81–90 of 105 posts
If you get value out of Blender they could use your support: https://fund.blender.org/ Even just a coffee a month will help immensely. Please consider supporting :)
Especially software like Blender. It's easily one of the most well-made FOSS projects out there!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Especially software like Blender. It's easily one of the most well-made FOSS projects out there!
I maintain a Blender fork at my company and Blender quite literally is my paycheck, but I disagree vehemently that it is a well-made FOSS project lol.
If only Blender had an unreal engine tier real time capability!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I maintain a Blender fork at my company and Blender quite literally is my paycheck, but I disagree vehemently that it is a well-made FOSS project lol.
So .. can you give reasons?
If you get value out of Blender they could use your support: https://fund.blender.org/ Even just a coffee a month will help immensely. Please consider supporting :)
Always support open source when you can, even if you use proprietary software instead of Blender. Supporting open source creates competition for your paid alternative, so they're forced to give you a better product or a better deal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've only dabbled with Blender but from what I saw of geometry nodes it's quite a long way away from competing in the same space as Houdini. Houdini's biggest single feature and the thing that allows film studios to use it at complexity and scale is the HDA system and there's no real competition for that.
What is HDA?
At the end of the day, an HDA is just a 'function' you define like what you do in a programming language. A function can call other functions etc. It might sound nothing special if you're a programmer, but Houdini is the only generic DCC that is built around this idea, making it more like a framework than an app.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So .. can you give reasons?
Seconded. I don't know much about the code, but on a usability level it sometimes feels even more polished and pleasing to handle than many big proprietary offerings. I would go so far as to say it's one of the best executed desktop programs of the current era.
A particular example that was mentioned was the importers that were each done standalone rather than built on a common framework. This was a couple of years ago and of course things may have changed since then.
Just to note that the developers were still extremely positive about working with and in the code, but it does seem plausible that there would be issues like this in a codebase where many devs focus on a small piece of the overall puzzle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Geometry node is not Houdini (yet) though. The main reason people use Houdini is it's easy to transfer data between modeling (SOP) and physical simulation (DOP) contexts. And they're working on integrating rigging/animation too. Geometry node is quite a separate thing from what Blender already has. Last time I checked one couldn't even create vertex groups in geometry node, and there was no way to create an armature…
I think you should've be able to access vertex groups from the initial version of geometry nodes. Certainly, at this point, you can dynamically access (and set) arbitrary vertex groups, including loading the names of the vertex groups you want to access from a csv file, or otherwise synthesizing the names using string operations.
Custom mesh normals is huge, because this used to be a PITA. Tugged away at the end is defining custom cameras through OSL, which is a very very interesting feature, because it allows more physically accurate lens emulation, with dramatically more interesting bokeh than the standard perspective camera model: https://www.reddit.com/r/blender/comments/1kehtse/new_camera...
this is way nicer