[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/3/ - 3DCG



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: 142821482418.jpg (69 KB, 960x517)
69 KB
69 KB JPG
Could a new 3D software get into "mainstream" or is it impossible because of the other programs avaiable

>Want something free and decent all around
>Blender
>Animation
>Maya
>Simulations
>Houdini
>Sculpting
>Zbrush
>Integration with live footage
>Cinema4D

What could a new 3D software offer that other don't have?
>>
>>589263
Well, all of the "big" software packages are relatively stagnant, which means there is a way for other programs to find ways to compete, but a lot of niches have already been filled.
One of the biggest roadblocks is Blender simply on account of it being free, open and already in use with a large number of people, meaning that there's arguably more sense in enterprising software engineers showing off their skills by expanding Blender rather than reinventing the wheel each time.
If you have a kick-ass idea for a new type of system, it's a better endeavor to try and integrate it into an existing package than try and build it up from scratch, and with Blender you can at least modify the source instead of having to deal with a rat's nest of pre-existing code that you have no way of changing.
The world of technology is a zero-sum game, and there's already not even half the number of 3D programs there were just 10 years ago, because anything that doesn't make the cut is thrown by the wayside or the code is bought out by a larger company and integrated into their products as a standard feature.
>>
What we need isn't a new 3D software, what we need is a way to simplify the pipeline from concept to finished product.

All of these software tools have the same basic functions and can do the same things in their respective areas, in about the same amount of time, that's why they all end up being so competitive when stacked up against one another. But because things like UV mapping, weight painting and retopo-ing exist, the creative parts of the pipeline get bogged down by the more technical steps, which are bothersome, take up time, but still are necessary to finish the product.

People will try to solve this with scripts, automated processes, just plain ignoring it, you name it. But at the end of the day, the best way for you to do these things will always be the way that gives you the most control over the process, and that's sitting down and doing the shit manually. That takes time out of the iterative parts of the process and it sucks.

If a software manages to find a way to tackle those issues in a way that makes the whole process slightly faster, while still being just as good as a manual job, then it'll be disruptive and succeed. But you don't need a new software to do that, really.
>>
>>589271
So your whole argument boils down to auto-weight/UV/retopo and similar stuff.
That takes time and effort to built these "clever" algorithms and in the meantime manual labor is needed.

The other optimization to simplify the pipeline is already established through Katana and Clarisse.




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.