Blender Developer Notes: June 28, 2015
Ton shares the notes of the developers meeting in irc.freenode.net, #blendercoders.
Here are the notes from today’s meeting in irc.freenode.net #blendercoders:
1) Release status
- Second Release Candidate is out. Status currently looks OK.
Expected call for ‘release Ahoy’ builders on Tuesday.- Release notes getting progres.
2) Targets for the next release
- According to planning we move to BCon2 today – means the targets get frozen.
- In case someone wants to add new features or do bigger jobs on the next release, please note it now and discuss it with the rest of team.
- Tamito Kajiyama: FreeStyle memory optimization will be ready in time.
- Alembic (Gooseberry branch) will very likely not make it in 2.76.
Lukas will work on a design proposal first.- OpenSubdiv is still likely to happen. Lukas Toenne checked on this last week as well.
- Gooseberry crew will check on what of the studio branch will go the release still. There are smaller cool to merge still as well.
- Bastien Montagne: file & asset browsing project will go to master soon. Andrea Weikert offers help to review.
- PTex: Nicholas might not have time for it, we look for someone to help.
- Scons: we still use it for OS X and Linux releases. The trend is to fade it out though.
- Meeting agrees on releasing 2.76 according bi-monthly schedule and not postpone it for
possible bigger projects again (we needed 3 months for 2.75).-Ton-
If PTex somehow made it to the next release, that would be amazing – after all these years, is it actually that close to being trunked?
Yeah PTex and OpenSubDiv! Two big things could make it in! Exciting times!
Scons works for my Linux builds. Cmake hasn’t worked for more than a year.
Why do you guys need ptex so much? not many people are using it and the workflow is very non-flexible – you can’t touch your topology after textures have been made! Can’t use 3rd party software for texture painting if it does not support ptex. Also as I have heard that it is not GPU render friendly and adds performance penalty.
The most honest answer I can think of is that it’s because the Blender community, by and large, are not abiding by current professional aims. That is, we’re largely community-focused, not industry-focused here.
In the long while that Blender’s been implementing PTEX, it as a technology hasn’t really panned out the way the prospectors expected. It takes Blender longer to implement a neat prospect at the time than it takes for the industry to prove what it needs and rapidly adapt around it.
The industry is adapting fast to its own interest, while Blender goes its own direction. Of course, there’s still promise with PTEX tech, and it might just re-emerge later with new developments. But you’re right: At large, nobody really uses it industrially, much beyond Disney on a few projects, for some of the very reasons you outlined.
PTEX hasn’t really replaced traditional UV-ing as we long thought it would, as auto-UVing technology and high-res texturing tools become more prevalent. It’s a step in an interesting direction, but industry-wise, we’re employing 4K/8K/16K texturing powered by the GPU and real-time “physically-based” pipelines more.
Products like ZBrush and 3D-Coat have made UV process significantly more automated, and topology woes are largely a thing of the past for their 3D sculpting. Industries adapted to this, rather than to PTEX.
Blender needs a consensus of seasoned industry professionals to aid with eying what direction Blender needs, rather than just adding features we think are cool at the time, and sticking with it because so much time was invested in it. Only that’s not how the industry develops. The industry adapts to what’s proven in a production-ready environment, and not so much pet projects.
Then again, it’s been established pretty clearly that Blender’s target isn’t really production, but offering a liberated canvas for its community. Though, I won’t act like I wasn’t among the ones among early adopters hoping for PTEX in Blender, back when it was first proposed. I was. Like everyone else in the 3D industries were.
Still, I will realize that, if anyone’s expecting industry-capability out of Blender, it’ll need to do a better job in adapting to current professional needs–not community’s love affair with shiny things.
But hey, in terms of the community level, PTEX in Blender is pretty awesome. It’ll be a blast to play with, at the very least. And hey, if PTEX should ever pan out eventually, at least Blender would be better ready.
Correction: “BECAUSE that’s not how the industry develops. ” :P
You’re almost always talking about industry and claiming that focusing on community is a bad choice…
Why on earth should a tool like Blender leave the community and work -only- towards the industry which doesn’t care about anything but money? I mean no one in the industry cares about software freedom and blah blah blah… So why should a community based project care for them? Any work in that direction will turn Blender to such a worse mess than what Linux is becoming. If you like the greed based industry and want to work for them then use the tools they use and put some money on their pockets too…
Focusing on industry will only mean losing the community(and mostl likely the industry too), and guess what, community unlike the industry has no other alternatives and the power to make one. So instead of defending the industry, you can help things move forward from and for the people. And no, involving industry won’t bring any improvements that will actually help the community, small studios and individuals since they got so much more processing and man power and thus a totally different approach to get to the money that they want.
—
And I would be glad to see shorter answers rather than articles here, since I don’t intend to write a book as an answer :)
I don’t understand this rage against “industry” like it is some kind of evil organization.. It’s just in one case people use blender to do commercial work, in other they use blender to do personal work. Most of us does both – I use blender at work and at home.
We are not talking about few huge Hollywood studios – there are thousands of small teams and studios who use Blender professionally and would benefit from certain tools and features. And everybody else would also benefit.
The point is people who work in “industry” are usually more experienced in terms of different projects and challenges – and therefore know what works best to solve different problems. That is why listening to industry matters – just because there are common problems and common solutions that everybody has accepted as the best ones. If you as a hobbyist have not found something necessary – it does not mean you will not need it your self next time on some other personal project..
That is also why there are Blender Open Movie projects!
Gooseberry team should also then be considered “industry” – they are creating a short film just like other commercial studios do. And look – a lot of new advanced features are coming from these Blender movie projects, because this is the way you test the software in real production.
It seems that the problem is having different ideas about the definition of terms such as industry, professional and commercial works… People only call the works that others pay for as professional works these days, this is just plain wrong, like there is no point in the work of ones who don’t do it only because of money and they don’t have a clue about how to do advanced stuff…
And the industry I’m talking about is the one that Brian tends to talk about, small studios and projects like Gooseberry don’t count as a part of the industry and what I come to believe is that Brian is not talking about the small scale professional (I don’t mean commercial here) works either. So no, there will be only harm from the side of the industry we are talking about.
And don’t forget that the small studios you’re talking about work for the big ones at the end, so the direction again changes here…
As an example take the new hair dynamics, if the goal was to create the most realistic results no matter what as the big studios do then the calculation would be done per strand rather than seeing them as volumes. But if they did so, no individuals and small studios would have the processing power to even use it, that would be only a waste of development resources towards the industry here which means taking the possibility of having useful stuff from the community.
This wouldn’t be a good direction to head for…
+1 GTS
I wish more Blender users were like you. Instead of being a fanboy, you understand the value behind seeking industry input.
What folks don’t understand is that there’s a difference between “industry” and “business.”
If you find a company’s greedy, blame their mode of business–not the nature of “industry.” Industry is just people working hard for a living, choosing the most efficient ways to work.
But try telling that to some Blender users, who seems to think industry-focus spells doom for Blender’s freedom.
@ ANONY
You say:
“It seems that the problem is having different ideas about the definition of terms such as industry, professional and commercial works…”
That’s not the case at all here. The problem is that you view “industry” as something inherently evil.
You say:
“People only call the works that others pay for as professional works these days, this is just plain wrong.”
Buy a dictionary, man. By definition, a professional is someone who gets paid for the work they do, as their main occupation.
You say:
“…like there is no point in the work of ones who don’t do it only because of money and they don’t have a clue about how to do advanced stuff…”
You’re using a red herring here. Nobody’s claiming there’s no point in the work of ones who do art merely for personal pleasure. Nobody’s claiming they don’t have a clue about how to do advanced stuff.
But there’s no standard with personal work but personal satisfaction. Some of us need tools for more than personal satisfaction–we need efficiency to streamlined workflows.
By the way, don’t act like professionals don’t enjoy personal work, too–we do. We just need jobs to pay the rent that ALLOWS us to have more time for personal work. Better tools help with both ends.
But it’s no skin of my nose. If you want to continue being this hermetic community, with stubborn people like you resistant to beneficial growth, be my guest.
1) I never said that Blender should leave the community. I said that IF–“if” being the operative word–anyone’s expecting industry-capability out of Blender, they’ll need to start thinking like an industry-focused team, with priorities that serve professional pipelines.
I say that, because it seems Blender developers want some better attention from all relevant 3D industry (animation, VFX, game, 3D printing, etc.).
Things like improved FBX isn’t just a pet project–it’s an aim to be more industry-interoperable. I’m addressing some of what hinders that seeming aim.
2) “Why on earth should a tool like Blender leave the community and work -only- towards the industry which doesn’t care about anything but money”
Now you’re putting words in my mouth. I never said Blender should leave the community, nor work *only* towards the industry.
I’m not saying Blender should stop being open as a community or developers should never cater to any of its community’s priorities. I’m talking about general direction here with core development.
You (and many other Blender users) are quick to vilify the industry one minute, and then guys like you are often wanting features put into Blender that the industry made POSSIBLE.
If weren’t for that *dastardly* industry, would you even have your PTEX or OpenSubdiv? They drive most of the innovations and priorities behind the tools you enjoy in Blender today.
3) “I mean no one in the industry cares about software freedom and blah blah blah…”
You mean, a community-based project that’s always talking about how they can gain better industry adoption, and a community’s that’s often either questioning or badmouthing industries at large for not adopting Blender or its philosophy?
You folks can’t seem to make up your mind: Do you want some wider external support for Blender, or do you want to keep this sort of “Blender Club’ all to yourselves?
You can have both, to good degree, but one has to lead as the higher priority.
4) “Any work in that direction will turn Blender to such a worse mess than what Linux is becoming. If you like the greed based industry and want to work for them then use the tools they use and put some money on their pockets too…”
That’s not only unnecessary to assume and going off on a tangent here, but it’s also provably wrong.
Firstly, I’m not calling for Blender to become a commercial product–I’m merely calling attention to better direction to what generous effort it’s already seeing.
Secondly, Krita is proving you wrong here. Krita’s stays true to their open vision and their community, while headed by industry-focused, prioritized direction.
5) “Focusing on industry will only mean losing the community(and mostl likely the industry too), and guess what, community unlike the industry has no other alternatives and the power to make one.”
You’re making some crude assumptions here. Again, I turn to Krita as an example of what Blender could be. Krita employs direction. They’ve had two Kickstarters based on themes: Accelerated Development and Make Krita Faster.
Granted, Krita’s smaller and younger than Blender, but still, they prioritize the bulk of their development, are completely open to feedback from people who work in the industry, and keep pace with what community wants and what professionals need.
They’re still free, still about being open, and still about their community, but just well-prioritized and unified. No doom-and-gloom outcome from merely exercising industry-focused direction, priority and unity.
6) I’m neither “defending” the industry, nor hindering us from moving forward. This isn’t a contest against the industry.
On the contrary, doing what’s better for working professionals WILL progress Blender better for its community–the community wants what all the professionals are using.
7) Small studios and individuals aren’t exclusive to using free software like Blender. Even among most Blender-centered smaller professionals, the bulk of them still additionally use Photoshop, ZBrush, KeyShot, etc.
Though, not every small studio out there uses Blender. Professionals need tools with timely priority and streamlined focus–they’re willing to pay for it, if they must. If Blender had a bit more focus, perhaps even they wouldn’t have to.
8) I try to be terse to each point, but there’s a lot of error to address. Error typically takes fewer words than the answer for them.
Correction: “If Blender had a bit more focus, perhaps even these other professionals wouldn’t have to.”
In other words, Blender could BE that ready option for MOST of those other studios, if it had met priorities of streamlined industry production, in a timely manner.
Yes, I see “industry” as something inherently evil, but that’s another story for itself and I’m not gonna discuss it here.
You’re right about the definition, I meant the “expert” meaning, my bad.
And calling me “stubborn” is really nice of you, thanks…
—
Answering to all the terms without leaving gaps is impossible for me, the subject is a huge and a very important manner and I can’t wrap it up all here, so I’ll just point out some of them.
2) First of all, I have never wanted a feature and there is no “guys like” me, you’re putting words on my mouth too, fallacy… Next thing is that if it weren’t for the capitalism based industry we wouldn’t even bother about having things like OpenSubdiv, since every technology would be available for anyone to use. So again it’s fallacy, assumptions based on wrong “facts”.
3) Again there is no us “folks” here, you’re talking to me, no one else. What you’re missing here is what a free software is and what it’s goals should be, the way you think is the way Open Source people do, if you like that way then I suggest you to put re licensing Blender on your wanted lists, you’re seeing Blender as a proprietary software, as long as you do so then there is no point in discussing this… Free software is not supposed to build up towards a pipeline based on proprietary software. And I know you don’t care, since you’re already using Unity here, so no point again. And now that you don’t mind using Photoshop, Modo and stuff like that then you can also leave Blender and use Maya, 3DsMax and so on…
4) Krita is not comparable to Blender, at no scale… They aim totally different things… And I don’t know what industrial focus you’ve seen in it except caring a bit more about stuff like PSD support. But I can assure you that they unlike you care about users freedom more than “industry”, and example would be not moving to Github even if that would mean more development and better bug tacking…
5) In number 3 you mention that you can’t have both things and here you say that focusing more on industry doesn’t hurt the community, you sort it out yourself. And what does their Kickstarters and the goals you mentioned have to do with all these? What you saying is that “Accelerated Development and Make Krita Faster” is not for the community and they don’t need it… And not to mention that their current goals like animations are what community wanted, and other half of their development is based on communities voting. But again, Krita has nothing to do with this, the only similarity is that both software have a free license!
6) No, the community doesn’t want what professionals are using(of course there are exceptions, I mean the large scale industry here), I mean why would someone want a pipeline to work with RealFlow? Except of course not caring about software freedom and working for the same industry.
7) Those studios can use other proprietary software instead of Blender, if they don’t mind using Photoshop. As I said, those count as the industry too.
8) Sorry about them, as I said I just point out the main parts, otherwise I had to write an essay on the subject…
—
I can’t discuss it further on this commenting system, If you wish to do so, please provide a better contact method.
I meant Unreal Engine, not Unity.
I would guess that most of the community is not like you – hating anything commercial. (Why? Just why? We all need money to be alive!) Most of us use blender because we like it.. and other commercial software if it fits our needs and budgets. And yes I would be glad to have pipeline to work with realflow – if I have a project where I need it and blender fluids does not cut it – this would be great, but sure – alembic hopefully will do this and much more.
@gts
Your guess is correct and the thing to note is that I’m not speaking for community or anyone else here, I’m just saying my own opinions, and they might even be wrong or right.
And I don’t hate commercial stuff and money, but I hate greed which is what the current commercial/industrial world is based on(it’s more due the capitalism, but again this is not the place to discuss those), but more importantly unlike you and brian I care about software freedom at least a bit more than my own convenience. For me, just like you, Photoshop is a better software than GIMP currently, but I still choose it because freedom here matters more to me.
And right now I just don’t like to see people wanting my favorite software to join to a party that doesn’t care about such things at all… I mean look at Linux, loaded with binary blobs and vendor based features and decisions… This is where “industry” will lead sadly. But you might just not care, but you choosing to use proprietary software will not only affect you, it will actually cause it to be much harder for people to work with free alternatives.
Very true, it’s not a super-disruptive advancement – I don’t think anyone really said we “need ptex so much” though, I’m just excited for it. But besides the abstract costs of developer time and added executable size, which every feature comes with, it doesn’t functionally take anything away from the rest of what exists in Blender. It’s another optional tool to choose from for your workflow and it’s novel and different enough that it has potential advantages that we wouldn’t have previously had.
For the very least, it can be used as a stage in a process and then baked, like the skin modifier. Such as painting, UV mapping, and then checking if the UV map is optimal. If it has problems, then you can do an iteration of re-unwrapping and rebaking a fully painted model without any quality loss, and in an instant. Without that, you’d have to run on full intuition on what’s the best way the unwrap before you even started painting. And you might say “Duh, that’s normal, that’s how it’s always been done” – but that’s because no one was ever presented with an alternative option before.
“Can’t use 3rd party software for texture painting if it does not support ptex.” Well, that’s kind of true of any format. There are a small number of high-end programs that do support ptex though – which means we would potentially get the plus of being able to exchange between those programs too, without being force to bake down first.
Well, that would all depend on how well it’s integrated in Blender. Does the texture baking in Blender 2.75+ even support PTEX textures?
“Alembic (Gooseberry branch) will very likely not make it in 2.76.
Lukas will work on a design proposal first.”
I can just hear all the animators exclaiming: http://nooooooooooooooo.com/
Hahaha!
No, but more seriously, for what it’s worth, you guys are doing a lot.
Folks wouldn’t even have the mere prospect of a free software with Alembic support, if weren’t for you guys.
So, thanks for the generous effort. :)