[Bf-gamedev] The future of FBX and/or other formats in Blender
metalliandy
metalliandy666 at googlemail.com
Wed Feb 10 00:38:50 CET 2016
I never suggested that we shouldn't develop something new. I was
suggesting that we keep support for FBX until a viable replacement is
found that other studios/applications use. Supporting a new interchange
format at the expense of FBX is a pointless endeavour unless other
programs can also read that format. The whole point of a universal
format is that it is universal after all.
Sure AOL used to be king, but it took years for them to lose that crown
& there were suitable alternatives for people to move over to. People
just didn't just suddenly stop using them in the hope that something new
came along. There were multiple competent alternatives for people to
choose from.
> The worse that can happen is it fails, then what? Keep on developing
> new features and tools to make better products because that's what
> developers do.
If it fails then you are at best interfering with users productivity and
at worst affecting their livelihood. This isn't some theoretical
situation where the changes will go unnoticed. The change directly
affects people, which is proven by the number of bug reports being
filed. If FBX import/export suddenly stops working and I have a job to
do and a deadline to hit, what am I supposed to do?
Again, and I want to be super clear about this so that there is no
misunderstanding. There is no other interchange format that can replace
FBX right now. If you want to transfer models between applications you
have to use OBJ or FBX. These are your only options if you are a
professional who works in games.
It's great to be idealistic about being open source but if you want to
do 3d for a living there are something things that are essential and
robust I/O is one of them. If I cant get my models into, or out of
Blender & into a game engine or to a client as they request, Blender
becomes essentially useless.
FWIW, I would love to see new format support, just not at the expense of
FBX stability.
Cheers,
-Andy
On 09/02/2016 23:10, Owen Hogarth II wrote:
> There was a time when AOL was the top of internet, then microsot, now
> google. There's always change in the techniverse. The original poster
> didn't say drop FBX and neither did I. I was agreeing with OP in
> saying that blender should take that leadership role and push forward
> for a new format. Clout means nothing when you have an innovative
> product.
>
> If these new formats are so great implement one, if it's easy to use
> devs will use it. Very few people care about the best, most people
> care about ease of use. That's just the way mass market products work.
> I don't know if blender wants to be mass market or niche but
> straddling that line is making blender users look insane.
>
> I was recently looking for a tool to make 2d text effects like after
> effects. To my surprise blender does that extremely well. Before that
> a video editor blender does that extremely well and that's just a few.
> You could do 2d animations with free form deformation like spine it
> does okay but it can be done in blender right now. Blender does so
> many things well but nobody knows about it so nobody outside of
> blender people really care because it's not easy to use.
>
> I write all that to say that I do prefer things that are open and
> stable so I spend the time to learn these things but not many will.
> Back to the FBX talk, leave it where it is. Blender developers can
> take the lead and push something new into the market. The worse that
> can happen is it fails, then what? Keep on developing new features and
> tools to make better products because that's what developers do.
>
> Best,
> Owen
>
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 6:58 AM, metalliandy
> <metalliandy666 at googlemail.com <mailto:metalliandy666 at googlemail.com>>
> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure I understand where you are coming from, Owen. This
> isn't about stragglers who are refusing to adopt new standards. We
> are talking about stopping support for the most widely use
> interchange format in the industry, not dropping an old obsolete
> feature.
>
> FBX is the de facto format right now and whether we like it or not
> there simply isn't another format to replace it with at the
> moment. In a few years (5+) this might change, but currently
> Blender just doesn't have the clout or professional userbase to
> call these kinds of shots, so if we want to be taken seriously we
> have to follow where others lead and use the format that everyone
> else is using.
>
> The problem isn't moving to a new interchange format. It's moving
> to a new interchange format alone. I'm not suggesting we don't
> work on a replacement format in the meantime of course. :)
>
> Cheers,
>
> -Andy
>
>
>
> On 09/02/2016 22:40, Owen Hogarth II wrote:
>> Physically based rendering is coming in full force and most if
>> not all artists professional or hobby have to just adopt it or
>> get left in the past. Opengl Vulkan is coming and eventually you
>> adapt to it or die. One thing I don't get about this back and
>> fourth is the idea that this less evil is better than that
>> greater evil. Why not live w/o the evil. There will always be
>> stragglers, there's still people out there writing programs with
>> fixed pipeline opengl. There are people still running windows XP
>> out there who do not want to upgrade to linux. It's my opinion
>> that no matter how long you wait, it will never be a good time to
>> switch to something new.
>>
>> FBX export in blender works, leave it where it is and move on to
>> something new. As far as which new format to use, that can be up
>> for debate but the idea that you're still asking should we or
>> shouldn't we move past FBX is quite a shame. Chicken or the egg
>> problem, artists won't just get up ad adopt something new. I'd
>> say implement one of the new formats and keep it moving.
>>
>> Best,
>> Owen
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 6:30 AM, metalliandy
>> <metalliandy666 at googlemail.com
>> <mailto:metalliandy666 at googlemail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Hey everyone,
>>
>> I have mixed feelings about this to be honest. While I don't
>> agree with the way FBX is licensed (it should be open sourced
>> ASAP, IMHO), the fact remains that it is still the current
>> interchange format and will be for the foreseeable future, no
>> matter who owns the standard or how much we dislike it.
>>
>> I would hate for this to turn into another crusade against
>> Autodesk, where we all just start blindly sharpening our
>> pitchforks and blindly head into the foray, because such
>> things only end up hurting our users in the long run. Yes, it
>> would be awesome to support other formats such as glTF,
>> Alembic and USD, but it wont mean anything if no one else
>> within the games industry uses them too. We would just end up
>> with a Blender only pipeline and "Blender is for Blender
>> users" crap that flew around a few years ago. Such
>> protectionism can only hurt Blender as you are effectively
>> working against de facto industry standards rather than with
>> them. Having a program that can't talk to other software
>> restricts the use of said software, and studios are simply
>> not going to adopt Blender only pipelines so a competent
>> interchange format is essential.
>>
>> Yes, standards do change, but this takes a _very_ long time
>> to happen. Remember when Collada was meant to be the new
>> standard? Look what happened there...
>> As of now no other format (aside from the ageing and less
>> feature rich OBJ) comes close the the level of industry
>> support that FBX has & even Pixologic, who have been the
>> bastion of OBJ support (even extending the format to support
>> vertex colours), have recently implemented FBX support in the
>> latest version of ZBrush to aim interop. between applications.
>>
>> This is unfortunate of course, but unless we want to alienate
>> Blender from the rest of the 3d world stopping support for it
>> would be a bad move. Blender has made so many giant leaps
>> forward in terms of gamedev use over the past few years and
>> having FBX slowly break over the next few years will do
>> nothing but hurt Blender usability and reputation. Most
>> people simply don't understand or care that we can't use the
>> FBX SDK within Blender and will simply assume that Blender is
>> buggy.
>>
>> It's not just about current users either...we have to think
>> about future users that are migrating over to Blender from
>> Max/Maya who expect something like FBX to just work. If they
>> cannot simply load an FBX into Blender without issue, they
>> will also assume that Blender is buggy as it can't even
>> support FBX correctly.
>>
>> Next we have to think about people who use Blender on a
>> professional level too for things like freelance work. 80% of
>> the time I get meshes for texturing/baking from clients the
>> low poly & block out mesh part of the asset are in the FBX
>> format. It would be extremely embarrassing and unprofessional
>> of me to request OBJ in the place of FBX and potentially
>> jeopardise the possibility of future work with new/especially
>> picky clients (FWIW, I used to use FBX converter to go from
>> FBX to OBJ, but this is ironically no longer supported by
>> Autodesk).
>>
>> In addition to the above we also have the problem of fixed
>> pipelines. It is usual for studios to define a pipeline
>> during pre-production and maintain it rigorously at the low
>> level at least until the current project ends. Many studios
>> also run staggered production of multiple projects using the
>> R&D & pipelines of the previous "lead" project and if we
>> assume that a project will last between 2-4 years we are
>> probably talking between 3-6 years before pipeline changes
>> are considered for something as integral as interchange
>> formats. Granted this is more likely a problem for AAA
>> studios and not many of them use Blender as a main tool, but
>> they do have freelancers who use Blender, which will be a
>> problem for them. It will also rule out Blender for such
>> studios if they were ever to think about moving over
>> (assuming they use FBX ofc.)
>>
>> Ignoring the problems with FBX isn't going to help anything
>> really as the problems will only get worse over time and
>> there is nothing we can realistically use to replace it with.
>>
>> I guess that I find it hard to see how anyone can seriously
>> think that maintaining FBX is a waste of time because such
>> support is essential for the many people that use FBX on a
>> day to day basis. Wouldn't it only be a waste of time if no
>> one used it?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> -Andy
>>
>>
>> On 09/02/2016 19:33, Piotr Arlukowicz wrote:
>>> Standards can change, and the sooner, the better. World
>>> should be open and friendly, not closed and cluttered with
>>> crap from huge companies. As I don't have to use FBX, I vote
>>> against it every possible time. Let's make something
>>> valuable instead of supporting those bastards. They are
>>> famous but their so called standards are nothing more than
>>> bad habits. Yes, I blame autodesk and the others for being
>>> closed, money greedy and unfriendly to the community. That's
>>> mine five cents.
>>>
>>> pio
>>>
>>> Piotr
>>> Arlukowicz, BFCT
>>>
>>> **YT:*_/user/piotao?feature=guide_*
>>> *FB:*_/polskikursblendera_ *TW:* _/piotao
>>> _
>>> *Blender Network:*
>>> *https://www.blendernetwork.org/piotr-arlukowicz*
>>> *Polski Kurs Blendera:* http://polskikursblendera.pl
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2016-02-09 13:16 GMT-05:00 Bastien Montagne
>>> <montagne29 at wanadoo.fr <mailto:montagne29 at wanadoo.fr>>:
>>>
>>> Well, once more time: I do not ask to drop FBX, I ask to
>>> stop investing time in it. Means we would keep it
>>> working in current state, but not try to add/support/fix
>>> new things.
>>>
>>> Le 09/02/2016 18:18, Cremuss a écrit :
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> As evil as FBX is, and I totally understand why you
>>>> think it's a dead-end (and it is, truly), I feel it is
>>>> a necessary evil for now.
>>>>
>>>> Many of us pro Game Artists rely on FBX file format
>>>> because there's simply no other choice yet. I export a
>>>> lot of animated stuff to UE4 and Unity, and dropping
>>>> FBX support in Blender would mean I'd most certainly
>>>> have to buy and use a proprietary 3D software to work,
>>>> which is a shame.
>>>>
>>>> A minimal FBX support would still work for me though,
>>>> because, /personally/, I just need to be able to
>>>> /export/ animated meshes and armatures, mostly to Unity
>>>> and UDK/UE4. So dropping support of the FBX importer,
>>>> as well as the support of lights, cameras and any other
>>>> fancy stuff wouldn't affect me or my work at all. But
>>>> that's just me.
>>>>
>>>> However, I'm all for supporting an open format if it
>>>> will allow me to export animated data to Unity/UDK/UE4
>>>> by the time we fully drop FBX support. But as far as I
>>>> know, there's no open FBX yet :/
>>>>
>>>> I know Unreal has donated to the Blender Foundation to
>>>> work on the FBX exporter so they seems open and
>>>> friendly to me. Maybe there's a way to talk to them and
>>>> see what kind of options we have.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, that's just my honest opinion!:)
>>>>
>>>> Le 09/02/2016 17:49, Fillippe Chiniara a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>> I think its a bad move for the game developers that
>>>>> use blender, you would abandon all of us because fbx
>>>>> is THE standard for game dev , we cant use anything
>>>>> else with the modern engines, at least nothing with
>>>>> the same level of support.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 9, 2016 14:42, "Bastien Montagne"
>>>>> <montagne29 at wanadoo.fr <mailto:montagne29 at wanadoo.fr>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> So, lately there's been a lot of FBX-related
>>>>> issues reported to our
>>>>> tracker. Most of those are either:
>>>>> - Known (half-)broken things (like cameras/lights
>>>>> orientation issues),
>>>>> over which I do not intend to spend more time,
>>>>> since those are not
>>>>> critical features to support imho.
>>>>> - Broken corner-cases in an area that globally
>>>>> works rather well
>>>>> (thinking about skeletons here).
>>>>> - Mysterious third-party applications-related
>>>>> issues (scaling, skeletons
>>>>> again, etc.), that is, bugs that show with one app
>>>>> but not another.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think later point is a good demonstration that
>>>>> FBX itself is a failure
>>>>> and a dead horse - if even rather big and serious
>>>>> companies like Unreal
>>>>> or Unity cannot get a reliable FBX importer
>>>>> working using official FBX
>>>>> SDK, then how are we supposed to do it without
>>>>> even that SDK?
>>>>>
>>>>> Further more:
>>>>> - In past two years a lot of time and energy was
>>>>> invested (lost) in FBX.
>>>>> - </rant> I’m just dead sick of that format, of
>>>>> hitting any possible
>>>>> table corner when trying to walk my way in that
>>>>> non-sensible pitch black
>>>>> box, etc. </rant>
>>>>> - Knowledge I gained of this format and its
>>>>> evolution is **not**
>>>>> encouraging at all (stupid things like supporting
>>>>> two different and
>>>>> complex transform systems [3DS max and Maya ones,
>>>>> btw ;) ], a very weird
>>>>> inconsistency at binary level, etc.). I do not
>>>>> have any feeling this is
>>>>> a sane format, nor that it is evolving in a sane
>>>>> direction. It seems to
>>>>> be defined a bit as needs arise, piling up new
>>>>> stuff over old ones, etc.
>>>>> To summarize: no clear design behind it, and a
>>>>> very dirty way of
>>>>> handling new versions of it.
>>>>>
>>>>> So I would claim to stop relying on and developing
>>>>> it. It would not mean
>>>>> we just remove it from Blender, but think it’s
>>>>> time to switch to
>>>>> something more modern and open - am aware of at
>>>>> least to possible
>>>>> alternatives, which could even be quite complementary.
>>>>>
>>>>> I) glTF
>>>>> Promoted by Khronos group
>>>>> (https://www.khronos.org/gltf), it aims at
>>>>> being the open exchange format for games (from
>>>>> simple asset to complete
>>>>> scene description).
>>>>> Think it’s still very new stuff, not much widely
>>>>> used yet, but it seems
>>>>> to have some support from several major companies
>>>>> (including Microsoft
>>>>> and even - rofl - Autodesk, see
>>>>> http://gltf.autodesk.io/).
>>>>>
>>>>> II) USD
>>>>> Promoted by Pixar
>>>>> (http://graphics.pixar.com/usd/), it aims at being
>>>>> some kind of generic pipeline format for CG
>>>>> studios (it also has
>>>>> integration of Alembic e.g.).
>>>>> I have no idea of its acceptance currently, but
>>>>> sounds like it could be
>>>>> a valuable option for our 2.8
>>>>> 'pipeline/inter-application exchange' goal?
>>>>>
>>>>> (as a side note, interesting to see that those two
>>>>> have a similar
>>>>> approach, they are not monolithic files but rather
>>>>> a combination of
>>>>> binary data and textual descriptions…)
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, those are very early reflections, would
>>>>> like to get your
>>>>> feelings about those two formats/projects (or
>>>>> others you may have in
>>>>> mind! ;) ), but I’m feeling much more enthusiast
>>>>> at the idea of spending
>>>>> time on modern, open-designed (or at least,
>>>>> open-specified) formats,
>>>>> than on piece of proprietary crap!
>>>>>
>>>>> Again, even if we end up deciding we stop trying
>>>>> to fully support FBX as
>>>>> our main exchange format, it would keep being
>>>>> supported in its current
>>>>> status at least for one or two years - just I
>>>>> would not try to add
>>>>> support for new versions (2016 one seems to have
>>>>> some incompatibilities
>>>>> with our code already), nor would try to
>>>>> understand and fix more stuff
>>>>> in that format.
>>>>>
>>>>> And that’s a long enough mail, thanks for reading it!
>>>>> Bastien
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Bf-gamedev mailing list
>>>>> Bf-gamedev at blender.org <mailto:Bf-gamedev at blender.org>
>>>>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-gamedev
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Bf-gamedev mailing list
>>>>> Bf-gamedev at blender.org <mailto:Bf-gamedev at blender.org>
>>>>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-gamedev
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Bf-gamedev mailing list
>>>> Bf-gamedev at blender.org <mailto:Bf-gamedev at blender.org>
>>>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-gamedev
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Bf-gamedev mailing list
>>> Bf-gamedev at blender.org <mailto:Bf-gamedev at blender.org>
>>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-gamedev
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Bf-gamedev mailing list
>>> Bf-gamedev at blender.org <mailto:Bf-gamedev at blender.org>
>>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-gamedev
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bf-gamedev mailing list
>> Bf-gamedev at blender.org <mailto:Bf-gamedev at blender.org>
>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-gamedev
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bf-gamedev mailing list
>> Bf-gamedev at blender.org <mailto:Bf-gamedev at blender.org>
>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-gamedev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-gamedev mailing list
> Bf-gamedev at blender.org <mailto:Bf-gamedev at blender.org>
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-gamedev
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-gamedev mailing list
> Bf-gamedev at blender.org
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-gamedev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.blender.org/pipermail/bf-gamedev/attachments/20160209/f623a2ce/attachment-0001.htm
More information about the Bf-gamedev
mailing list