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

[Juan Linietsky]

Guys I'm sorry. I've seen this situation happening over and over to no end
for more than a decade.
How about some self-criticism from Blender instead of blaming Autodesk?

If you guys really had cared about open standards and getting along well
with game engines, you would have done the following:

1) Make sure you export proper Collada. The specification is pretty clear.
2) Push game engines to fix their importers.

Blender support for Collada has always been a disaster. There was never any
will to fix it.

-I originally insisted against using OpenCollada due to the huge binary
bloat, and the fact the spec is pretty simple.  You guys wanted to go with
it.
-The exporter was huge and full of bugs. I insisted that a lot of features
missing in the spec needed to be implemented, was ignored.
-Meanwhile, all the missing Collada features were implemented in FBX, such
as blend shapes, proper keyframe baking. constraint baking, exporting all
actions, etc.
-I wrote for you guys a proper Collada exporter in a few lines of Code that
supported the full spec, you guys refused it to add it to mainline Blender.
-I insisted, the answer was "Yeah we can put it at some development repo
and if anyone cares about it we move it to mainline". Of course, everyone
was using FBX , so who would care about Collada?

Now you cry that FBX is evil and blame Unreal, Unity and Autodesk.
Now you complain that there are not any open standards being pushed.

You know what guys? cry me a river..









On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 2:45 PM, Daniel Stokes <kupomail at gmail.com> wrote:

> With regards to glTF exporting, we have a glTF exporter as part of the Real
> Time Engine addon project [1]. The exporter[2] output passes validation[3]
> for the glTF 1.0 (not sure if draft or final) specification. It is
> currently missing animation support, and could have better support for
> materials and textures. This weekend I will move this exporter out of the
> project it is currently in and in to its own repo so it can more easily be
> used for creating a simple glTF export addon.
>
> [1] https://github.com/Kupoman/BlenderRealtimeEngineAddon/
> [2]
>
> https://github.com/Kupoman/BlenderRealtimeEngineAddon/blob/develop/brte/converters/blendergltf.py
> [3]
> https://github.com/KhronosGroup/glTF/tree/1.0-final/specification/schema
>
> Regards,
> Daniel Stokes
>
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 8:20 AM, Fabio Pesari <fabio at pesari.eu> wrote:
>
> > On 02/10/2016 04:44 PM, Ton Roosendaal wrote:
> > > A crowd-funder for 1 feature only is very risky. What precisely do we
> > define to fund? Who would crowdfund a developer to just fix bugs and
> > maintenance for 2 years? I doubt people would pay for that. I wouldn't
> even
> > know where to find such a coder...
> > >
> > > For 2.8 we can do a big fund raiser, and include this on the work
> > planning. I think professionals rather see us to keep working on the
> whole
> > pipeline, starting with good PBR shader editing in viewports.
> >
> > Why don't you do a fundraiser organized like this:
> >
> > Feature X   [---]
> > Feature Y   [---------]
> > Feature Z   [------]
> > Maintenance [-----]
> > Marketing   [--]
> > =========================================
> > Total       [---------------------------]
> >
> > When people donate, they can choose where to put their money and if they
> > don't, it goes to "Maintenance" by default, so most donors will fund
> > that. Also, any excess money from the implementation of other features
> > also goes to "Maintenance".
> >
> > It'd be even better if there were set goals for each feature (for
> > example, $40k for Feature X, and of course no limit on "Maintenance"),
> > so people would know how much they have to donate in order to make sure
> > the feature they need is implemented (with a disclaimer, of course).
> >
> > I think a lot more people are willing to donate if they know exactly
> > where their money is going.
> >
> > I think generic fundraisers often fail because there aren't set
> > objectives. The FSF recently managed to reach their goal because they
> > set a reasonable one ($450k), and they aren't nearly as popular as
> > Blender (you could say the industry hates them).
> > _______________________________________________
> > Bf-committers mailing list
> > Bf-committers at blender.org
> > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-committers mailing list
> Bf-committers at blender.org
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>