[Bf-gamedev] Proposal to (try to) get better FBX support

Thu Sep 18 12:32:23 CEST 2014

Quick example of WHAT IM TALKING ABOUT - autodesk, they have
purchased every single code they can from developers over their life to
have so many apps that do so many different things that they cant even
communicate a solid pipeline workflow in between the programs till this
day and end up losing compatibility(stopping development) with some of
the most important software they have taken over such as softimage and
their face robot, TOTALLY DISCONTINUED. No more soft image face robot
guys.. did you spend 5,000 to be able to use it or years developing an
XSI extension plugin for blender so that the users may use it, NO OR YOU
WOULD SHOOT SOMEONE IN THE IORNY OF WAISTING YOUR TIME. 

Asking blender
developers to concentrate on developing blender not fair?? Its a fair
opinion, i absolutely think people are going to do what they want as its
open to do so. And you simply my friend do not read in between the lines
of BGE. Simply the logic bricks is such a powerful set of tools that
should already end your discussion on BGE, then move over to python and
you never even had this discussion on the blender game engine (blender
developers planned ahead and chose python). Simply because you like to
use unity doesnt mean that blender should devote as much time as it has.
Follow your own heart and dont try to convince people things that dont
sound legit, unless you spend the time to explain in detail. I have a
strong opinion with only positive energy and i vision blender all
powerful once blender game engine merge to solve their issues with the
licensing and intercommunication between the 2 so blender can be
released from its shakles. That is time worth spending people, get our
own weight off our chest. See where we are at that point, and take it
from there. BPY and BGE need the merge now, if someone has information
on the problems and solutions that need to take place i strongly suggest
we start talking about them to see where each individual can tackle.

1. BGE license 

On 17-09-2014, Takanu wrote: 

> BGE is cool for what
it is, but even in spite of the licensing issues, firstly its nice to
have the flexibility to use different engines, as people have different
working styles and preferences. CG artists also have their preferences,
and can regularly use multiple programs in their own workflow, so asking
Blender game developers and artists to focus on one engine seems unfair.
Plus, it would mean losing support from those who enjoy using Blender as
a tool to develop game art, and I'm sure there's quite a few small to
medium sized development teams that rely on it due to its unique
position in the market and pretty sweet modelling tools. 
> 
> Secondly
however, BGE is lacking in many features the major 3 engines support,
including console and tablet platform support. I'm sure some programmers
with the expertise and drive could make porting options and other
features available in the future, but a good chunk of game designers and
studios just want to focus on design as much as possible when choosing a
game engine over an in-house solution. Avoiding the big business waffle
some peeps like to use when discussing Blender as much as possible, BGE
just isn't an attractive offer like Blender is as a modelling and CG
tool, as the game development market is very different from the CG one -
there are many high quality, easily accessible and cheap options for
game engines and development software, and most of them are better, if
not to a significant degree, to BGE.
> 
> I still think BGE is an
awesome idea, but as it stands at the moment it's not a viable option
😜
> 
> Sent from Windows Mail 
> 
> FROM: Jacob Merrill [9]
> SENT:
‎Wednesday‎, ‎17‎ ‎September‎ ‎2014 ‎16‎:‎57
> TO:
bf-gamedev at blender.org [10] 
> 
> Why not work on the bge? 
> with the
exception of screen space normals, and efficient draw call batching, I
don't see any fatal flaws with it, 
> What is stopping it from being
great? it's not GPL, as far as I can tell, as most game developers are
not writing anything that has not been done before, and if they are,
it's not like someone can't copy the idea without access to the
code..... 
> here is my own work in the engine, (almost alone at this
point) 
> this is a walking ragdoll, that supports both ik animation,
and physical scene interaction, 
> when bullet 3 hits the main stage as
people upgrade video cards, you should in theory be able to run 100's of
walking ragdolls. 
> why not a open project? 
> (I am biased) but my own
project looks pretty good :D 
> I have worked for a year on this for
free.....:P 
> 
> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 8:01 AM, Toni Alatalo wrote:
>

>> could Assimp help here? it has an internal format, and can read &
>>
write many formats to / from it. i don't know the format / internal
>>
structure but have understood that it's simple and straightforward
and
>> suitable for games.
>> 
>> afaik they have a json format now but
are interested in a binary
>> format as well. i've used the json format
succesfully with three.js in
>> a test (converted from fbx to
assimp2json)
>> 
>> regarding Collada, glTF may address some of the
problems by being a
>> more restricted spec and by having an efficient
binary format for the
>> geom arrays (and json for other stuff, no xml).
it might be even nice
>> to just write glTF directly from Blender if the
current solution of
>> going via collada2gltf is problematic. at least
those Khronos
>> standards have open specs..
>> 
>> 2cently yours,
>>
~Toni
>> 
>> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 4:53 PM, Sam Brubaker wrote:
>> >
@JCS, I really like your ideas here, but I still wonder if a "15th
Standard"
>> > might be more strategically sound, even if it's totally
insane.
>> >
>> > My biggest concern about spending so many resources on
FBX is that B-devs
>> > would be working on something that does not
belong to Blender or any
>> > equivalent NFP organization. It belongs to
Autodesk. Autodesk is free to
>> > break its own format however it likes
and nullify all the work we do
>> > catching up, which is kind of scary.
All FBX development on our end
>> > indirectly helps a company that is
not helping us at all.
>> >
>> > Of course, our goal should be utility
for users, not vindictiveness;
>> > improving FBX support may be our
best move in the short term. But what about
>> > the long term?
>> >
>>
> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 7:38 AM, Jens Christian Restemeier
>> >
wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Another thought:
>> >> What about porting Blender's
FBX code into a clean C++ library, without
>> >> dependencies on Blender
or the official SDK? Blender could then use it
>> >> through some Python
bindings.
>> >> Basically just a loader/writer, and a high level
interface to go through
>> >> the scenegraph or to build a scene graph.
With an MIT or BSD style license
>> >> to encourage people to use it
over the official SDK.
>> >>
>> >> That we we have guaranteed
interoperability with anyone using the library,
>> >> and improvements
benefit both Blender and applications using it.
>> >> And it would open
a way to sneak in a better format at a later point. You
>> >> could
define a clean legacy-free format, and any application that uses the
>>
>> API just needs a recompile to use it.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
_______________________________________________
>> >> Bf-gamedev mailing
list
>> >> Bf-gamedev at blender.org [3]
>> >>
http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-gamedev [4]
>> >>
>> >
>>
>
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Bf-gamedev
mailing list
>> > Bf-gamedev at blender.org [5]
>> >
http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-gamedev [6]
>> >
>>
_______________________________________________
>> Bf-gamedev mailing
list
>> Bf-gamedev at blender.org [7]
>>
http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-gamedev [8]

Links:
------
[1] mailto:sam at worldsday.org
[2]
mailto:jens.restemeier at gmail.com
[3] mailto:Bf-gamedev at blender.org
[4]
http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-gamedev
[5]
mailto:Bf-gamedev at blender.org
[6]
http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-gamedev
[7]
mailto:Bf-gamedev at blender.org
[8]
http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-gamedev
[9]
mailto:blueprintrandom1 at gmail.com
[10]
mailto:bf-gamedev at blender.org
[11] mailto:toni at playsign.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.blender.org/pipermail/bf-gamedev/attachments/20140918/9e0519e9/attachment.htm 