any case, it won’t be piracy.
People should read licenses.
True, it’s nothing compared to pay 500$ for a mesher.
And as I said, the idea of business behind Blender is not to embrace a plugin developer industry behind the software, no one is forcing any plugin developer to develop for Blender, maybe users may ask for it and then they will find a way to mix closed source code with GPL code, there are ways to do so and other did it perfectly fine, like Radeon Pro Render for example.
That’s the same as saying that Autodesk can stop de development of a software at any time, do you remember softimage or many others?
The interesting thing is that there is no way for Softimage to continue being developed and used, in fact in no time it won’t matter if you had a perpetual license, Autodesk will refuse to activate it.
With OpenSource, and specially with Blender, which is a well stablished software with a well stablished roadmap and targets, with a fund made up by A LOT of small people providing small amounts of money every month, and other amount of companies providing more money each month, the guarantee is exactly the opposite, even in the weird case that core developers stop working on Blender, anyone could continue with the project, and no one would loose access to it ever.
Me too, but instead of doing a good long term planning as any other project, it was kept under the hands of one person, anyways the source can be picked by anyone, so if there is actual real interest of people in compositing a fund could be created an a dev team could be hired to continue Natron development, the difference here is that it don’t depend on a thir party taking the leap and after that selling the product, but it depends on an effort of actual users and potential users to push the project ahead, so no Anagnost can come and kill anything.
As I said, it all depends on your needs, we did not change to Blender because it was free, we paid for our licenses for many years, we changed to Blender because we found that for us it was better.
And why do you give Ton so much power?
What kind of support should Ton or the B.I. show?
AFAIK that guy is still developing a way to communicate with Houdini Engine, but instead of doing it just for Houdini is creating an general open interface, similar to OpenFX for compositing, but for 3d.
That’s something that Houdini users have to ask SideFX, it could be great if they do so.
If the OpenMeshEffect initiative is succesful, may be easier for any dev to do plugins for Blender, it all depends on who wants to give support to that developer and ease that implementation.
Look guys, there are different ways of looking at our business, the Blender proposal is very interesting because it leaves to the public domain the tool, it leaves to the users and the users support the ability to improve the tool, it removes a lot of barriers, no matter how many computers you have in your farm, you don’t need any extra license to use them, no matter how many artists do you have, you don’t have to handle any kind of license, scalability with Blender is easy and fast, stability is very good.
I will repeat this, it all depends on your needs, but information has to be as exact as possible so people really know what is dealing with, so they can decide if they agree with that model or they prefer the Autodesk model.
What do you mean on why Redshift? I also mentioned Cycles, in fact right now Cycles is my preferred render engine, I really enjoy working with it, the second one is LuxRender but it’s being updated to 2.80 (BTW it doesn’t need any special fork), and after that you also have Radeon Pro Render (that can use also Nvidia cards of course), it was initially developed by Ondra (creator of Corona) if memory don’t fails me.
But in general we work with Cycles, I’m very curious about RedShift because it’s a different way of looking at modern GPU render engines but that’s it, it can be interesting for some projects.
I think you asked because I recommended it to you, it’s because it’s a biased render engine, with a lot of control and tricks to accelerate the render, while Cycles is a Pathtracer, with some tricks under the sleeve like any other path tracer, but it reaches a point where you cannot lower any value to make it faster, so it depends on your needs.
Eevee is also great for some projects, for other projects it’s not so great, it all depends, as always.
With that said, Cycles is blazingly fast being a path tracer, specially with the features we have in our branch.
I know about Redshift and what it is. I was just curious why it was in the running for being considered given that it is a paid-for software and only runs on Nvidia hardware - so you’re hardware vendor-locked, which seems like it would go against the open-source way of thinking.
I don’t know Cycles very well as it is relatively newer, but my hunch is that Redshift is overall more mature and production ready though I don’t know much about its Blender port. There’s so much turbulence right now in the free render engine space, that I’m not paying too much attention to them until either one emerges as the overall winner and/or mainstream studios start using one on a more regular basis.
seriously you are really living in another planet of course this license a big turn off for a lot of developers and is a pain in the ass. It’s just in front of your face just look around you.
And seriously all the shortcuts trying to leverage the slowness of python only work for some cases, and even with that it’s far from being as performant as C++. Why even c++ exist lets do everything in Cython , numpy etc
God it’s ridiculous to be that blind.
What about letting people choose if they want to buy a plugin or not rather than making blender the most closed opensource project. Allowing closed sourced to be integrated like any other app WHY NOT?
Nobody forces you to buy a plugin if you don’t want, your are repeating this ridiculous argument from Ton.
It’s like having a Linux and saying ok every software developed in Linux has to be open sourced. It’s ridiculous.
Linux is open source and working well, and allows you to really do whatever you want, paid software or not paid.
I know things can get complicated license-wise though when mixing them. This is why companies invest money into open-source though - so they can get their features or software hooks put in and then maintained when the features otherwise would be turned down by developers
you can be open source without using a so restricted license that blender is using.
All other open source project in the industry are doing well, made by ILM SONY PIXAR etc, big company that are commercial.
Do they need to have an open source license that is as much restrictive ? of course not because it makes no sens. Whats the point?
Sorry, I thought you was asking about why I recommended RedShift so I thought it was about features
For some there is an “Open Source” way of thinking, for us that’s not the case, we think in what could be better for our business and at the same time we try that anything that could be good for us could be good for others, so we receive then we give, just that, but that does not force us to ignore any kind of closed source software, it’s not a matter of being all open source or not, it’s a matter of doing the job in the best possible way.
Regarding Cycles, it has been used in many productions, I think the bigger ones were “The Man in the Thigh Castle” and “Next Gen” (also “Ozzy” and there are others out there I think), of course the Blender Animation Studio shorts and after that other productions from many small/medium studios.
We love it, it needs improvements, I won’t be tired of saying this phrase, it all depends on your needs.
What are your specific needs for a render engine? What kind of AOV’s or features do you use or need?
Sorry, did I say that it encourage developers to go for it?
It’s not being blind, is that I understand the B.I. intentions and I endorse it, for them it’s easier to maintain one API than 2, the source is open and the target is to anyone to collaborate with Blender, having a C++ API will make this harder, it will be easier for addons to crash Blender (you can crash it with Python but it’s much much harder) and it’s something the B.I. don’t want, Blender stability is one if it’s great features.
Now that you agree on this or not, it’s up to you.
This is the same argument once again, if you want a Blender with a C++ API it’s easy, make that API (of course it’s not easy)
Developers can make any development they want, under GPL that is, that’s a fact, to change the license of Blender you would need the agreement of every single developers that has contributed to Blender, and that’s a lot of people, and many of them won’t agree with the change, so chaging GPL is not a thing.
Again, closed source can be integrated with GPL, I won’t explain it here again, and in the end you need a lawyer to firmly confirm this because GPL is a license and it’s complex to understand, but it can be done.
Nobody stops the developers for creating their addons if they want to.
Yes you can, but as I explained it’s nearly to impossible to change Blender license.
You seem to keep complaining about Blender and it’s license and it not being ready for production and other things, why?
Why don’t you ask Autodesk to make Softimage open source under MIT or Apache license?
is it possible? (no is not)
or why don’t you ask Autodesk abandon closed source software and adopt MIT or Apache or any other open source licensing scheme for their software?
why don’t you complain about Autodesk not wanting to release Maya as open source?
If you know the answer to this and you respect Autodesk doing whatever they think they should with their licenses (even abusing their customers), why don’t you respect the path chosen by the B.I. for Blender, it has been the path for many years and it went fairly well, it will be the path for the coming years, no one is forcing you to use Blender at all, I even said that it may not be a good idea depending on the specific case and situation, there is no need to complain, you can just keep using Maya without problem.
So, what’s the problem?
Why do you want something that you don’t want to use to change to be as you want it to be?
The fact is that the idea behind Blender is to avoid having a plugin industry behind it and implement as much as possible in the main software, giving the user a full free suit for full production, making the studios and the users part of the development, sharing the internal tools with others, that’s the idea, you don’t have to like it or accept it, you have alternatives if you don’t like this, in fact, you work with one of those alternatives, it’s a different way of looking at business.
lol so you watched blender today live video with Ton hahah,
here we go repeating a dumb argument by Ton. "We don’t want plugins cause it may crash blender "
You are aware that a lot (i mean really a lots) of software company are using internally a modular approach with plugins because it’s easier to maintain and has a lot of advantages. Including open source project of course; just check around you and you will see.
And again you don’t have to install them if you are really scared of plugins!
Your acting like a blender groupie, saying amen to whatever shit is popping out from blender or from Ton.
So basically it’s not that much different from dictatorship, we know what is good for you and we will force you to do it that way and pretending that you are free.
See here is the point of Ton, it’s not a matter of plugin that will crash blender, again you are repeating what Ton is saying; he simply doesn’t want a plugin industry around blender.
So no need to have made up and silly excuses about plugins that would crash blender.
And again nobody is forcing people to download or even activate these plugins if they don’t want to.
And why the hell you or him think that plugins would suddenly make people stop sharing tools or free plugins?
It crazy to be that close-minded, so ridiculous it doesn’t make any sens.
And i’m well aware of the GPL license i know that it would be impossible or very hard to change it, and even if there was a way to do it, simply Ton will never do it because of his unmeasurable ego and dictatirship mindset.
Autodesk at least you know with who you are dealing they don’t pretend to be angels or any shit like that.
The frustration comes from a project that could be great, but because of a vast majority of this fanboy community and his stubborn leadership Ton. (and this is the weekest point of blender).
If the project was lead by lets say someone from ILM people that really knows what they are doing.
Not people that don’t even know what is UDIM, and saying that is useless ( and these words are coming from Ton’s mouth itself). Or with alembic etc then coming 10 years or so after the fact saying yeah maybe it’s useful; what a joke.
Anybody that is old enough and followed blender developement without being a fanboy knows that.
not officially, only recently they started to think about it supposed to be in 2.8 but still nothing. There is some dirty ways with addon but it’s just crap and not handled properly.
The point here is that UDIM has nearly 15 years of existence, and only now they are considering it.
And thanks to Ton as usual with his stubbornness and the fact that they are living in their tiny world without looking what is done in the industry.
And when people started to ask for UDIM the devs including they didn’t even know what was that, it’s crazy.
And even worse Ton answered that it’s not useful, just matter of his big ego and arrogance
It’s not yet in the master branch, but yes, you can have a build with UDIM support, the only thing that avoided UDIM to be in 2.80 was a problem with the Workbench, and it was not solved before feature freeze, the patch is there and it can be used with no problem, it will be in 2.81
You can say whatever you want, the fact is not as simple as “it can crash blender” but, to avoid plugins crashing Blender they would have to do a good mainteinance of the C++ API, it’s a lot of work that htey consider unnecesary, and since the only ones that seems to be interested in the C++ API are the ones making commercual plugins for other apps, I find it unnecesary too, specially when as I have said, there are other ways.
All the complaining about GPL and not having a C++ API are just excuses, those devs want things as they are in other packages, well they are not, for those devs I say: “stop complaning an decide wether you want your plugin in blender or not” and “if you want it, you know what you are going to deal with” exactly the same way any plugin developer has to deal with the Autodesk SDK EULA, read it please, you will find it interesting,
Oh no, I disagree with Ton in many things, but I totally agree with him here, you can call me whatever you want if that makes you feel better
Where is the dictatorship?
I mean, is any other software company a dictatorship?
You can modify Blender as you want, any plugin dev can modify Blender as they want IF they want, you can even make a fork and find a way to have a fund to maintain it and make the C++ API there, Chaosgroup, Substance/Adobe, Itoo, etc… they are big companies, they can join together to have a Blender fork with the so wanted C++ API.
It’s not a dictatorship because you can do whatever you want, and BTW much more than with Autodesk software just under a different license.
Yes, I repeated that many times, you seem to half-read what I write or to ignore it.
But that thing does not make the other thing false.
Oh no, not people, but it will encourage a paid-plugins eco system, like Max right now, it will be problems if for example the Blender team decides to implement all the functionality of a paid plugin inside Blender, and many others.
As I said, why do you want Blender to be as you want it to be?
If it’s that bad, just ignore Blender
It seems that you have a personal issue with Ton…
So does the B.I. and Blender, it is crystal clear, and we’ve been talking about it quite a lot here, the problem is that you accept what Autodesk does, but you don’t want to accept what the B.I. does
That’s your opinon, Blender was created by Ton, without that “stubborn leadership Ton” Blender would have never existed, as simple as that, so Blender is what it is, and the idea behind it is what it is, wether you like it or not
Why does Pixar don’t release Presto as open source project?
Why does ILM don’t release their main pipeline software as an open source project? (if they have one, I’m not sure if they just use Maya)
Hey you were and are free to implement those two, you just don’t want to do it, you want everything done for you and that’s it, well, you have Autodesk for that.
In Blender if there is something that you think is important for production and it’s not in master, you just implement it with your own devs, Alembic was initially implemented by a studio, OpenVDB volumes were implemented by a studio, UDIM has been implemented by a studio, and many other things that are specific pipeline related.
If you need something for your production pipeline and you are big enough I’m sure you will be able to implement it, I think you mentioned that you were an employee of a big company, does your company have a dev team? well, they can do whatever you need they to do.
It seems clear to me that you don’t like Blender, you wish Blender to be a different thing than what it is, Blender license is crystal clear, Blender targets are crystal clear, and no one is hiding anything.
You like it? take it.
You don’t like it? you know… you have two options:
Modify it to be what you like it to be (under GPL)
If you want to know why Blender cannot ever beat maya, ask any rigger who knows both Maya and Blender. It’s simply no match. They only started now working on a node based approach but from what I hear at the beginning will be only for particles.
Without good rigs you can’t have animation in efficient manner. It’s one thing to make one image, but making efficiently an animation is a different thing altogether.
Blender is a t least 50 years behind, but the good news is Autodesk seems like working in their favour.
And again this is for a very specific type of task that is not done in every studio and every project.
I mean, Blenrig is a pretty neat rig, AutoRig pro is a pretty neat rig, more than enough for the majority of medium and small studios.
Is Biped good enough? is CAT good enough? because many studios use those in max instead of bones, also, you know that max bones are dated from Max 4 right?
If we speak about movie productions rigs, yeah, maybe, if we speak about commercial rigging, fast paced projects rigging, and a long etc. of needed rigging, yes, it’s on pair because a ton of things from maya rigging capabilities are not used or a complex rig is not wanted and/or needed.
I never said Blender is better in rigging than Maya for many reasons you and I already know.
Also don’t forget that not everyone does character animation, that’s just a sub-set of the 3d industry.
In our case more than 70% of the projects we do don’t require character animation at all.
As I said, it depends on your needs.
With that said the target for this very next year is to overhaul the animation and rigging tools, that’s the Animation2020 initiative, if you are a rigger or an animator you are welcome to come to devtalk forum and start a conversation about your professional needs, what do you miss in rigging and animation, and what would could be the most important things to be able to do rigging.