Announcing Contours Retopology Tool
Jonathan Williamson announces the ‘Countours Retopology’ tool that caused a lot of excitement at the SIGGRAPH Birds of a Feather meeting.
Jonathan writes:Today I’m very excited announce a project that Patrick Moore and myself have been working on for several months now. We demoed the project at SIGGRAPH 2013 to an incredible response. The project is a new retopology tool that has been carefully designed to greatly enhance and expedite your retopology workflow.
The Contours Retopology tool, also known as Contours, is an addon for Blender that provides quick and easy ways retopologize cylindrical forms. Use cases include organic forms, such as arms, legs, tentacles, tails, horns, etc.
The tool works by drawing strokes perpendicular to the form to define the contour of the shape. After a second stroke is drawn a preview mesh is immediately generated, showing you exactly what you’ll get. You can draw as many strokes as you like, in any order, from any direction.
It’s very fast. Very fun to use. And most importantly, it’s very powerful. Best of all, Contours is only the beginning.
One of the reasons we have chosen to charge for Contours is to help create a sustainable development environment that allows us to really push the tools further. This includes paying all developers for their time. All of the code for Contours is licensed as GPL and available on our GitHub Repo.
Link
Very important tool. It worth to buy it, the price is very low and so we contribute with the developers in order to become feasible the continuous improvement of this tool.
ZBrush has a tool similar to this one, but that device has a problem: it totaly automatic and so we don’t have control over the result. This leads to losses of geometry, and for an artistic creation, it’s unacceptable.
Just to address that portion of your comment relating to ZBrush, the latest release of ZBrush (ZBrush 4R6) completely addresses this problem of being totally automatic, thanks to their new guided autoretopology.
It works fantastically, might I add. You can guide as much of the retopology (and retain as much mesh detail) as you’d like. Loss of geometry would only depend on how low you set your retopology resolution.
I’m only stating this because if you own ZBrush, you can look into downloading this latest version, which is free for all previous ZBrush owners.
This gonna be an incredible retopology tool!
It is fantastic new wave technology demo already!
Yes and no. These operations are simple as schematic of hammer. This saves not hours, but minutes.
Jonhatan Williamson forgot what Blender is.
What else are tutorials, what else is selling the code.
I think It is just a begining of a new tool.
There were no such powerful geometrical analysers in Blender before.
This tool is actually a demo of technology, that can be used for creating other tools.
API possibilites are always greater step forward, than any already formed tool.
I didn’t completely follow all that. It looks like an incredible tool that would save ME hours. What do you mean he forgot what Blender is?
The idea is excellent. I just think, maybe wrongly, that Blender and its “plug-ins” are not selling ..
This isn’t Blender and “its plug-ins”, this is a tool for Blender, and why should that not be sold? The alternative is not having developers working on such great tools, this only gives everybody more options without hurting anyone.
I’m really glad this exists, and I hope more tools will become available that way. I also hope, of course, that there will be ways (for example through crowdfunding) to free those tools once they are finished and integrate them into the GPL Blender package, but even if that won’t happen, it will make Blender a more interesting piece of software and thereby also fuel its development.
This is an incredible looking tool. If I get back to character modeling at some point, I will definitely look at purchasing this. As for whether it should be free, I have absolutely no problem what so ever with them charging money for it, especially assuming that that money goes into development. There are a lot of people out here trying to make a living and everything cannot be done for free.
It is incredible what a dedicated community Blender devs are and you know that they do it because of their love for the program. But if someone chooses to want to make money for something that they have created, who is to take away that freedom from them? It is freedom that keeps us coming back to Blender.
I tried the tool with both official Blender 2.68a and 2.68.1, and it crashed both times. They should really do some testing before selling this crap. The code is also full of nonsense comments. 30 bucks for this ? Come on!
If it crashed on you can please submit a bug report?
https://github.com/CGCookie/script-bakery/issues?labels=Contour+Retopology&state=open
It’s been very stable for us and all of the testers. But these rare cases of crashes need to be fixed. But we can’t fix them without a report.
Works fine for my 2.68 (58368) win 7 x64
About the “nonsense comments,” might I suggest you use an editor that allows for comment folding (that is, a feature that collapses comments)? Seriously, they’re several options out there, including the more popular free IDEs, like Code::Blocks.
While it is generally a good habit to use comments rather sparingly, in any case, there’s no sense bitching about the comments being a distracting reason to support this tool, esp. when solutions around the problem abound.
Forgot to say this is a bad copy of Modo’s contour tool:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sy_WqBuOpHk
Modo’s contour tool was part of the initial inspiration but it’s in no way, at least not intentionally, a copy.
It’s a good tool. What’s wrong with that?
– removed –
– removed –
Right, this is enough. Both Brian and Grobocop – I won’t accept you talking to each other like that here.
Bart, I am partially surprised at this. I saw the two comments forwarded in my feed. One made an accusation of patent fraud and deserved to be removed, but the response by Lockett was a civil and accurate, and I’m surprised you would take such an action against one of our best contributors, not to mention an all around positive influence here.
Oops… I got the timestamps backwards and saw the wrong two comments. But my opinion still stands… why Lockett’s comment and not mine?
I agree with you, but.. Blender is now a powerful player in areas such as modeling, animation, and tracking.
Surprisingly strong.
This is thanks to Ton, and many talented and “open-mind” people who will want to develop something that others can use.
It’s an awesome tool! I haven’t really gotten into the art of retopology and I can’t imagine doing it without this tool.. If this turns out to be really successful and useful, I think the Blender Foundation should adopt this feature and incorporate it officially into Blender – but then how would that affect the people who actually bought the tool? hmmmm
Our eventual hope is to get Contours added to Blender. But first we want to push the development a lot further, which is where the financial support comes in :)
Jonathan,
I am glad to hear that your final goal is to make this script an integral part of this great open-source and free tool.
Thanks,
Omer
YeahI just read the Contours landing page on BlenderCookie.. I totally get it now :D this is really great! I sure hope this becomes a success and looking forward to see more tools created!
This is a wonderful tool, and if it gets integrated into Blender at some point, that would be marvelous.
Jonathan and the CG cookie crew, please keep up the great work you’re doing and don’t let some of the annoying comments around here demotivate you.
As you can see, there are many people excited about this tool, who understand that proper development requires funds, and who also appreciate the huge amount of free assets and tutorials you contributed (and continue to do so) to the Blender community.
excellant tool , looks very promising . hope you guys and gals get where you want to go with this . and make a little money as you do it . good luck .
This is obvious a Modo’s contour tool copy ! That would be illegal to distribute it and much more to charge for it, selling it is way illegal Jonathan.
Basing a tool off of a tool available in another piece of software is in no way illegal.
If Jonathan had copied the actual source code from Modo, then you could at least make the claim of it being illegal in the realm of copyright law.
In order for this to be illegal, Modo would have to have the very concept of the tool copyrighted, not just the code behind the tool.
Not to mention, we’ve have to have access to the source code. Which we don’t. I can’t speak for Patrick, but I don’t even have a copy of Modo.
Woah, woah, woah! First of all, Modo is a closed-source application meaning the only people with access to it are Modo developers (i.e. people working at the company). Secondly, the chance that the code is compatible with Blender is minuscule. Blender is a completely different application from Modo with a different architecture and drawing system (With different goals in mind. Try cobbling code together from two different applications. It doesn’t work).
it’s nonsense.
Can you copyright something basic then say to everybody “it’s illegal to make similar things like this”?
Blender gives other 3d apps very great ideas too! And Devs can’t check any commercial app’s code to get it wasn’t stolen from Open Source. But thanks to Open Source ideology it’s not important.
Real life example… try to make a patent on “papier mache” technology :) I think it’s one of the closest for retopo-tools in CG.
Grobocop is correct, I work with Modo and 3D coat, so no way you guys are being original, sorry.
No one ever claimed it was an original idea. Absolutely, this has been inspired by Modo’s, 3D Coat’s, ZBrush’s, and others tools.
However, at no point did we try and replicate another tool, or copy anything. During the several months of development I never even looked at Modo’s contour tool. Beyond the initial idea, any other similarities are coincidence coming about through artist workflows and careful refinement.
You don’t have to agree with the development model we’ve chosen, but I don’t being called a theif (or implied) lightly.
Feel free to peruse the code, it’s all on GitHub.
Don’t sweat the naysayers, Jonathan. Grobocop and harris3d are obviously trolls, and perhaps even the same person.
Modo did not invent this tool. Topogun likely was the inspiration for Luxology’s development team, as a very similar tool has existed in Topogun for a long time. This Blender addon “copies” Modo no more than Modo “copies” Topogun.
Likewise, Autodesk has no exclusive claim to a tool like quad draw just because it is integrated into Maya and 3ds Max. All tools are merely innovations that are inspired by existing tool behavior. Does anyone care to imagine what 3D modeling would be like if one product had the exclusive rights to the extrude operation?
Well done Jonathan and Patrick. I hope that this addon becomes enough of a financial success to justify future development.
Jonathan, here we say “don’t cast pearls before swines” in such complex psychic cases ;) Don’t loose your focus, don’t waste your energy.
So I mean you should better forget about these posts and comments about your great tool for a month and keep working on it. Just ask those people who use it for their workflow for opinions and problems. All other shit is secondary or even a dust.
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with a software addressing an issue for itself, even if it’s done in a similar manner.
I don’t see you whining about modo 701 taking some feature inspiration from the likes of ZBrush. But then again, I doubt you care that they have.
modo and 3D-Coat aren’t the only ones with such similar solutions for themselves–and they certainly won’t be the last.
The goal of a development is not about mere originality–it’s about addressing and solving a long-standing problem for itself.
Pure originality’s a mythological concept anyhow. Sometimes it takes looking at how a problem gets solved elsewhere to adapt a solution for yourself.
You only really have a problem with “originality” when you go about championing yourself as a sole originator–an attitude I saw nowhere in this demonstration video.
You two guys can just take all of your red herrings somewhere else, man. You’re stinking of the comments here.
You people make me sick!
You wouldn’t complaint if it was for free. If you use Blender as a professional tool you can get your money back in the first job you use it. This is an INVESTMENT.
Hear, Hear! Thank you for saying something. I have to agree. If development goes well then it could be as good as the Advanced Retopology Tools in Mudbox 2014.
People complained a lot about the tools Bsurfaces 1.5 and Real-Time Animation, too–that is, until they were finally able to be released as free, thanks to those few who supported them financially, because we saw the bigger picture.
It’s so unprofessional, and it does nothing but tarnish our community of Blender users. Not to mention, it’s highly inconsiderate to developers–people offering far more than anything these complainers have ever given back.
There’s nothing more embarrassing than seeing people among us who’ll whine at anything asking for a little financial support for ensuring its development, never mind if the feature’s going to strengthen Blender both immediately and in the long haul.
It’s just a sickening attitude of entitlement. I think while Blender continues to need greater development with its features, I think it also needs a better development with its community.
If these people really want Blender to thrive as well as it could among the professional world, they’d better stop acting like a bunch of self-entitled amateurish brats, spoiled to having everything free here.
dont relly understand these negative reactions there were or are tools in blender that are paid as bsurface.I’d like to point out some tools in maya were inspired by blender ,add on motion trail was introduce in blender just before maya .who don’t want to support this tool should stay quite,come on people we already have software cost 1000 $ for free
Man, It really bums me out that people are complaining about a new tool being developed to help artists.
$30 is nothing people and there is no difference to CGCookie getting paid to develop this tool or Campbell, Ton, Brecht & Sergey getting paid to work on Blender.
To make things worse the source is already GPL so please don’t complain that someone is actually making Blender better. Also, where were you all when BSurfaces was being sold?
As for people saying this is a plagiarized tool…Give me a break. ZBrush, Modo, 3d Coat and Topogun all have the same tools and everyone gets inspiration from everyone else. We all have flatscreen TFTs and washing machines because the idea is good and all 3d packages have many of the same tools. Matcaps were not invented by Blender devs and were in ZBrush and many other applications before they were added recently but I didn’t see anyone complain about them being added.
I will support anyone who strives to make Blender better, regardless or if they charge for the tool or not. Though Blender is free, coding/artist time is not and I guarantee that this tool cost plenty to create so the least that we can do is support CGCookie and make this tool a success. Not only will it make creating this tool worthwhile, it may even spur the development of new and better tools that help us all.
Well said Andy,well said. Blender is free, but the time of those who contribute to it is not.
Yup. Well put people.
+1 completely agree, and well said :D
Very well said and I couldn’t agree more.
More often than not, ‘free’ doesn’t always imply free beer as most might think, but it denotes freedom.
-Reyn
Heck, “Matcaps” is technically a trademark (MatCap™), and yet even Pixologic seems to realize that they’ve started something that’s just a good idea that’s just something generalized now.
Nintendo’s not suing Sony or Microsoft for similarly reusing their SNES design of controller layout. It’s a good proven idea that’s generalized now.
IBM introduced the buzzword “PC” and helped solidify the concept of personal computers (to the point that we still generally tend to call our computers a “PC”–IBM brand or not)–it was a good idea that’s generalized now.
Highly-specialized and distinctively-unique features aside (which are usually more protected ideas), a good idea just proves to be the better styles of solution and becomes a generalized standard.
As developers search for solutions for long-standing problems with themselves, it’s common that they look to see what others have done to address the issue so that they can better adapt a similar solution for themselves.
I don’t see why some people are complaining that some developers are seeking a solution for themselves with Blender, in attempt to solve a problem–not to attempt blatantly steal from someone else. As long as you don’t clearly violate a copyright, your similar design is perfectly legal in all senses.
And further, I don’t see why some would complain if that development is seeking a means of stable support to prevent it from becoming yet-another stalled development.
People these days will demand for greater developments, and then complain when it asks for a little financial help getting there. Ingrates.
This would be great for section views and other solid-modelling style work. Elegant!
You are not thieves. May the army of blenderheads be with you!
I’ve asked around about this elsewhere and I’m still not sure I get something about all this.
This addon is freely available at Github, so why is it being called “for commercial sale” instead of “Donations accepted for development?” It seems to me that would stop a lot of the confusion from people who think of this as a money-grab. I just don’t think it’s been explained well enough for the casual user who doesn’t understand GPL rules and could have been done with a little more clarity. Unless I’m also misunderstanding the conventions here of course. If it’s just the support that is being sold, that’s different from the actual tool being “sold” from my way of thinking.
I don’t see how their tool sales model differs from that of other well known GPL based commercial products like RedHat Enterprise. Hell, GPLv2 specifically states “You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee,” which is what’s being done here, and GPLv3 goes one step further and states “You may charge any price or no price for each copy that you convey, and you may offer support or warranty protection for a fee.”
In practice, what they are doing is simply selling the binary while keeping the source code open and free (and fully in GPLv3 compliance). If you want to try before buying, you can always download the source, but if you are making money off the tool you really should support those devs (and donate a bit to blender too!).
That is illegal Jonathan you know that, plus you are selling something that you just copied.
If you are going to continually insult the people that work hard every single day to make tasks for others easier, at least have the back bone to use your real name and show your face.
Hiding behind anonymity is just cowardice.
Obvious frakking troll is mother-frakkingly obvious. Buh-bye.
1) That comment is grossly immature.
2) That comment is grossly incorrect.
This harris3d person has been throwing red herrings everywhere and complaining in a most childish manner about this here on this article’s comment section, as well as in the YouTube comments.
He’s been attempting to mar the good name of the developers at Blender Cookie all day.
He’s not a troll. He’s a coward and a ruffian, and needs to be told as much. The guys at Blender Cookie have my support all the way on handling this issue.
I agree with all those points. You put it much better than I could. And I am also astonished that Bart removed one of your comments instead of mine. Even when you call me out on occasion, I respect you for it because I know you don’t do it lightly. You are one of the most articulate and positive people here and I don’t get why the admin threw you under the bus. I hope it was a mistake.
(I hadn’t yet seen the YouTube comments, but when I saw the personal blog that he plugged here, I realized just what kind of bad news he was, far beyond a garden variety troll. Thank you for taking up the good fight here.)
(Bart, can you please remove my above comment? I have decided I don’t want to represent myself in that manner.)
(By “above” I mean my topmost comment in this thread, not the one that appears ‘immediately’ above these two. The short and snarky one.)
http://contoursretopology.blogspot.com/
Just read it ! THIS IS ILLEGAL !
This feature is in many applications in one form or another, including modo but also 3d coat for at least 3 years and Topogun for a good while too.
http://vimeo.com/60236055#
http://youtu.be/BRzsRe8L6Ys?t=51s
Please remove yourself from your high horse and check your facts before you post.
Thanks.
Hi Harris, it’s clear you have a problem with the way I am selling Contours.
I would be more than happy to hear your reasons and have a rational dialog, just leave the shouting at the door.
Feel free to email anytime via [email protected] or reply here.
I’ll translate what he has to say right now: “I crave attention. Feed me.” Don’t fall for it.
By the same argument you use, Ubuntu is an illegal ripoff of Windows and OSX. As modo 701 (which is the only version that has a similar tool) is closed source and proprietary, they are not covered against parallel development. Their copyright starts at the source code and ends at the binary; copyright does not give protections over the functional components of a program (unless the only way to write a necessary and unique function is your code, which any programmer can tell you is impossible)
Since modo has not attempted to patent surface generation by contour loops during re-topology, they have no legal protections against someone developing a very similar or even identical tool as long as that development was “from scratch” (i.e. not looking at the original source code). And even that tool wasn’t the original, simply an improvement upon existing retopology tools.
Well said. In addition The Foundry couldn’t have patented the tool as it already existed as prior art in 3d Coat, Topogun and who knows which other tools.
For those who don’t know what prior art means:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_art
Actually they have patented some of their tools, not sure if contour is one of them.
How sad is it that you would make your own blog and cite it as a source for your allegations. I can’t even begin to contemplate what a complete and utter putz you are.
Bart, is this who I suspect it is?
On the topic of copyright laws and ethics, I think having a knowledgeable contributor who could make a CGCookie tutorial/post with a layman’s version of creative and digital copyrights would help a lot of us novices navigate how to copyright our works, especially when based or modeled after another person’s work. I know I can ‘google it’ or visit the CC and GLP pages, but I’d still think it would make a worthwhile post for many (if not all) of us.
As for Contours, I commend CGCookie for taking this step in funding development of tools that will only make Blender stronger than it has already become. I’m not much of a modeler, so I can’t put this particular tool to it’s full use just yet–but I’m looking forward to all the other projects that will be born from this effort.
*GPL not GLP, mybad.
That is a fantastic post idea. I’ve added it to the list!
And thank you for the support.
This is a great looking product and in all appearances it seems to integrate into Blender really well. Nicely done.
It is cats and dogs kind of rain full of comments here …
Well first of , Jonathan , man this is one awesome move from you . You do earn the Flag of Topology in blender ,indeed .
It is one of the old world discipline in 3D modeling , to get topology right . It is one element that differs pro and amateur . So I like to ask what happened to that Bsurfaces V1.5 ?
Did forget to mention … have a great sale :)
Come on guys, you know it is illegal, no trolling, no nothing just common sense, selling what is not yours is illegal where ever you go.
Actually some comments have been removed by the Administrator ( He knows it is illegal ) plus some others like Chrome Monkey is begging to have his pitfall comments removed, saying I do not want to get involved ! So it clearly means he has given it a second thought, he is not proud of this FRAUD !
I have updated the blog, read it and understand that this is a vulgar copy of MODO CONTOURS TOOL !
http://contoursretopology.blogspot.com/
Please do not fall for this blatant lie of a post or any of his others. ↑ Thank you.
Okay, dude, let me explain you how things goes on…
There is the ONLY way to get something illegal – it’s to prove it =)
See you, I can actually make a clone of whole Modo, except logo and design, if they didn’t patended every thing they have implemented, if I will rewrite it with my own code.
So go prove something already =)
There’s a spell-checker in MS Word and a spell-checker in Apple iWork; does that make one of them illegal?
There’s a file search tool in OS X and a file search tool in MS Windows; is one of them illegal?
Blender uses raytracing and Maya uses raytracing; is one of them illegal?
Blender uses transform manipulators and Maya uses transform manipulators; is one of them illegal?
Etc., etc., etc., etc… :-)
Investigation reveals that Harrisd3d is Animatcoide/Hatched, or else someone who acts exactly the same in attitude, tactics, responses and tells. Also the same habit of putting unrelated comments together to imply a false picture.
Probably also the same delusional sense of accomplishing anything. Let him starve.
Do not mislead the main topic with hackers and trollers or whatever. Harris is hatched/animaticod, or else ? What does it really mean?
You are upset, I understand it, but be a man, bring some code to the surface, state good arguments instead of being rude with people who think this is quite illegal ! By the way asking BART to remove your comments make you look a very insecure human being….yeah Harris is Laden or else ? May be Obama or else? RIGHT !
Please do not fall for this blatant lie of a post or any of his others. ↑ Thank you.
It’s not illegal to develop similar software. If you want anyone to believe you, you need a better and technically accurate argument, rather than just calling it a vulgar copy.
You will have it ! Be sure of that. We are working on it.
Nice try to get away of responsibilities by saying you are hacked or animaticon, you guys wont get away with this old seasoned trick !
Is the complete code really GPL? Because, if so, there’s literally nothing (legally) stopping someone from uploading a build that includes this addon on GraphicAll for free, as long as they built it from the GPL source.
Obviously GraphicAll could (voluntarily) not host such a build, but they wouldn’t be required to do so.
For your deity of choice’s sake, the code is available on GitHub, here and now. Why would anybody start making builds on GraphicAll when all it takes it to just grab the code and install it to addons folder?
Understand what Libel means. You, harris3d are opening yourself up to problems if you don’t understand the implications.
Please understand what Illegal and Copyright Infringement mean. Threatening someone to keep his mouth shot is a ruffian practice. I do not fall for that, no afraid of anything, if you want to take it one step further, be my guest.
I suggest everyone who is skeptical of people who do commercial work for/with Blender, please read this forum post by Ton Roosendaal:
http://blenderartists.org/forum/showthread.php?302553-Retopo-in-Blender-just-got-easier&p=2436740&viewfull=1#post2436740
It’s even simpler than that. Modo was at SigGraph and was perfectly okay with it. That’s the beginning and the end of the issue.
There are lot of fire throwing going on here regarding this addon so as a fellow reader I think it’s my right to clarify few things here, if you have any comments or arguments feel free to express here (if it helps the growth of our favorite application ‘Blender’).
We have seen lot of tutorials and so many other stuff given to blender community, I am really a fan of Jonathan Williamson and cgcookies. With all due respect to him here are my points.
1: This is not an original idea; more clearly it is only an idea derived from tools which we have already seen in softwares like 3D Coat’s, ZBrush’s , Modo’s and some others. ( This is already clarified above by Jonathan Williamson ). So the people at siggraph is already familiar with this idea. It is not such a wow factor( for blender it may be) as it claims says in his web page.
2: From above point 1, this tool is not a copy of Modo’s. Even if Jonathan had access to source codes of modo he cannot build a tool which is a copy and in compatible with blender. Underlying structure of Modo and Blender are two different things. So you cannot make a copy of something working in Modo and put it inside blender with some modification and assume it will run like Ferrari.
3: If my knowledge is correct Modo’s similar tool or any other applications similar tool is not patented. (if it was patented we will not see such tools in more than one application.) So by creating something in blender, modo cannot run a lawsuit against Jonathan.
The following points are to clarify riemenschneider, about
“Jonhatan Williamson forgot what Blender is.
What else are tutorials, what else is selling the code.”
4: Blender is licensed under GNU General Public License v2 or later
5: And Jonathan Williamson’s Contours Retopology Tool is not a standalone application it is just an addon/plug-in working with blender. (Not something like an independent Renderer which we can launched by clicking an icon on desktop, it requires “the application” blender to work with.
6: By point 5, it becomes it is only a modification of blender (by his addon). So by legally and logically he cannot redistribute closed sourced material to others, as assured by GNU General Public License. Even if he wrote the addon from scratch he is required to release the source as GNU GPL, if he want to sell or redistribute the addon.
7: GNU GPL also says that if somebody redistribute a package, it should accompany the source code and its modification with it (or a link to the original source code / modification is enough ). That means if Jonathan sells the addon to a third party X, X should able to create/compile/modify the original application if X wants so. GNU GPL also takes away the restriction for the third party X to redistribute the package. so X can make the package public with or without modification, but it should carry the original authorship credentials.
8: If Jonathan is making available the source of his addon public, the source code from which the package/binary created must be the exact copy that available publicly. Otherwise it will be violation of GPL. That means he cannot put some dummy copy publicly and sell some modified working code to others.
9: GNU GPL explicitly states that GPL works may be sold at any price. So Jonathan can sell his work.
10. ** The most importaint thing ** if everyone thinks like Jonathan, (that selling the code for price) , Blender wont be there in the first case. What if Ton thought like that, what if Sergey, Campbell, Nathan thought like that (most of the python script that we use today wont be there), what about Brecht , Cycles wont be there in blender. So this is a community, this community is here because of many talented and “open-mind” people who will want to develop something that others can use. Some may counter comment like they are getting paid by the foundation for this, but i don’t think so, there is not too many numbers in their pay cheque (which have been if they are working for a closed source application). That is what Blender or any open source software is….
11: I know how hard to write some code, even if it is a few lines. any body can write the code but if some error comes or comes a situation like debugging the code, you should know A to Z of the parent application. Developers must be paid, i agree but not like this. Jonathan is running a business, there is no objection if you make money out of Blender, but people will raise their eye brows if you sell a code for an open sourced application. (Yeah, I know 30$ is not a big money.)
12: I agree with the fact that, selling the software for money and then making it free after it matures, Irrespective of making the application for free and selling it for price later, that is what happened in the case of Kerkeythea (thea) , Indigo etc, they developed a user base and then they went commercial. In fact fooling the community.
13: *****And last but not least*****, I appreciate Jonathan Williamson for taking this initiative to create such a beautiful add-on and making it available publicly under open-source. Great job, well done keep it coming….
I don’t get your point lol
It appears like you change your opinion halfway through, which is confusing.
Thank you to the 2 trolls who made this the biggest and most active Blender Nation post comment in a while!
Also, thanks for helping fund more Blender development, you are awesome failing trolls!
That’s the spirit! Some places have troll problems, here we have troll entertainment. Part of the unique flavor of the forum.
It’s still frustrating as anyone who is uninformed and reads this thread or his comments on Youtube is just going to see a whole bunch of lies that they may not take the time to research, or may just give a bad initial taste and turn them away from Blender.
Just makes me sick that some attention starved brat could actually turn people away from Blender.
At some point, you have to just trust that people will be able to recognize those signs. Fortunately, they tend to make it easy to do. :)
Contours is not Blender ! We are arguing about stolen ideas from MODO as an Add On for Blender, which is different.
Regarding trolls, well when someone does not want to hear something the easy way out is to say this is a Troll, or 2 Trolls or this is hatch or whatever. Same on Same on.
Weird. Just give a copy with every 30 dollar donation. Problem solved. Call it a gift until it’s in Blender. If it’s going to be released for free anyway, there’s no reason outright sell it. 30 dollar donation is fine. Same process, different words.
You can even make the minimal donation 30 dollars if you want, but that leaves out those who would donate less for the tool’s development.
W
That would not work either. It is like making copies of Zbrush or Modo and ask for a minimum donation of $100 then you will receive a free copy of any of those programs as a gift ? That is truly more blatant !
Blender has been turned into GPL for 100 000$
Well, actually, I has gone from 3dsmax+Vray, Zbrush, Sculptris, UVLayout, Bodypaint3d, Octane and Topogun to pure Blender, so what?
IT IS ALREADY DONE, dude.
YOU DO NOT GET THE POINT, dude….it is illegal !
Prove it: give us a link to the patent.
So far, all you do is scream bloody murder without providing a shred of evidence.
Giving your opinion is one thing, but all you do is accuse people. You’d better be sure of what you’re saying.
Prove it, or stop trolling.
Where? Where is it illegal?
You still cannot prove anything :D
You get upset BART, you know that is illegal, that is a vulgar copy of MODO, everyone knows it. You as many others get mad, but do you think no one was going to realized of it? Did you guys really think so ?
The Patent ? You need a link to the patent ? Is that your best shot to defend something that has been vulgar copy of MODO CONTOURS TOOL ? and still selling it? Where am I accusing people? Read above that’s the only statement, you must be drunk when you wrote this.
Give me a brake, you must thank God that you are not a lawyer !
Point is, it’s not illegal to build similar tools unless there’s a patent covering it. So unless you have anything new to add, stop spreading crap. I’m fine with you participating in this discussion in a civilized manner, but I’ve had enough of your aggressive behavior here. So either behave, or leave this discussion.
Given that Modo attended SIGGRAPH and was okay with it, there’s isn’t even a need to discuss it. That’s the most entertaining aspect of the entire spectacle.
That’s what you think Mister, you are very innocent !
Oh my, okay I shall consider the wisdom of your view of the universe, in which Modo never attends siggraph, never sees what others are doing, and needs people like you to fight the good fight for them. I’ll give it as much thought as it requ… well, that was sure quick! Got any more bridges to sell us? Do change it up though now and then, even a very entertaining joke gets old through too much repetition, there’s a good chap.
Hi everyone.
It’s now clear to me that Mr. Harris3d has a psychiatric condition. He’s clearly delusional.
No, I’m not fooling around. I’m talking very seriously.
This megalomaniac attitude is a clear sign of mental illness.
So, I want to ask you all to leave him be and stop replying his posts. Please.
This is the only way he will stop.
Once again, I’m talking very seriously here.
Thank you all.
Yep. You’ve been told, that I can program a pure copy of Modo, Zbrush, AutoCAD, and Vray concepts, except patented trademarks, give to it some not reserved name, and distribute it even for free :D
Sorry but that is TOTALLY WROOONG !
You’ve been told, that I can program a pure copy of Modo, Zbrush, AutoCAD, and Vray concepts, except patented trademarks, give to it some not reserved name, and distribute it even for free :D
HA HA HA this is getting more and more absurd !
Layout can be copyrighted as well, but function can only be patented, so as long as you make it look distinct and avoid patents and trademarks (trademarks are entirely different from copyright and patents mind you), you can legally create a “copy” of the functional aspect of those programs. In fact, those programs are functional copies of each other too! (with the exception of AutoCAD, that’s an entirely different beast that has an entirely different audience… I have both AutoCAD and blender for different purposes, and there’s no replacing one with the other)
I also use AutoCAD with Blender, and I’m an AutoLISP developer, as you can see here:
http://blenderartists.org/forum/showthread.php?267990-Direct-Autocad-Intellicad-to-Blender-exporter-LISP-to-Download
So what can I say. Some time ago intellicad community wrote an intellicad core, then has come out Gstarcad, Progrecad, Bricscad, ZWCAD and other Intellicad-based sotware on this core.
As you can see, my code runs under AutoCAD, and several intellicad-based platforms.
That means, that they are copies of AutoCAD up to their API…
They copied interface up to buttons, techology up to specifications, and core up to it’s API. And they are cheaper up to x10 terms.
Jonathan have made something illegal?
DON’T make me laugh :-J
Nice try ! Don’t laugh too hard, you might be surprised dude
Surprise us, dude! Make some cool addon! ;) I bet you can ))))
Ok I’ll bite.
harris3d whoever you are.
Having read the entire thread above from a neutral standpoint, I have tried so hard to understand your motivation on this?
You keep claiming what Jonathan has done is illegal, yet the only link you can provide is a link to your own 1 entry blog which quotes text copied from this thread?
Still, I try to understand.
Regardless of any requests by admins or Jonathan himself for you to provide ANY evidence or further information about the alleged illegality, you haven’t done a single thing except repeat your claim and link back to your 1 entry blog.
Still, I try to understand.
You mention copyright infringement, yet no copyright has be infringed.
You mention ILLEGAL at every opportunity, yet you can’t nominate what law has been broken and in what jurisdiction it was broken?
It seems that you would consider that once any software feature is in one software package, it would be illegal to have it another, paid or otherwise…
I’m trying to understand, really I am, but after all I’ve read, and all you’ve contributed to this discussion, I gotta say it…. you’re out of your f*n tree.
Dude, seriously… no.. really seriously, before its too late… you need to seek real help.
In fact after so many tries still you could not understand :) I think you do but that is called STUBBORNNESS !
It is not my task at this time to convince you or any other ( since the same dudes making same comments over and over ) of something so simple like this. IT IS ILLEGAL.
Everything at its time dude, you could not understand, one day you will.
Which copyright has been infringed? Are you going to report it? That should take care of it right? Go tell the creators of Modo that their tool has been stolen. See what kind of response you get.
You’re still feeding it. Face it, it’s going to demand the last word and it is too stubborn to change its mind, so let it get that word and then let it eat static.
“Don’t mention the war!” – Fawlty Towers
Very innocent ! You are way behind of reality
First of all, sorry if my English its bad, I’m from México, i think this is such a great tool, I hope this become something more impressive, I can see lot of potential here, I always love 3d art, and when I want to get into it, the most easy way to do it was learn in Blender, cause it’s free, but that not means that you can make money with it, i think that if you work hard you deserve to earn some money, this is no illegal, the inspiration is not illegal, if it’s so then just Motorola can sell cellphones, that’s just ridiculous!!!!, I say: great job Jonathan, keep working, don’t let this comments let you down, there is a saying here “si los perros ladran, es por que vas caminando” “if dogs are barking it’s cause you are walking”, it’s always like that, just keep working and don’t care about the others.
Also “cuando se lanza piedras a un grupo de perros callejeros, el que ladra más fuerte es el que fue golpeado ” tal persona podría ser harris?
Guys you can get it free it CGCookies github link below, under releases folder. https://github.com/CGCookie/script-bakery
But don’t for get that Bsurfaces is also useful for Retoplology, it is more powerfull as in more advance in my opinion and link below.
http://blenderartists.org/forum/showthread.php?225190-Bsurfaces-v1-5