/3/ - 3DCG

>>713761
First of all academic training, all they have now is > Donut > Anvil

Exterminate all the fanboys, that's the first step.

>>713761
- Change the entire "new scene" paradigm and remove the "every blend file holds all the viewport settings".

- One click solution for create normal maps between high/res meshes, which skips the entire setup phase (material creation, normal linking, etc.)

- The most, best killer would be implementing something like Marvelous Designer in Blender.
When this pulls the entire games and coomer asset production industry, plugin devs will follow, enhancing the environment even more.

Besides that Blender 2.81 is pretty cool.

Proper FBX support
USD is fine too
Extendable like Maya
Performant like Maya
Closed-source-friendly license

I’m obviously not an executive or a manager or anyone with any experience leading companies but I think they have to focus on one thing really well.
I would say the big branches are sculpting, rigging and animating, gamedev and fx. I’m missing some but you get the idea.
So for example if they go into fx they could try to make a particles system using the Houdini/TP paradigm.
If they go into game dev they could have something for baking, doing retopo, some sculpting, some clothes like MD or Houdini vellum.

>>713761
Remove the GPL

>>713761
If Blender ever overtakes paid software in performance and features, it will become paid software. Good Blender add-ons are already paid, it's inevitable.

>>713761
time

>>713784
The GPL makes that impractical. Only thing the Foundation will be able to charge for is support and having a say in development. They are already working towards that, and I'm afraid the amount of shilling will only increase.

>>713775
What's wrong with FBX support in Blender? Also, your other points don't make sense.

it won't and it shouldn't

>>713784
If Wikipedia ever overtakes paid encyclopedias in articles, it will become paid website. It's inevitable.
Heard this argument about Wiki like 15 years ago.
If Blender stays free for just another 10 years I'm still gonna use it now.

Blender won't dump GPL, it's unfair to people who originally bought it out and released it for free, or to people who donated to get features into the software

>>713888
The Foundation initially reserved the rights to turn it proprietary, and that plan is now merely suspended. There is no contributor agreement to the contrary, so they could do that if they wanted, and it would be legal.

>If you don't like it you can always buy from our competitor Autodesk, anon. :^)

>>713772
>remove the "every blend file holds all the viewport settings"
You can untick "Load UI" while opening a project if I understood you correctly.
>One click solution for create normal maps between high/res meshes
Cycles can bake normals from high poly to low poly in one click, all it needs to work is an empty texture image on a low poly mesh.

So far I only found texture painting absolutely atrocious, 3D paint is literally unusable cause it keeps missing some faces randomly.

>>713891
omfg. Every time this 'theory' gets posted someone posts the relevant, official links, which debunk it.
Lurk more and you'll see it again, cause I'm too lazy to search shit for some asshole, who has probably seen these links ten times, but just ignores them and spouts lies just to demoralize people.

>>713899
>the relevant, official links, which debunk it.
You mean this file in the current source code? More like "confirming" than "debunking".

>we've decided to cancel the BL offering for an indefinite period.
>Third parties interested to discuss USAGE OR EXPLOITATION OF BLENDER can email schlomo@blender.org for further information.

>>713924
Lol? Did you even read what you have posted?

>>713761
Would use blender if it had ActorX import/export plugin support

>>713928
Yes. Did you?

>>713924
>the developers who have copyrighted additions to the sourced code need to approve the decision

>>713940
Then how the fuck do you believe this situation will turn bad?
What will happen, when a GPL licensed project becomes paid?

>>713937
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvzBPW1Nhkg

>>713994
Most of the code in Blender is copyrighted by the Foundation. The argument could be made that developers are contributing under the Foundation's copyright. They have no further say.

>>713995
If Blender were sold to Autodesk and made proprietary, the GPL version would increasingly lag behind with every new version. Good luck trying to fight with open source a corporation with enough funds and determined to sink a competitor.

>>713761
Auto retopology

>>713761
painting textures need to improve - their new sculpt dev wants to make blender equivalent to krita and substance painter and he is capable of doing this, so it's handled
baking textures needs to improve - which they plan to do soon
rigging/animation needs to improve - which they plan to do this year
procedural geometry would be nice - which everything nodes is for
content manager - which is still being made
CAD TOOLS for precision modelling

better retopo/uv tools could be nice, but the new polybuild tool is great for retopo

blender's future is looking really good, though a better video editor and better cloth tools would be nice too

>>713772
>one click solution to bake normals
could be done by scripts

>>713775
proper fbx support isn't coming because autodesk wont share, also the whole industry is moving away from fbx to gltf

usd is already being supported

blender is more extendable than maya with scripts

>>713778
>try to make a particles system using the Houdini/TP paradigm
everything nodes is going to allow procedurally defined particle systems

>>714035
there is a new remesh tool in 2.81 that gets you 99% of the way there...

>>714049
>proper fbx support isn't coming because autodesk wont share
FYI there's already an fbx add-on on Blender Market. It's 25 USD though.

>>714023
>Good luck trying to fight with open source a corporation with enough funds and determined to sink a competitor.

Someone could (doesn't mean would but could) step in and establish what is essentially a new Blender Foundation to then hire the same people that the current Foundation already hires to contribute code to Blender.
Those people aren't employees, they're more like freelance contractors (though structurally it sounds almost more like grants, but legally it's probably closer to freelancing) so those people wouldn't have employment contracts that automatically go to Autodesk.
What they've contributed so far might become Autodesk's property, but I don't believe you can retroactively remove the GPL protection on anything that's already been done so Autodesk couldn't do anything to stop those developers from working on what they've already been working on (unlike in other corporate asset situations).

So COULD there be a lag? Yes, if no one stepped up to continue the Foundation.
But unless everyone at the foundation got paid off by Autodesk and then also someone continued to be paid to NOT establish a new Foundation (and their motive for doing so is that the Foundation is lucrative and they already have the skills to do it) or an entity like it, I just don't think it would work for Autodesk.
I'm a bit sleepy and I don't feel like structuring my points in a rigorous way but I hope you get what I'm saying.

>>713765
Stop watching Andrew Price then.

>>713784
I still don't get how so many of these add-ons are as expensive as they are.

>>713761

A user interface.