[Bf-committers] The future of FBX and/or other formats in Blender
d4vidfenner at gmail.com
Wed Feb 10 15:08:10 CET 2016
Crowdfund FBX then. Money donated will decide how much it is needed. I know
this isn't ideal from an open source perspective, but honestly, fbx is a
business/market matter, and maybe should be put aside from the blender open
2016-02-10 11:05 GMT-03:00 Fabio Pesari <fabio at pesari.eu>:
> 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 (
> > ), then we talk. Meanwhile is a very promising thing that is not there
> > (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 ).
> 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?
> : https://github.com/ampas/aces-dev/blob/v1.0.1/LICENSE.md
> Bf-committers mailing list
> Bf-committers at blender.org
More information about the Bf-committers