[Bf-committers] The future of FBX and/or other formats in Blender

Fabio Pesari fabio at pesari.eu
Wed Feb 10 15:05:53 CET 2016

On 02/10/2016 02:46 PM, Vicente Carro wrote:
> They are talking about the future. Most of the comments are in future
> tense, mentioning "the future" or that they are collaborating with the
> "development". And please don't get me wrong, I completely agree that
> Blender should support at least one of these new formats. But not instead
> of FBX.

Oh sure, as I said the two things are not incompatible.

But perhaps all those people who need FBX support should either donate
money to Blender or hire a developer to work on that specific feature
full-time, given that reverse-engineering is a time-consuming and hard
task and it wouldn't be fair to take time away from features from which
the whole community might benefit (as opposed to a subset of users who
explicitly need compatibility with proprietary technologies).

> When you see glTF(or the others) in this list ( http://www.vfxplatform.com/
> ), then we talk. Meanwhile is a very promising thing that is not there yet.
> (note: Those guys are the ones that in fact set the standard in the VFX
> industry. And FBX is in the list.)

I'm glad that most of those things are not proprietary, except these
three: Intel TBB, Intel MKL and FBX (and probably ACES as well, I'm not
sure about this license [0]).

My question is - what makes FBX so special compared to other formats
that an exception should be made for it in a list of standardized/free
technologies, other than the fact that many people use it?

[0]: https://github.com/ampas/aces-dev/blob/v1.0.1/LICENSE.md

More information about the Bf-committers mailing list