11 ms·

Blender 3.x roadmap

364 points by homarp 5y ago

dannytatom 5y ago
i hope they eventually add more support for 2D in the style of toonboom or after effects. being able to draw with vectors, create puppets, and then animate them. 2d animation is sorely lacking when it comes to open source software.
supernes 5y ago
Great to see they're working on Metal support for the viewport (and Vulkan, of course). Apple took their sweet time coming onboard as a sponsor, but now that they have I hope it will give the developers all the support they need to work out the issues.
- thechao 5y ago
  Fingers are very crossed for a touch-capable Blender.
  - wkirby 5y ago
    Not quite what you're after, but Blender in sidecar works really, really well for pen-based workflows. I can sculpt and texture paint with the Apple Pencil and it all just... works.
    - happyhardcore 5y ago
      I was interested in this workflow, would be a big motivation to get an iPad pro when the time comes to get a compatible MacBook too. Are there any limitations you've found especially with modifier keys compared to a dedicated wacom tablet?
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  I have a macbook air with M1 and blender is extremely fast (emulated x86). If only macs had sensible keyboards so the hotkeys would be easier (not a mac fan, just got it for free). Highly recommend a Numpad though it is a pinnacle of input technology. But even older hardware can use blender without even needing a good GPU as render previews have become quite fast. If you create models for real-time rendering, an older PC without some super GPU is quite enough to work with.
Tomte 5y ago
I do understand that this a roadmap for the 3.x series and not for the very first 3.0 release, but oh boy, is that a lot! Improvements across the board. Is there even a subsystem that doesn't have big plans? Apart from physics, and that seems to be subsumed into Everything Nodes.
- tdrdt 5y ago
  Well some things are already done. For example Cycles X will be released at the end of this year.
  - hrnnnnnn 5y ago
    The 3.0 beta came out last night. The speed increase is staggering, I can easily use cycles in real-time in the viewport now!
    - breakingcups 5y ago
      Oh wow that sounds amazing. I didn't know what to expect but even if the increase is only 25% of what you describe it'd still be amazing.
mdrzn 5y ago
That's A LOT of updates to do! Great roadmap tho, I only recently started learning Blender and I'm amazed at the capabilities it has. Can't wait for it to get even better.
andrepd 5y ago
> The general guideline will be to keep Blender functionally compatible with 2.8x and later. Existing workflows or usability habits shouldn’t be broken without good reasons – with general agreement and clearly communicated in advance. Oh boy. How I wish so much that other software developers would follow this principle... It seems nearly every software I use and rely on has to change its appearance and interface every 6-12 months, breaking familiarity for no objective reason, and simply because "it looks better" to look at (and not necessarily to use!) to the subjective eyes of someone.
- moffkalast 5y ago
  Well blender just did that exact thing going from 2.7 to 2.8 recently, although it was at least somewhat justified. But now that they've reworked it it doesn't make sense to do it again any time soon.
  - lewispollard 5y ago
    I feel like that move really should have been a major version bump, it was a big move across the board where many aspects of functionality changed or were removed, UI locations and naming completely changed, keyboard shortcuts and UX changes across the board, and so on. Minor bump 2.7 -> 2.8 = everything breaks, your workflow no longer functions, you have to relearn the API, online resources and documentation no longer relevant for many aspects of the editor Major bump 2.8/9 -> 3.0 = everything is compatible with 2.8?? Just feels like 2.8/2.9 and what's referenced in the blog post should have been version 3 to me, but maybe they had some technical reason regarding the backend and scripting APIs?
    - bsanr2 5y ago
      The laws of digital physics say that FOSS jank must be conserved, they just moved it to someplace people won't mind. I'd rather have weird update numbers than weird updates.
    - Uehreka 5y ago
      I don’t have any inside info, but the vibe I got back then was that Blender just considered the x in 2.x to be the major version (with the idea that they weren’t going to release a 3.0). Though if that was true, it seems they’ve changed their minds in the couple years since.
atoav 5y ago
I especially like that they plan to decouple Time from Frames. That could lead to extremely cool ways to deal with time in the future (e g. automating speed changes via keyframes to slow down or speed up time globally.
doctoboggan 5y ago
Blender is such an amazing tool. I have a side business where I create 3d printed jewelry with my customer's fingerprints on it in gold and silver (https://lulimjewelry.com https://lulimjewelry.com) and I use Blender on the backend for all of the jewelry creation. I run blender headless in a docker container on google cloud run. When needed I invoke it with an image and have a blender script "engrave" that image on the jewelry and output an STL file. It is incredibly flexible to script in python, although its not very "pythonic". The UI is quite stateful (edit mode, object mode, which items are selected, etc) and you have to keep track of that state in your program. But once you get around those issues you can do quite a lot, and its all a free program!
- peytoncasper 5y ago
  I just wanted to say that your process sounds incredibly awesome. I was curious, what type of instance do you have running behind your Cloud Run job? I know rendering can be quite heavy on a CPU, but it sounds like you're running a series of commands to generate a model instead
  - doctoboggan 5y ago
    Honestly I am running it on the lowest level instance, (1 CPU, 512 memory). And I dont actually do any rendering on this instance, just the STL generation. I use Threejs to display/render the STL once its done.
    - chrisweekly 5y ago
      Cool setup; have you posted more about it?
      - doctoboggan 5y ago
        No, but I have been meaning to one of these days.
- danuker 5y ago
  > my customer's fingerprints And you get to build a database for any state agencies that might be interested in buying (or taking)!
ralusek 5y ago
If there was a single feature I could see added to Blender, it would be to share more functionality between objects and collections. Blender has an organizational concept called objects, which are containers with position, scale, rotation, and they contain within them the mesh data. These can be warped, arrayed, cast, decimated, etc, through the use of non destructive modifiers. Now, these objects can be combined into a higher level organizational container called a collection. These, too, have a position, scale, rotation, etc, and behave much the same way as objects. They can even be combined into parent collections. Now, what I would love would be to have them gain much of the functionality of objects that they don't currently have, most importantly modifiers. Say I was building a well. I make a single brick, an object. I can array this brick object to create a wall, and I can add a corner to the wall, and add it all to a collection. Now I have this wall "object," and maybe I want to array it 8x around a center point in order to create an octagonal well. I can't, because I can't place modifiers on collections. For all intents and purposes, it is just another object, and would love to see any push towards allowing it to behave as such.
- gmueckl 5y ago
  Collections and objects have fundamentally different purposes. An object's job is to anchor a bit of geometry information (e.g. a mesh) in the scene. Collections serve as hierarchical grouping and instancing. Instancing is specifically intended to not produce deep copies of objects. This is essential for creating some types of really complex scenes. Any modifier - destructive or otherwise - requires one or more deep copies to act on. Providing modifiers on collections isn't good UX because it blurs the line between what is and isn't an instance.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - ralusek 5y ago
    Yes, except that you CAN instance collections. You can do linked imports of collections and you can do linked duplicates of collections. And I understand the difference conceptually, but what I'm saying is that the distinction always ends up being arbitrary to me from and actual usage point of view. If I've made a wall or a tower out of mesh data directly, or a collection of objects, it makes no difference to me in regards to my intentions. I have a wall that I would like to instance around my scenes, and I have all the same motivations for wanting to use non-destructive workflow as I would were it an object. If I were to have to combine my collection into an object, it defeats the purpose. Say I was building a scene like King's Landing. For each building, I'd like to have a file representing that building, that I can instance around a scene representing, say, a city block. I'll do a linked import of the building, so any changes I do to the building will take effect around the scene, and I'd like to make use of arrays and other modifiers for ad hoc instance changes. Again, my motivations for wanting a non destructive workflow are completely the same, regardless of whether that building is an object or a collection. Now, as of now, my only option is for it to be an object. However, what if I want to use a collection of other objects in order to build the building? I want a cellar door that I'd like to have instanced. I'd like a ladder outside, and a few barrels on the second story. I want these instanced for all the same reasons. My preference, of course, would be for the building to be a collection of all these things, but if I want to then treat my building as one of these such objects at the next higher level of detail, I can't. So you're dismissive of my intentions by insisting that the difference is meaningful, whereas I simply see it as a failure of abstraction. Objects and collections are ultimately both worldspace coordinates holding mesh data, the only difference is if they're nested at all. And like I said, collections CAN be nested. That relationship is already established. Collections CAN be instanced, that use case is already established. It's really just the modifiers that are missing. And from a programming perspective, the logic of "get the mesh data from the object I've been assigned to in order to apply this transformation" is the only thing that needs to be tweaked. Rather than going one level deep, it will say "and if this is mesh data, stop, else iterate."
yibers 5y ago
I can guess from the comments what Blender does, but I am actually not familiar with the tool. I wandered around the website provided in the link above, but didn't find a simple explanation as to what Blender is about. Perhaps adding such an explanation to the website can be useful.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  Does https://www.blender.org https://www.blender.org not make it super clear? - Render Engine - Modeling, Sculpt, UV - VFX - Animation & Rigging - Story Art, Drawing 2D in 3D How much more clear could they make it?
- Operyl 5y ago
  The front page literally goes through the features of blender, with screenshots and descriptions of features: "Modeling, Sculpt, UV Blender’s comprehensive array of modeling tools make creating, transforming and editing your models a breeze. · Full N-Gon support · Edge slide, inset, grid and bridge fill, and more · Advanced sculpting tools and brushes · Multi-resolution and Dynamic subdivision · 3D painting with textured brushes and masking · Python scripting for custom tools and add-ons" not sure what else they could need, it does exactly what you're asking for.
- JKCalhoun 5y ago
  I was confused when I first encountered it too. It does so much that I was left wondering if it is for digital animators, for 3D-printer artists? 2D art? It turns out all those types use it (but I believe it started out for digital animators primarily).
- mastax 5y ago
  Take a look at IanHubert's lazy blender tutorials: https://youtu.be/JjnyapZ_P-g https://youtu.be/JjnyapZ_P-g. They're a minute long each, so not useful as tutorials. But they do a good job of showing generally what Blender can do, and how an experienced artist approaches solving a particular problem.
- Mikeb85 5y ago
  There's lots of articles posted to HN concerning specific topics, tools, etc... Not everything needs to be explained upfront, you can do your own research. In this case, a simple click on the Blender icon goes to their homepage, which explains it's 3D modelling software.
xvilka 5y ago
I wish they would extract their GUI layer as some framework. It's so good that would be perfect for many programs.
- mrspeaker 5y ago
  That sounds like a great idea, but I'm not sure how "framework-able" a great UI it is. I was wondering how you might apply a Blender GUI layer to GIMP (I tolerate GIMP, but I love Blender). I imagine the issues run deeper than just the surface level UI? It would be a great experiment though!
- A-Train 5y ago
  Agree. Even yesterday I was praising Blender's node editor and I'm encouraging the developers to mimic its functionalities in a product we are building.
rogual 5y ago
I love Blender, but have been stuck on version 2.7 due to what I can only describe as some sort of icon dyslexia. For 2.8, all the Blender icons were replaced with monochromatic ones. This is a very popular trend and a lot of programs are replacing their icons in this way, so it's obviously fine for most people, and I realize this is probably a niche accessibility need I have. But, to use the new icons, I find I have to check each one every time to find the one I want. Instant recognition is no longer possible. For me, this extra cognitive load makes it difficult to use Blender for more than a few minutes at a time. Blender is a fantastic product and one of the best examples of what open-source can be, but I for one will be appreciating it from afar, and remaining on 2.7 until there is a way to get more usable icons.
- uxcolumbo 5y ago
  So there is no way to mod the tool bars so you can show the old icons?
  - valine 5y ago
    I mean you could always swap out the assets and rebuild. The icons are compiled into the binary so there’s no easy way to swap them out without recompiling blender.
- moron4hire 5y ago
  There were some significant reorganizations from 2.7 -> 2.8, 2.8 -> 2.9, and again from 2.9 -> 3.0. It's upsetting to see this much churn over this short of a time for Blender. Blender has always been very keyboard driven, but I don't use it often enough to have most of the shortcuts memorized. Even those seem to have changed, though. I'm sure there is a setting in the preferences to restore the old shortcuts, but it doesn't really feel like an appropriate thing to do with such a complex piece of software. I know Blender has a "reputation" for being difficult to use. It used to be earned, over a decade ago, and it was indeed an impediment to getting new users. I felt like--as even just a casual user--Blender had hit a good sweet spot of organized, predictable, and powerful. It's just the very nature of 3D modelling to be complex, and it feels like most complaints about its interface these days are just from completely new people who don't understand this. That seems to be one of the dangers of Free Software. Having no monetary barrier to entry, you get a LOT more first-time users. Without the sunk cost of having spent several thousand dollars on 3DS Max or similar, they don't have an emotional incentive to stick through the learning curve yet.
phkahler 5y ago
Is the 2d constraint-based sketcher getting some traction? https://blenderartists.org/t/geometry-sketcher-constraint-solver/1328479 https://blenderartists.org/t/geometry-sketcher-constraint-so...
IceHegel 5y ago
Biggest thing I’m waiting for is metal support for the cycles render engine. It’s only CPU on Apple Silicon, which is a waste on Pro/Max chips.
- smoldesu 5y ago
  ...or Apple could bite the bullet and just support the open, next-generation standard everyone is using. Metal is silly, if it's 'superior' to Vulkan, then at least give developers the option. Sadly it's another App Store situation, where you're forced to entrench yourself if you want basic functionality. It feels like MacOS is the new Linux, with how little software actually works on it now and how bad the performance overhead can be in many apps...
  - quitit 5y ago
    But Apple don’t need a portable cross platform API which they have limited control over and can’t accurately forecast functionality. They need something they can tightly control which grows side-by-side with their hardware ambitions/product vision. OpenGL did little to make the Mac easier to target, while supporting a standard that sunk into irrelevance, I’m sure they’re not keen to make that mistake twice. The bonus of this approach is apple needed to directly sponsor+support blender to make it happen.
    - smoldesu 5y ago
      OpenGL was inevitably going to be depreciated, you won't find me crying many tears over it's grave. Vulkan is an entirely different beast though, one that Apple should support. They have the resources to make it happen, any excuses they make are quite obviously perfunctory and dismissive. Maybe Apple doesn't need a cross platform graphics API, but I do. Their 'devil may care' attitude towards backwards compatibility doesn't make me confident in owning a Mac.
schleck8 5y ago
> Eevee [...] screen space global illumination Awesome!
- smoldesu 5y ago
  My GPU is crying tears of blood!
EmilyHATFIELD 5y ago
The Blender x Internet project is called Meta! quite unfortunate timing
Olumde 5y ago
_sigh_ ... Still no C++ API :-(

364 points by homarp 5y ago

i hope they eventually add more support for 2D in the style of toonboom or after effects. being able to draw with vectors, create puppets, and then animate them. 2d animation is sorely lacking when it comes to open source software.

supernes 5y ago

Great to see they're working on Metal support for the viewport (and Vulkan, of course). Apple took their sweet time coming onboard as a sponsor, but now that they have I hope it will give the developers all the support they need to work out the issues.

thechao 5y ago
Fingers are very crossed for a touch-capable Blender.
- wkirby 5y ago
  Not quite what you're after, but Blender in sidecar works really, really well for pen-based workflows. I can sculpt and texture paint with the Apple Pencil and it all just... works.
  - happyhardcore 5y ago
    I was interested in this workflow, would be a big motivation to get an iPad pro when the time comes to get a compatible MacBook too. Are there any limitations you've found especially with modifier keys compared to a dedicated wacom tablet?
raxxorrax 5y ago
I have a macbook air with M1 and blender is extremely fast (emulated x86). If only macs had sensible keyboards so the hotkeys would be easier (not a mac fan, just got it for free). Highly recommend a Numpad though it is a pinnacle of input technology. But even older hardware can use blender without even needing a good GPU as render previews have become quite fast. If you create models for real-time rendering, an older PC without some super GPU is quite enough to work with.

Tomte 5y ago

I do understand that this a roadmap for the 3.x series and not for the very first 3.0 release, but oh boy, is that a lot! Improvements across the board. Is there even a subsystem that doesn't have big plans? Apart from physics, and that seems to be subsumed into Everything Nodes.

tdrdt 5y ago
Well some things are already done. For example Cycles X will be released at the end of this year.
- hrnnnnnn 5y ago
  The 3.0 beta came out last night. The speed increase is staggering, I can easily use cycles in real-time in the viewport now!
  - breakingcups 5y ago
    Oh wow that sounds amazing. I didn't know what to expect but even if the increase is only 25% of what you describe it'd still be amazing.

mdrzn 5y ago

That's A LOT of updates to do! Great roadmap tho, I only recently started learning Blender and I'm amazed at the capabilities it has. Can't wait for it to get even better.

andrepd 5y ago

> The general guideline will be to keep Blender functionally compatible with 2.8x and later. Existing workflows or usability habits shouldn’t be broken without good reasons – with general agreement and clearly communicated in advance. Oh boy. How I wish so much that other software developers would follow this principle... It seems nearly every software I use and rely on has to change its appearance and interface every 6-12 months, breaking familiarity for no objective reason, and simply because "it looks better" to look at (and not necessarily to use!) to the subjective eyes of someone.

moffkalast 5y ago
Well blender just did that exact thing going from 2.7 to 2.8 recently, although it was at least somewhat justified. But now that they've reworked it it doesn't make sense to do it again any time soon.
- lewispollard 5y ago
  I feel like that move really should have been a major version bump, it was a big move across the board where many aspects of functionality changed or were removed, UI locations and naming completely changed, keyboard shortcuts and UX changes across the board, and so on. Minor bump 2.7 -> 2.8 = everything breaks, your workflow no longer functions, you have to relearn the API, online resources and documentation no longer relevant for many aspects of the editor Major bump 2.8/9 -> 3.0 = everything is compatible with 2.8?? Just feels like 2.8/2.9 and what's referenced in the blog post should have been version 3 to me, but maybe they had some technical reason regarding the backend and scripting APIs?
  - bsanr2 5y ago
    The laws of digital physics say that FOSS jank must be conserved, they just moved it to someplace people won't mind. I'd rather have weird update numbers than weird updates.
  - Uehreka 5y ago
    I don’t have any inside info, but the vibe I got back then was that Blender just considered the x in 2.x to be the major version (with the idea that they weren’t going to release a 3.0). Though if that was true, it seems they’ve changed their minds in the couple years since.

atoav 5y ago

I especially like that they plan to decouple Time from Frames. That could lead to extremely cool ways to deal with time in the future (e g. automating speed changes via keyframes to slow down or speed up time globally.

doctoboggan 5y ago

Blender is such an amazing tool. I have a side business where I create 3d printed jewelry with my customer's fingerprints on it in gold and silver (https://lulimjewelry.com https://lulimjewelry.com) and I use Blender on the backend for all of the jewelry creation. I run blender headless in a docker container on google cloud run. When needed I invoke it with an image and have a blender script "engrave" that image on the jewelry and output an STL file. It is incredibly flexible to script in python, although its not very "pythonic". The UI is quite stateful (edit mode, object mode, which items are selected, etc) and you have to keep track of that state in your program. But once you get around those issues you can do quite a lot, and its all a free program!

peytoncasper 5y ago
I just wanted to say that your process sounds incredibly awesome. I was curious, what type of instance do you have running behind your Cloud Run job? I know rendering can be quite heavy on a CPU, but it sounds like you're running a series of commands to generate a model instead
- doctoboggan 5y ago
  Honestly I am running it on the lowest level instance, (1 CPU, 512 memory). And I dont actually do any rendering on this instance, just the STL generation. I use Threejs to display/render the STL once its done.
  - chrisweekly 5y ago
    Cool setup; have you posted more about it?
    - doctoboggan 5y ago
      No, but I have been meaning to one of these days.
danuker 5y ago
> my customer's fingerprints And you get to build a database for any state agencies that might be interested in buying (or taking)!

ralusek 5y ago

If there was a single feature I could see added to Blender, it would be to share more functionality between objects and collections. Blender has an organizational concept called objects, which are containers with position, scale, rotation, and they contain within them the mesh data. These can be warped, arrayed, cast, decimated, etc, through the use of non destructive modifiers. Now, these objects can be combined into a higher level organizational container called a collection. These, too, have a position, scale, rotation, etc, and behave much the same way as objects. They can even be combined into parent collections. Now, what I would love would be to have them gain much of the functionality of objects that they don't currently have, most importantly modifiers. Say I was building a well. I make a single brick, an object. I can array this brick object to create a wall, and I can add a corner to the wall, and add it all to a collection. Now I have this wall "object," and maybe I want to array it 8x around a center point in order to create an octagonal well. I can't, because I can't place modifiers on collections. For all intents and purposes, it is just another object, and would love to see any push towards allowing it to behave as such.

gmueckl 5y ago
Collections and objects have fundamentally different purposes. An object's job is to anchor a bit of geometry information (e.g. a mesh) in the scene. Collections serve as hierarchical grouping and instancing. Instancing is specifically intended to not produce deep copies of objects. This is essential for creating some types of really complex scenes. Any modifier - destructive or otherwise - requires one or more deep copies to act on. Providing modifiers on collections isn't good UX because it blurs the line between what is and isn't an instance.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- ralusek 5y ago
  Yes, except that you CAN instance collections. You can do linked imports of collections and you can do linked duplicates of collections. And I understand the difference conceptually, but what I'm saying is that the distinction always ends up being arbitrary to me from and actual usage point of view. If I've made a wall or a tower out of mesh data directly, or a collection of objects, it makes no difference to me in regards to my intentions. I have a wall that I would like to instance around my scenes, and I have all the same motivations for wanting to use non-destructive workflow as I would were it an object. If I were to have to combine my collection into an object, it defeats the purpose. Say I was building a scene like King's Landing. For each building, I'd like to have a file representing that building, that I can instance around a scene representing, say, a city block. I'll do a linked import of the building, so any changes I do to the building will take effect around the scene, and I'd like to make use of arrays and other modifiers for ad hoc instance changes. Again, my motivations for wanting a non destructive workflow are completely the same, regardless of whether that building is an object or a collection. Now, as of now, my only option is for it to be an object. However, what if I want to use a collection of other objects in order to build the building? I want a cellar door that I'd like to have instanced. I'd like a ladder outside, and a few barrels on the second story. I want these instanced for all the same reasons. My preference, of course, would be for the building to be a collection of all these things, but if I want to then treat my building as one of these such objects at the next higher level of detail, I can't. So you're dismissive of my intentions by insisting that the difference is meaningful, whereas I simply see it as a failure of abstraction. Objects and collections are ultimately both worldspace coordinates holding mesh data, the only difference is if they're nested at all. And like I said, collections CAN be nested. That relationship is already established. Collections CAN be instanced, that use case is already established. It's really just the modifiers that are missing. And from a programming perspective, the logic of "get the mesh data from the object I've been assigned to in order to apply this transformation" is the only thing that needs to be tweaked. Rather than going one level deep, it will say "and if this is mesh data, stop, else iterate."

yibers 5y ago

I can guess from the comments what Blender does, but I am actually not familiar with the tool. I wandered around the website provided in the link above, but didn't find a simple explanation as to what Blender is about. Perhaps adding such an explanation to the website can be useful.

chrisseaton 5y ago
Does https://www.blender.org https://www.blender.org not make it super clear? - Render Engine - Modeling, Sculpt, UV - VFX - Animation & Rigging - Story Art, Drawing 2D in 3D How much more clear could they make it?
Operyl 5y ago
The front page literally goes through the features of blender, with screenshots and descriptions of features: "Modeling, Sculpt, UV Blender’s comprehensive array of modeling tools make creating, transforming and editing your models a breeze. · Full N-Gon support · Edge slide, inset, grid and bridge fill, and more · Advanced sculpting tools and brushes · Multi-resolution and Dynamic subdivision · 3D painting with textured brushes and masking · Python scripting for custom tools and add-ons" not sure what else they could need, it does exactly what you're asking for.
JKCalhoun 5y ago
I was confused when I first encountered it too. It does so much that I was left wondering if it is for digital animators, for 3D-printer artists? 2D art? It turns out all those types use it (but I believe it started out for digital animators primarily).
mastax 5y ago
Take a look at IanHubert's lazy blender tutorials: https://youtu.be/JjnyapZ_P-g https://youtu.be/JjnyapZ_P-g. They're a minute long each, so not useful as tutorials. But they do a good job of showing generally what Blender can do, and how an experienced artist approaches solving a particular problem.
Mikeb85 5y ago
There's lots of articles posted to HN concerning specific topics, tools, etc... Not everything needs to be explained upfront, you can do your own research. In this case, a simple click on the Blender icon goes to their homepage, which explains it's 3D modelling software.

xvilka 5y ago

I wish they would extract their GUI layer as some framework. It's so good that would be perfect for many programs.

mrspeaker 5y ago
That sounds like a great idea, but I'm not sure how "framework-able" a great UI it is. I was wondering how you might apply a Blender GUI layer to GIMP (I tolerate GIMP, but I love Blender). I imagine the issues run deeper than just the surface level UI? It would be a great experiment though!
A-Train 5y ago
Agree. Even yesterday I was praising Blender's node editor and I'm encouraging the developers to mimic its functionalities in a product we are building.

rogual 5y ago

I love Blender, but have been stuck on version 2.7 due to what I can only describe as some sort of icon dyslexia. For 2.8, all the Blender icons were replaced with monochromatic ones. This is a very popular trend and a lot of programs are replacing their icons in this way, so it's obviously fine for most people, and I realize this is probably a niche accessibility need I have. But, to use the new icons, I find I have to check each one every time to find the one I want. Instant recognition is no longer possible. For me, this extra cognitive load makes it difficult to use Blender for more than a few minutes at a time. Blender is a fantastic product and one of the best examples of what open-source can be, but I for one will be appreciating it from afar, and remaining on 2.7 until there is a way to get more usable icons.

uxcolumbo 5y ago
So there is no way to mod the tool bars so you can show the old icons?
- valine 5y ago
  I mean you could always swap out the assets and rebuild. The icons are compiled into the binary so there’s no easy way to swap them out without recompiling blender.
moron4hire 5y ago
There were some significant reorganizations from 2.7 -> 2.8, 2.8 -> 2.9, and again from 2.9 -> 3.0. It's upsetting to see this much churn over this short of a time for Blender. Blender has always been very keyboard driven, but I don't use it often enough to have most of the shortcuts memorized. Even those seem to have changed, though. I'm sure there is a setting in the preferences to restore the old shortcuts, but it doesn't really feel like an appropriate thing to do with such a complex piece of software. I know Blender has a "reputation" for being difficult to use. It used to be earned, over a decade ago, and it was indeed an impediment to getting new users. I felt like--as even just a casual user--Blender had hit a good sweet spot of organized, predictable, and powerful. It's just the very nature of 3D modelling to be complex, and it feels like most complaints about its interface these days are just from completely new people who don't understand this. That seems to be one of the dangers of Free Software. Having no monetary barrier to entry, you get a LOT more first-time users. Without the sunk cost of having spent several thousand dollars on 3DS Max or similar, they don't have an emotional incentive to stick through the learning curve yet.

phkahler 5y ago

Is the 2d constraint-based sketcher getting some traction? https://blenderartists.org/t/geometry-sketcher-constraint-solver/1328479 https://blenderartists.org/t/geometry-sketcher-constraint-so...

IceHegel 5y ago

Biggest thing I’m waiting for is metal support for the cycles render engine. It’s only CPU on Apple Silicon, which is a waste on Pro/Max chips.

smoldesu 5y ago
...or Apple could bite the bullet and just support the open, next-generation standard everyone is using. Metal is silly, if it's 'superior' to Vulkan, then at least give developers the option. Sadly it's another App Store situation, where you're forced to entrench yourself if you want basic functionality. It feels like MacOS is the new Linux, with how little software actually works on it now and how bad the performance overhead can be in many apps...
- quitit 5y ago
  But Apple don’t need a portable cross platform API which they have limited control over and can’t accurately forecast functionality. They need something they can tightly control which grows side-by-side with their hardware ambitions/product vision. OpenGL did little to make the Mac easier to target, while supporting a standard that sunk into irrelevance, I’m sure they’re not keen to make that mistake twice. The bonus of this approach is apple needed to directly sponsor+support blender to make it happen.
  - smoldesu 5y ago
    OpenGL was inevitably going to be depreciated, you won't find me crying many tears over it's grave. Vulkan is an entirely different beast though, one that Apple should support. They have the resources to make it happen, any excuses they make are quite obviously perfunctory and dismissive. Maybe Apple doesn't need a cross platform graphics API, but I do. Their 'devil may care' attitude towards backwards compatibility doesn't make me confident in owning a Mac.

schleck8 5y ago

> Eevee [...] screen space global illumination Awesome!

smoldesu 5y ago
My GPU is crying tears of blood!

EmilyHATFIELD 5y ago

The Blender x Internet project is called Meta! quite unfortunate timing

Olumde 5y ago

_sigh_ ... Still no C++ API :-(