[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] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/3/ - 3DCG



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: rcs-wide-2.jpg (51 KB, 730x336)
51 KB
51 KB JPG
I see many good ideas to improve some very basic functionalities in Blender at Right Click Select. Things to make the workflow / navigation more efficient. Many of the ideas look like small changes and do not require much coding (as far as I understand it).

But I'm wondering what are the chances of them being actually implemented?
Do developers look at this site?
How do devs decide what feature to implement? Popularity doesn't seem to be the main motivator to satisfy demands...
>>
>>629200
>Blender improvement ideas
Just let it die
>>
>>629200
>But I'm wondering what are the chances of them being actually implemented?
Near zero. They're only interested in their internal ideas they have, as far as I can tell.
>Do developers look at this site?
Maybe there's a very small chance, but I don't see why they would. From what I can tell the entire website's just a bunch "hey wouldn't it be cool if they did this?" rather than proper proposals.
>How do devs decide what feature to implement?
Honestly? Probably whatever would expand their userbase the most. Even clearer with 2.8 coming around. You tease Eevee, a real-time PBR renderer for game asset testing, everyone gets hyped. You trickle down that "you're changing the UI to be more friendly", so people previously intimidated by Blender would want to give it a go again. Et cetera.

The thing about Blender is its open-sourceness. I wouldn't be surprised if the Blender devs consider these wants null and void because "someone can just make an add-on for it", and they can go focus their internal team on whatever marketing nonsense they think up of. All these ideas about "fixing Blender", like right clicking to select? Why would they fix that? It's their "core functionality". Their thing, y'know. Blender wouldn't be the special snowflake it is without these little "changes".
>>
>>629202
you clearly have no idea what you're talking about
>>
>>629200
>what are the chances of them being actually implemented?
Almost cero, you can try to code a patch and send that to the blender fundation but most of the time will be rejected
>Do developers look at this site?
Some of them do
>How do devs decide what feature to implement?
there's a few features paid by other studios like the fbx support and some others but 90% of the time is what they need for the next open movie or what Ton Roosendaal want
>>
>>629264
>paid by other studios like the fbx support
They even fail at this. The BF gets money from Epic for FBX development, and instead of using the reference SDK through a GPL-compliant bridge, they fuck it all up by trying to reverse engineer the whole thing.
>>
>>629202
>Near zero. They're only interested in their internal ideas they have, as far as I can tell.
Then what is the point to have people submitting ideas if it's never taken into account?
Also no matter how many times I see some demands being asked, sometimes for years and simple things like that are never done.

I'm not even talking about creating new features but remake the existing ones with common sense.
It's incredible how many actions you have to do to make a simple task.
Like for example setting the retarded origin point of an object... Without a custom code to do it in 2 clicks it's an incredible pain in the ass... And many features are like that. Very unintuitive!
>>
>>629302
Well, you can always ask for your money back.
>>
>>629302
>Then what is the point to have people submitting ideas if it's never taken into account?
To create the false impression that they care for the"community", when the focus of Blender development is mostly on features needed for upcoming short films of limited production scope.
>>
>>629200
>blender
>improvement
choose one
>>
Make baking workflow as straightforward as anything else. They had a good start with the baking rollout but made the rest convoluted and error prone. Having to make an image first and then make sure you don't run into the cyclic material error, also cycles being just as irritating. TexTools plugin gave baking functionality it should have had at the beginning: 1 button and done, no convoluted setup.
>>
>>629337
>1 button and done, no convoluted setup.
But then who would make money by teaching Blender?
>>
>>629200
>what are the chances of them being actually implemented?
Unless it's a third party plugin? Slim to none
>Do developers look at this site?
If they did, I bet they'd have a bitchfit given how much people here seem to hate it.
>How do devs decide what feature to implement?
They decide? I always thought they just let the userbase do it for them given the plugins.
>>
Any reason for Blender to not develop a competitive and open format akin to FBX?
>>
>>629520
>Any reason for Blender to not develop a competitive and open format akin to FBX?
The fact that Pixar has already done it, maybe (Pixar's Universal Scene Description). I think there has been some mention by the devs of integrating it in Blender. Nothing set in stone though, given the disregard that the BF has for industry practices.




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.