PDA

View Full Version : Which one program should go opensource?



saranine
08-04-2013, 04:15 PM
Blender in about 2001 was a commercial program that cost roughly 1500 dollars [extrapolated to now] before it was opensourced.

If I had to pick one program now it would be Softimage. It's been booted around from company to company. It was neglected by XSI to a pitiful degree; once I downloaded an XSI trial version and it wouldn't start. So I went to the homepage and it said that I had to do a gazillion things that would have tested a computer scientist. Now AD sits on it.

hrgiger
08-04-2013, 05:29 PM
Normally I don't like these type of threads on speculation about opensourcing commerical applications but in this case.... I actually like the idea of Softimage being opensourced. Anything to get AD's fat a$s from sitting on it.

Surrealist.
08-04-2013, 06:20 PM
Ah sorry. Can't agree. I own and use Softimage. I don't see AD's involvement in it at all negative.

And Open Source a better model? You have got to be living in a dreamland.

Open source development is a horrible and very unstable model. That it is popular and all these days is nothing. Commercial development is still way ahead of open source.

Blender is alive and kicking because of a few dedicated - paid - programers who are under very very good leadership and guidance. Development on the periphery is sporadic at best. As a Blender user for some 4 years now I can tell you that the tool set never fully matures into anything at a professional level. It is always an "almost there" state and GSOC is great but again, most (not all ) of those projects only get done so far and up to a certain level and then stop with no one to pick up the development.

ICE Houdini and other state of the art technology gets done in a commercial environment. Open Source development is a constant process of playing catch up to commercial development already long under way. This is true of the major ones I use (Blender, Gimp and Open Office) which copy already developed commercial software. There are some innovations yes. But that has to do with individual talent not open source.

The copy and use of Maya workflow, toolset and terminology in Blender is just too uncanny. It is different original and I would agree innovative. But it will never reach the level of a commercial software like Maya.

You wan't to kill development of a software? Make it open source. Remove all chance of a development team getting money. As Rob so correctly pointed out here. Good programmers do not work for free. That is a fact.

These people need to get paid. Blender Foundation is unique in that a small group actually do get paid and they are the core reason Blender moves ahead. Blender open source development is one of the craziest myths on the internet. It is not a free for all and is not the reason Blender is what it is. That is the result of a very few dedicated and talented people who work real hard at a software they use in production. It is a unique set up and a very special piece of software.

And finally 3P development platforms in Softimage and Maya already spawn a host of innovative independent tools. ICE in particular as a great user base of people who develop tools on ICE and freely share them. Very much the same as in LightWave community.

Open source is not the answer. Talent is.

Dexter2999
08-04-2013, 06:51 PM
I'd love to see SHAKE get resurrected as OpenSource. Probably never happen.

hrgiger
08-04-2013, 07:00 PM
Sorry Richard, I was under the impression that AD was pretty much sidelining Softimage. It was pointed to recently that even Max is not getting the attention it deserves. So whats the real story?

Surrealist.
08-04-2013, 07:21 PM
Well if you live on the Maya forums so is Maya. On the Max forums its Max. On the Si-communuity it is Softimage. I won't pretend to know the real story. But I can say that the development of the tools seem to follow the market. Maya for example is the choice tool for new development of Pixar Open sub for example and viewport development as in DX11 which I wish Softimage had. The recent release of Softimage was not all that outstanding in my opinion but some parts did get some needed love as in now there are paintable attributes for Syflex on ICE. It works pretty cool too. But I still like nCloth better all around.

But there was a huge thread over at CGtalk about how Maya was not going anywhere development wise and a large backlash to the 2014 release. What else is new? If we listened to the rants of people on the net, no one would buy anything. And you see that a lot these days. A lot of concern about what is happening with the software industry which in my opinion is misplaced. It is getting kind of ridiculous. I pretty much ignore all of it anymore. Just get on with it. Use the tools that work is what I say. And don't be concerned over things you can not control with your wallet and feet.

For me the Maya 2014 release had lots of great features I use every day.

The original Softimage team has been moved over to Maya development but there is a new team in place. It says something. But the biggest myth is that somehow it would behoove AD to sideline any of its main products that they have invested so much money in. That does not makes sense. What does make sense is to shift the bean distribution about to reflect the market already in place. This will affect development.

But those are just my theories and not at all based on anything I can call fact. No one outside of AD actually knows any facts on the matter. It is just internet rants and speculation.

saranine
08-04-2013, 09:06 PM
I agree with Surrealist that opensource programs can follow a chaotic path. Ubuntu has varied over the last few years. There have been some great releases and some awful ones that crashed every 10 minutes. As much as I like Linux I would be reluctant to go totally to linux. I run a Redhat OS in a virtual box and that seems to be quite impressive. That's the only Linux Distro that I've found that is useable for heavy duty things. Of course that is a paid distro rather than a free one. I also agree that good programmers need to be paid!!!

But it seems to me that both paradigms are in a state of crisis. Adobe has a petition with so far 37000 people saying that CC is bad. Windows 8 is basically a shopfront to sell stupid apps to me. Meanwhile if Canonical can make some of the shocking ubuntu distros that it's released over the last few years then opensource isn't impressive to me either.

But as a last resort I would still like to see softimage go opensource :)

jasonwestmas
08-04-2013, 09:50 PM
The third party support invested in maya has been a lot better than softimage so I decided to use maya in my work more often. Lightwave is nice (In my case) for my quick stylized work and it too has some really great support. I really don't see any advantages to using open source 3D software. Open source doesn't excite me for animation or rendering outside possible economical reasons. . .but even then I doubt someone like me would find the need to go outside commercial software.

I'm much more interested in helping to fund new software like Chronosulpt for example in my own little way.

Titus
08-04-2013, 10:55 PM
Open source doesn't excite me for animation or rendering outside possible economical reasons.

For me it's the opposite. However we can't make generalizations of the virtues and faults of open and commercial software.

It's exciting to have a new Blender version every few months. Its pace of developement is really fast, and you feel like it's christmas twice a year. Thanks to its openness, there's a developement road and everybody is informed on the new features to be implemented. As an example there are many GSoC projects to be included in the next versions (like this http://www.blendernation.com/2013/08/03/gsoc-2013-paint-tools-demo/#utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Blendernation+%28BlenderNatio n%29) and we are informed in advance.

How can't you be excited with this approach?

And my vote for shake as an open source tool.

Amurrell
08-05-2013, 12:05 AM
I can't really get excited about Blender like I used to. Like Richard, I belive that there are just too many features that are left incomplete, as cool as some of them can be. Addons that were made and then broken later on, sometimes don't get the love they need. Now if they slowed down their development cycle and focused on polishing all the stuff they try to cram in there, then I could get excited again. You can't argue with the price and its ablities at the low low price of free, and I do find myself using small parts of it when I need to get something done that I can't get done elsewhere, but I'm afraid that after a while I will be left with something that has a whole lot broken in small places as to be frustrating. I really think the release cycle is just to keep Blender in the public eye, so they're not forgotten, although that would probably not happen at this point, but could you imagine the panic that would ensue if they stretched the release cycle out to one a year?

Titus
08-05-2013, 12:22 AM
"Release early, release often" is part of the open source philosophy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Release_early,_release_often

Of course every project releases as fast as they can, or simply don't make any progress at all. GIMP developement is slow, AQSIS is really sloooow. Cinepaint makes almost no changes at all.

Recently the Blender developers agreed to be more carefully about testing before every release to catch some bugs.

Surrealist.
08-05-2013, 01:18 AM
For me it's the opposite. However we can't make generalizations of the virtues and faults of open and commercial software.

It's exciting to have a new Blender version every few months. Its pace of developement is really fast, and you feel like it's christmas twice a year. Thanks to its openness, there's a developement road and everybody is informed on the new features to be implemented. As an example there are many GSoC projects to be included in the next versions (like this http://www.blendernation.com/2013/08/03/gsoc-2013-paint-tools-demo/#utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Blendernation+%28BlenderNatio n%29) and we are informed in advance.

How can't you be excited with this approach?

And my vote for shake as an open source tool.

I agree that the transparency of development is a result of the open source model. It is probably the best thing about it. And of course I forgot to mention that a lot of Open Source software also has commercial or other financial backing. Some of it not. Pixar open subdiv as one stellar example of a corporate open source model that is funded.

But Blender development is not the benefit of Open Source as much as it is the benefit of a great visionary in Ton and a tightly organized core team of development.

Lets not forget that the rabid development today is the result of 2 years of code rewrite where development was rather slow. As well as the long and grinding road of finishing up the new mesh system. So they are now reaping the benefits in new tools.

This is where LightWave passed up a missed opertunity.

But I also agree you can not generalize open source. However it has yet to prove it can rival any of the top commercial software.

For all intents and purposes open source is nothing more than a licensing model. It is not a development model. It is a legal grounds for open development. This is both the advantage and disadvantage. Depending on the situation. Pixar Open sub div being probably the best example of something that is costing probably in the millions to develop yet also maintain a licensing model that encourages other entities to participate freely with the hope of a universal adaption of the technology across platforms.

So you can not even generalize open source as being any one proven development model. It depends on the orginization.

Blender, Gimp, Open Office, Pixar Open Sub, and all of the rest of the examples are all based on different production models and teams with varying degree of talent and resources.

There is a general perception about OSS that it opens up the development to the masses and allows for something to grow rapidly and expand. Nothing in my opinion could be further from the truth. Blender's leaps and bound have come from the very few core developers - paid - who have spearheaded an innovative approach to a 3D tool with good leadership. GSOC is great. No one can argue that point. But it all has to be organized and wrangled by the smaller team. And many of the tools only get developed up to a point and then stop. Because they move on to other things. This is the downside.

The masses are not capable of producing anything. And time and time again this model has failed to produce films in projects that are started under this general same misconception. BF films are very well organized and funded "open source" movies. Yet still people think that crowd development and production is somehow a vast recourse yet to be tapped into. That may be. And there are some exceptions to be sure. But it is a production model and development model that in my opinion is largely misunderstood.

sukardi
08-05-2013, 04:06 AM
I like the open source model but it doesn't have to mean that everything is free.

I like to use paid software so I know there are people who are working full time on it. At the same time, it is ideal if the core code is open so that others can add all kind of extensions and if the original developer falters, somebody else can pick up the ball.

I really don't know it can translate in real world practice though...

safetyman
08-05-2013, 08:19 AM
But Blender development is not the benefit of Open Source as much as it is the benefit of a great visionary in Ton and a tightly organized core team of development.

This is generally true, but there are other developers spread all over the place that have contributed to making tools and addons part of the core program. Dynamic topology, Rigify, F2, BSurfaces, Looptools, to name a few, not to mention all the little extras that have been added over the years (clouds, landscapes, ropes, trees, nuts & bolts, etc.). And now there is a small independent team working on some really cool retopology tools -> http://cgcookie.com/blender/forums/topic/retopology-tools-development-roadmap/, as well as the aforementioned improved texture painting that will be a gamechanger for me.


Lets not forget that the rabid development today is the result of 2 years of code rewrite where development was rather slow. As well as the long and grinding road of finishing up the new mesh system. So they are now reaping the benefits in new tools.

This is where LightWave passed up a missed opertunity.

Good call. The BF let the main program go lacking for quite a while and then, BAM, out comes a better program that has since expanded the community a great deal. True, development has fallen by the wayside on some of the more advance tools, but that doesn't mean they will never get more attention. One example of that is the dynamic topology sculpt mode, which lost its developer due to him moving on to other projects. But it's not like the thing doesn't function -- it works extremely well -- but it's just not being developed further at the moment.


However it has yet to prove it can rival any of the top commercial software.

Only a matter of time IMO. While Blender hasn't replaced LW for me just yet, I would say I spend about 85% of my time modeling in Blender now, and rendering with it about 50% of the time. The scale is tipping at a fairly steady pace due to my company not spending to upgrade LW any time soon, and the rapid development of Blender. Heck, if Inkscape gets any better, we'd switch to it and kick Illustrator to the curb. FOSS has really stepped up to the plate for us lately.

jasonwestmas
08-05-2013, 10:27 AM
For me it's the opposite. However we can't make generalizations of the virtues and faults of open and commercial software.

It's exciting to have a new Blender version every few months. Its pace of developement is really fast, and you feel like it's christmas twice a year. Thanks to its openness, there's a developement road and everybody is informed on the new features to be implemented. As an example there are many GSoC projects to be included in the next versions (like this http://www.blendernation.com/2013/08/03/gsoc-2013-paint-tools-demo/#utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Blendernation+%28BlenderNatio n%29) and we are informed in advance.

How can't you be excited with this approach?

And my vote for shake as an open source tool.

Understood, but my excitement goes well beyond the software itself and feeling like a kid again (which is great but I have to go beyond that now). It's neat to see something that is a game changer too but performance-wise I have specialized needs for rendering and animation and I tend to go where that is the main focus of the software, to achieve a specialized style.

Maya, Lightwave, Zbrush and 3DC cover a lot of bases for what I do, if not all. Programs like maya and zbrush are designed to handle really heavy scenes and that's where my work tends to go. Cranking out lots of work is one thing but I have yet to see anything free or opensource that can compete with them as a whole. These days I'm mostly interested in heavy production results and designer software that helps me develop new ideas and compositions quickly without bringing the computer to its knees. Yes, I understand that optimization of those scenes can go a long way too but that doesn't happen in the beginning stages which is where I tend to be.

Surrealist.
08-05-2013, 11:19 AM
This is generally true, but there are other developers spread all over the place that have contributed to making tools and addons part of the core program. Dynamic topology, Rigify, F2, BSurfaces, Looptools, to name a few, not to mention all the little extras that have been added over the years (clouds, landscapes, ropes, trees, nuts & bolts, etc.). And now there is a small independent team working on some really cool retopology tools -> http://cgcookie.com/blender/forums/topic/retopology-tools-development-roadmap/, as well as the aforementioned improved texture painting that will be a gamechanger for me.



Good call. The BF let the main program go lacking for quite a while and then, BAM, out comes a better program that has since expanded the community a great deal. True, development has fallen by the wayside on some of the more advance tools, but that doesn't mean they will never get more attention. One example of that is the dynamic topology sculpt mode, which lost its developer due to him moving on to other projects. But it's not like the thing doesn't function -- it works extremely well -- but it's just not being developed further at the moment.



Only a matter of time IMO. While Blender hasn't replaced LW for me just yet, I would say I spend about 85% of my time modeling in Blender now, and rendering with it about 50% of the time. The scale is tipping at a fairly steady pace due to my company not spending to upgrade LW any time soon, and the rapid development of Blender. Heck, if Inkscape gets any better, we'd switch to it and kick Illustrator to the curb. FOSS has really stepped up to the plate for us lately.

First of all thanks for filling in a lot of the blanks I was aware of but did not bother to cover. All good points.

I think the main thing for me once I started using Blender exclusively for production and depended on it day in and day out on my day job, it really broke down very quickly and the lack of complete development of the tools and just started to wear on me and I could not stand it anymore. It was then that I started to look again at commercial software and began a 2 year search. It was such a relief to finally get that sorted out and ironically my work in Blender paid for the commercial software I use now.

And so now going back to Blender as much as I still like it as a tool, it is frustrating compared to the commercial stuff I use. And even though there are addons like Rigify and so on, really these tools are still far too limited compared to the commercial tools I use. And there is no indication at all that any of these tools will ever get developed to a higher robust level. And even if they do make it, the commercial software has advanced in the mean time. It is still a game of catch up. So statistically speaking I can't imagine Blender competing on that level. It will improve and have an impact but never fully replace existing commercial models.

That all said I can honestly defend Blender against people who say it is difficult to use or understand or that it ain't all that. Because I use it. I know what it can do. And it is a very awesome tool. It does have things I go back to time to time to use because no other software has some small feature. I also love Cycles and it is one the best things going lately.

But by and large I will stick with the commercial stuff when it is something I really need to depend on.

And to the point. Blender development is a very special case and it would be very difficult for another application to have that kind of support without some kind of workable financial model and development user base. These are things that were years in the making for Blender.

It is not something a company can just say "OK we'll adopt that as a model". There is a lot of work involved and many things have to be lined up just right.

And so far the commercial model works and is far ahead of the game. I don't see any reason to fix it.

But looking at Blender compared to LightWave there are a ton of things far far ahead of LightWave especially in Character Animation and modeling. So it makes a great companion in my opinion.

But then again realize that LightWave is also way behind other commercial software in these areas, so... it is a relative comparison.

robertoortiz
08-05-2013, 11:40 AM
There is no way in this God's green earth that a multimillion dollar corporation like Autodesk would release an app like Softimage into the wild.

I dont see that ever happening.

Having said that, I would encourage NT to creat an in app store like the one in Unity to encourage thing party development. (once the SDK for the Hydra engine become public)

cresshead
08-05-2013, 04:56 PM
I can't really get excited about Blender like I used to. Like Richard, I believe that there are just too many features that are left incomplete, as cool as some of them can be. Add-ons that were made and then broken later on, sometimes don't get the love they need. Now if they slowed down their development cycle and focused on polishing all the stuff they try to cram in there, then I could get excited again.

This reads like a description of some not so far away commercial software too, so i don't think open source is to blame for this at all.
It's more probably that small development teams mean that they need to move onto the next set of new features for the next version, they don't have the time to tinker with features constantly
... cos they have to move forward!

examples:
ikbooster
relativity
motion mixer
bevel
image world
bucket rendering

Open source software i'd like to see?
3ds Max of course!

cresshead
08-05-2013, 05:04 PM
There is no way in this God's green earth that a multimillion dollar corporation like Autodesk would release an app like Softimage into the wild.

I dont see that ever happening.

Having said that, I would encourage NT to creat an in app store like the one in Unity to encourage thing party development. (once the SDK for the Hydra engine become public)

yes autodesk bought softimage to remove it from competing with Maya.
they will keep blowing the dust off sofimage every year but will not develop it, as their preferred 3d app appears to be Maya.
The same appears to be true for 3ds Max of late also.

One to RULE them all : MAYA

safetyman
08-06-2013, 05:29 AM
Surrealist: you are so right in many ways. Open source won't replace commercial software any time soon, if at all, in terms of features and performance. However, don't say that FOSS will never replace the commercial versions. My company will never buy Maya or Max due to the high price and because most of the stuff we produce can be done in Illustrator :( . Lightwave was relatively inexpensive, and back before the economy tanked, it was easy to get it bought. Now, however, it's tougher to get the tools you need without an act of congress (literally).

Blender was an easy sell, not only because of it's low price, but because it had already been adopted in other departments for some of the engineers to use.

The point I'm trying to make is this: Open source stuff is maybe not as good as the commercial software, but tools like Blender that push the limits of what a free tool can do are excellent alternatives in these tough economic times. I'm a good example of never say never will FOSS replace commercial versions, because I can see a future where the commercial stuff will price themselves out of their own market.

Lightwolf
08-06-2013, 05:45 AM
But I also agree you can not generalize open source. However it has yet to prove it can rival any of the top commercial software.

When it comes to a full CG package I'd agree. However, for one, many components are open source nowadays: OSL, OIIO, OpenEXR, OpenSubdiv, Alembic, F3D to name but a few.

Also, if you generalise then I'd certainly say it can rival. A prime example being Linux (the kernel). That beats anything out there that's available commercially and scales from embedded devices to supercomputers.

I agree though, OSS is not a development model or a financing model. It's "just" a license that allows for participation. Everything beyond that has the same constraints that commercial software has - and vice versa. It's not better or worse... but it offers different opportunities.

Cheers,
Mike

dsol
08-06-2013, 06:10 AM
When it comes to a full CG package I'd agree. However, for one, many components are open source nowadays: OSL, OIIO, OpenEXR, OpenSubdiv, Alembic, F3D to name but a few.

Though most (or is it all?) of those started out as commercially developed tools in-house, with the open-sourcing happening later. Blender itself was of course a commercial tool.
Few products are developed from scratch as open source, mainly due to lack of economic incentives, and - worst still - the internecine politics of projects led by committee.

Lightwolf
08-06-2013, 06:32 AM
Though most (or is it all?) of those started out as commercially developed tools in-house, with the open-sourcing happening later. Blender itself was of course a commercial tool.
In-house, yes. And while the developers were paid by the production house to develop them, that doesn't necessarily make them commercially developed, in the sense of developing a product to be sold.
Which also explains why they open sourced them... the houses sell their vfx work, not software (exceptions: Nuke and Mari sold off, Pixar and PRMan).

Few products are developed from scratch as open source, mainly due to lack of economic incentives, and - worst still - the internecine politics of projects led by committee.
Projects led by committee are a problem on both sides of the paywall. And, just because a group of developers works on a single project doesn't imply that it is committee based in the bad sense of the word either. It does require good teams though... but that's true everywhere.

As for the economic incentive: For many developers it's about getting paid as they work and there's the whole of academia to consider. How the software is eventually released is secondary. Suits will obviously think differently, but there's a few business models that make it work. Also, there are quite a few products that started as open source and are successful and still around.

I don't really see OSS as the better model ... but it's not worse either, it's different.
Many of the arguments against it are true for a lot of commercial packages as well. Just look at the constant whining about (perceived or not) lacklustre updates.

And then we're back on a case-by-case basis of looking at the merits of packages, where the license is used isn't the decisive factor any more.

Cheers,
Mike

Surrealist.
08-06-2013, 07:07 AM
Surrealist: you are so right in many ways. Open source won't replace commercial software any time soon, if at all, in terms of features and performance. However, don't say that FOSS will never replace the commercial versions. My company will never buy Maya or Max due to the high price and because most of the stuff we produce can be done in Illustrator :( . Lightwave was relatively inexpensive, and back before the economy tanked, it was easy to get it bought. Now, however, it's tougher to get the tools you need without an act of congress (literally).

Blender was an easy sell, not only because of it's low price, but because it had already been adopted in other departments for some of the engineers to use.

The point I'm trying to make is this: Open source stuff is maybe not as good as the commercial software, but tools like Blender that push the limits of what a free tool can do are excellent alternatives in these tough economic times. I'm a good example of never say never will FOSS replace commercial versions, because I can see a future where the commercial stuff will price themselves out of their own market.

I don't make the distinction about how it is used. There is a huge user base of professional shops that use Blender in all kinds of ways. I make a living working freelance with a company that uses it in their pipeline for development within another open source game engine.

When I say never replace I mean never measure up on a feature by feature bases for example Maya compared to Blender. And I mean in the extreme case where people really need the full on features that Maya can give. In cases where it can not be afforded or lesser feature sets are adequate, then of course, there are alternatives and Blender is a great one depending on the shop. And I do know many shops and individuals who I have as clients that use Blender.

But just looking at apples to apples, the feature set can be compared. And I'd say there are a few things done a tad smarter in Blender than other packages. But I'd say overall it will never add up to be as robust as existing commercial software. Just looking at it technically.

And it is for this reason that I find it less and less satisfying to work with shops that use Blender. Even frustrating at times and I have had to turn down work because I refuse to work with a particular tool set that is not up to the task and takes longer and is more frustrating to use in Blender. Adding to that frustration is Bender's poor support for formats I need working to exchange work from my more professional options back into Blender.

Titus
08-06-2013, 08:27 AM
I don't make the distinction about how it is used. There is a huge user base of professional shops that use Blender in all kinds of ways. I make a living working freelance with a company that uses it in their pipeline for development within another open source game engine.

When I say never replace I mean never measure up on a feature by feature bases for example Maya compared to Blender. And I mean in the extreme case where people really need the full on features that Maya can give. In cases where it can not be afforded or lesser feature sets are adequate, then of course, there are alternatives and Blender is a great one depending on the shop. And I do know many shops and individuals who I have as clients that use Blender.

But just looking at apples to apples, the feature set can be compared. And I'd say there are a few things done a tad smarter in Blender than other packages. But I'd say overall it will never add up to be as robust as existing commercial software. Just looking at it technically.

And it is for this reason that I find it less and less satisfying to work with shops that use Blender. Even frustrating at times and I have had to turn down work because I refuse to work with a particular tool set that is not up to the task and takes longer and is more frustrating to use in Blender. Adding to that frustration is Bender's poor support for formats I need working to exchange work from my more professional options back into Blender.

Blender will never be equal to any other program feature by feature. But the same is true for the rest. Or why AD has like 30 programs in its portfolio?

Bleder isn't intended to replace Maya, it's a program for small studios and freelancers. The program itself is a "blend" of tools (now you get why that name). From texturing/painting, modeling to compositing. It tries to cover all the pipeline.

I like it because it's the best LW companion, IMO. Right now I'm compositing in Blender (I usually do this task with Fusion) a project modeled in LW, animated in LW and Blender, and rendered in LW.

Surrealist.
08-06-2013, 08:59 AM
I don't mean this in any way to challenge you on your use of Blender. Remember I use it too and am aware of all of the same things you are. And like it for many of the same reasons. :)

tischbein3
08-06-2013, 09:07 AM
When it comes to a full CG package I'd agree. However, for one, many components are open source nowadays: OSL, OIIO, OpenEXR, OpenSubdiv, Alembic, F3D to name but a few.


Actually in most cases it does not make much sense to actually close source file formats at all, and if you want to have a technology supported across different frameworks going open source is also very beneficial.


Adding to that frustration is Bender's poor support for formats I need working to exchange work from my more professional options back into Blender.

Here you go.. suggestion no2: open source fbx

Titus
08-06-2013, 09:07 AM
Oh! I'm not talking about me. I'm just giving an example of how the design of Blender fits my needs, thanks in part this how it was designed.

safetyman
08-07-2013, 07:59 AM
Obviously Open Source tools can't stand toe to toe feature-wise, with commercial ones, especially comparing something like Blender to Maya. AD has a team of folks whose sole purpose in life is to build onto and improve Maya's toolset, and they get paid nicely for it I would imagine. OSS can't really compete with that kind of dedication. But when you think about it, the "feature chasm" isn't nearly as vast as it should be when you look at the time/money put into Maya development versus the time/money put into Blender's.

Lightwolf
08-07-2013, 08:15 AM
Obviously Open Source tools can't stand toe to toe feature-wise, with commercial ones, especially comparing something like Blender to Maya. AD has a team of folks whose sole purpose in life is to build onto and improve Maya's toolset, and they get paid nicely for it I would imagine. OSS can't really compete with that kind of dedication.
But that's only true for niche markets like CG, not as a general statement.

Cheers,
Mike

jasonwestmas
08-07-2013, 09:54 AM
I actually like a lot of opensource 2D and text software.

realgray
08-07-2013, 11:48 AM
Shake