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

Gaia Clary gaia.clary at machinimatrix.org
Wed Feb 10 22:57:35 CET 2016

Have our attempts to improve the Collada module really been such a desaster?
I try to not take the personally. Anyways, i tried to contact you for 
testing your


It seems like you overlooked that.

And just one more note about an import/export module:
The challenge is not the exporter but the Importer.
And i am almost sure this is true for FBX and for Collada equally.


On 10.02.2016 21:41, Juan Linietsky wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-committers mailing list
> Bf-committers at blender.org
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers

More information about the Bf-committers mailing list