7 ms·

One thing I always loved about Blender is the installer size. It blows my mind that a 3D modeling software is under 100 MB.

beering 7y ago
I wonder if there's a consumer perception around big file sizes for expensive software, e.g. they're getting more for their money. The commercial 3D programs bundle a lot, including: extensive documentation, video training, example files, material/light databases, example textures and assets, 3rd-party software (e.g. additional renderers). Arguably those things do provide value.
- okcando 7y ago
  Blender Foundation puts a lot of their training materials (which are very good) behind a subscription paywall.
  - vanderZwan 7y ago
    Good on them, seems like a good business model
  - xanth 7y ago
    I'd always wondered how they made money. I've had the (outsider) impression that Blender was substandard in comparison the the paid suites (3Ds Max, Maya) in part because of my interactions with GIMP—my impression has been its lower quality in comparison to PS is a result a of its lack of funding. Could the GIMP foundation follow Blenders example or is it politically untenable?
    - reilly3000 7y ago
      I'm not sure about their revenue model but I completely concur with the GIMP experience. When I use it I feel like the wheels are going to come off, and they often do. Photoshop, while a bit bloated at 29 years old, is pretty amazing software.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
gregschlom 7y ago
I think the same thing every time I download it. I hope the Blender foundation is able to keep it that way, as things do tend to get more and more bloated over time.
- meruru 7y ago
  I would make a "ultimate" flavor that comes with a kitchen sink for people who have no clue and would think a larger download is a sign of good software.
- vanderZwan 7y ago
  Ton Roosendaal started out as a programmer on the Amiga. I'm probably somewhat biased here, but I expect that he has strong feelings about avoiding bloatware
  - anchpop 7y ago
    I think it would be a good use of space to include some default assets (models, textures, etc.) for beginners to play with, even if it doubled the size of the download
    - amatecha 7y ago
      There are already tons of demo files you can mess around with and learn from: https://www.blender.org/download/demo-files/ https://www.blender.org/download/demo-files/ :)
  - JeremyHerrman 7y ago
    That's apparently also why blender had such unusual UX (like right click to select) - it's rooted in Amiga conventions.
- badsectoracula 7y ago
  Funny you say that, i remember years ago thinking that Blender was becoming bloated after the download reached ~20MB :-P.
inflatableDodo 7y ago
What is really funny, is that for blender, historically speaking, 2.8 is massive. Have a look at the file sizes of some of the early work - https://download.blender.org/release/ https://download.blender.org/release/
- jolmg 7y ago
  I got curious, so I made a graph with the average of sizes above 10KB per version (to exclude the checksum files). 2006 1.0 1 MB |x 2006 1.60 1 MB |x 2003 1.73 2 MB |x 2003 1.80 1 MB |x 2003 2.04 2 MB |x 2003 2.26 2 MB |x 2003 2.27 3 MB |x 2003 2.27-newpy 3 MB |x 2003 2.28 3 MB |x 2003 2.28a 3 MB |x 2003 2.28c 2 MB |x 2003 2.30 3 MB |x 2003 2.31 3 MB |x 2003 2.31a 3 MB |x 2004 2.32 3 MB |x 2004 2.33 4 MB |x 2004 2.33a 4 MB |x 2004 2.34 5 MB |x 2004 2.35 5 MB |x 2004 2.36 5 MB |x 2005 2.37 6 MB | x 2005 2.37a 6 MB | x 2005 2.39 7 MB | x 2005 2.40 7 MB | x 2006 2.41 7 MB | x 2006 2.42 10 MB | x 2007 2.43 11 MB | x 2007 2.44 12 MB | x 2007 2.45 13 MB | x 2008 2.46 15 MB | x 2008 2.47 15 MB | x 2008 2.48 17 MB | x 2008 2.48a 15 MB | x 2009 2.49 19 MB | x 2009 2.49a 21 MB | x 2009 2.49b 17 MB | x 2009 2.50alpha 20 MB | x 2010 2.53beta 21 MB | x 2010 2.54beta 24 MB | x 2010 2.55beta 24 MB | x 2011 2.56abeta 23 MB | x 2010 2.56beta 23 MB | x 2011 2.57 25 MB | x 2011 2.58 27 MB | x 2011 2.59 30 MB | x 2011 2.60 34 MB | x 2011 2.61 41 MB | x 2012 2.62 40 MB | x 2012 2.63 40 MB | x 2012 2.64 45 MB | x 2012 2.65 53 MB | x 2013 2.66 55 MB | x 2013 2.67 65 MB | x 2013 2.68 64 MB | x 2013 2.69 67 MB | x 2014 2.70 67 MB | x 2014 2.71 81 MB | x 2014 2.72 83 MB | x 2015 2.73 86 MB | x 2015 2.74 88 MB | x 2015 2.75 90 MB | x 2015 2.76 92 MB | x 2016 2.77 108 MB | x 2016 2.78 116 MB | x 2017 2.79 121 MB | x 2019 2.80 117 MB | x
ticmasta 7y ago
I think a lot of commercial applications include assets that quickly eat up space.
- agumonkey 7y ago
  yeah, it's always been the case. flagships were in the 100-400MB top, the rest was tutorials, massive docs, textures etc etc
_nedR 7y ago
As a kid, i used to muck around with a 3d modelling tool called anim8or - it was around 2mb. Seems that they're still around - (http://anim8or.com/ http://anim8or.com/). Current zip download is 4.7mb - No installation just an exe in a zip file. :)

beering 7y ago

I wonder if there's a consumer perception around big file sizes for expensive software, e.g. they're getting more for their money. The commercial 3D programs bundle a lot, including: extensive documentation, video training, example files, material/light databases, example textures and assets, 3rd-party software (e.g. additional renderers). Arguably those things do provide value.

okcando 7y ago
Blender Foundation puts a lot of their training materials (which are very good) behind a subscription paywall.
- vanderZwan 7y ago
  Good on them, seems like a good business model
- xanth 7y ago
  I'd always wondered how they made money. I've had the (outsider) impression that Blender was substandard in comparison the the paid suites (3Ds Max, Maya) in part because of my interactions with GIMP—my impression has been its lower quality in comparison to PS is a result a of its lack of funding. Could the GIMP foundation follow Blenders example or is it politically untenable?
  - reilly3000 7y ago
    I'm not sure about their revenue model but I completely concur with the GIMP experience. When I use it I feel like the wheels are going to come off, and they often do. Photoshop, while a bit bloated at 29 years old, is pretty amazing software.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

gregschlom 7y ago

I think the same thing every time I download it. I hope the Blender foundation is able to keep it that way, as things do tend to get more and more bloated over time.

meruru 7y ago
I would make a "ultimate" flavor that comes with a kitchen sink for people who have no clue and would think a larger download is a sign of good software.
vanderZwan 7y ago
Ton Roosendaal started out as a programmer on the Amiga. I'm probably somewhat biased here, but I expect that he has strong feelings about avoiding bloatware
- anchpop 7y ago
  I think it would be a good use of space to include some default assets (models, textures, etc.) for beginners to play with, even if it doubled the size of the download
  - amatecha 7y ago
    There are already tons of demo files you can mess around with and learn from: https://www.blender.org/download/demo-files/ https://www.blender.org/download/demo-files/ :)
- JeremyHerrman 7y ago
  That's apparently also why blender had such unusual UX (like right click to select) - it's rooted in Amiga conventions.
badsectoracula 7y ago
Funny you say that, i remember years ago thinking that Blender was becoming bloated after the download reached ~20MB :-P.

inflatableDodo 7y ago

What is really funny, is that for blender, historically speaking, 2.8 is massive. Have a look at the file sizes of some of the early work - https://download.blender.org/release/ https://download.blender.org/release/

jolmg 7y ago
I got curious, so I made a graph with the average of sizes above 10KB per version (to exclude the checksum files). 2006 1.0 1 MB |x 2006 1.60 1 MB |x 2003 1.73 2 MB |x 2003 1.80 1 MB |x 2003 2.04 2 MB |x 2003 2.26 2 MB |x 2003 2.27 3 MB |x 2003 2.27-newpy 3 MB |x 2003 2.28 3 MB |x 2003 2.28a 3 MB |x 2003 2.28c 2 MB |x 2003 2.30 3 MB |x 2003 2.31 3 MB |x 2003 2.31a 3 MB |x 2004 2.32 3 MB |x 2004 2.33 4 MB |x 2004 2.33a 4 MB |x 2004 2.34 5 MB |x 2004 2.35 5 MB |x 2004 2.36 5 MB |x 2005 2.37 6 MB | x 2005 2.37a 6 MB | x 2005 2.39 7 MB | x 2005 2.40 7 MB | x 2006 2.41 7 MB | x 2006 2.42 10 MB | x 2007 2.43 11 MB | x 2007 2.44 12 MB | x 2007 2.45 13 MB | x 2008 2.46 15 MB | x 2008 2.47 15 MB | x 2008 2.48 17 MB | x 2008 2.48a 15 MB | x 2009 2.49 19 MB | x 2009 2.49a 21 MB | x 2009 2.49b 17 MB | x 2009 2.50alpha 20 MB | x 2010 2.53beta 21 MB | x 2010 2.54beta 24 MB | x 2010 2.55beta 24 MB | x 2011 2.56abeta 23 MB | x 2010 2.56beta 23 MB | x 2011 2.57 25 MB | x 2011 2.58 27 MB | x 2011 2.59 30 MB | x 2011 2.60 34 MB | x 2011 2.61 41 MB | x 2012 2.62 40 MB | x 2012 2.63 40 MB | x 2012 2.64 45 MB | x 2012 2.65 53 MB | x 2013 2.66 55 MB | x 2013 2.67 65 MB | x 2013 2.68 64 MB | x 2013 2.69 67 MB | x 2014 2.70 67 MB | x 2014 2.71 81 MB | x 2014 2.72 83 MB | x 2015 2.73 86 MB | x 2015 2.74 88 MB | x 2015 2.75 90 MB | x 2015 2.76 92 MB | x 2016 2.77 108 MB | x 2016 2.78 116 MB | x 2017 2.79 121 MB | x 2019 2.80 117 MB | x

ticmasta 7y ago

I think a lot of commercial applications include assets that quickly eat up space.

agumonkey 7y ago
yeah, it's always been the case. flagships were in the 100-400MB top, the rest was tutorials, massive docs, textures etc etc

_nedR 7y ago

As a kid, i used to muck around with a 3d modelling tool called anim8or - it was around 2mb. Seems that they're still around - (http://anim8or.com/ http://anim8or.com/). Current zip download is 4.7mb - No installation just an exe in a zip file. :)