[HN Gopher] Blender 3.x roadmap
___________________________________________________________________
Blender 3.x roadmap
Author : homarp
Score : 336 points
Date : 2021-10-28 11:00 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (code.blender.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (code.blender.org)
| phkahler wrote:
| Is the 2d constraint-based sketcher getting some traction?
|
| https://blenderartists.org/t/geometry-sketcher-constraint-so...
| mdrzn wrote:
| That's A LOT of updates to do! Great roadmap tho, I only recently
| started learning Blender and I'm amazed at the capabilities it
| has.
|
| Can't wait for it to get even better.
| IceHegel wrote:
| Biggest thing I'm waiting for is metal support for the cycles
| render engine. It's only CPU on Apple Silicon, which is a waste
| on Pro/Max chips.
| smoldesu wrote:
| ...or Apple could bite the bullet and just support the open,
| next-generation standard _everyone_ is using. Metal is silly,
| if it 's 'superior' to Vulkan, then at least give developers
| the option. Sadly it's another App Store situation, where
| you're forced to entrench yourself if you want basic
| functionality. It feels like MacOS is the new Linux, with how
| little software actually works on it now and how bad the
| performance overhead can be in many apps...
| quitit wrote:
| But Apple don't need a portable cross platform API which they
| have limited control over and can't accurately forecast
| functionality. They need something they can tightly control
| which grows side-by-side with their hardware
| ambitions/product vision. OpenGL did little to make the Mac
| easier to target, while supporting a standard that sunk into
| irrelevance, I'm sure they're not keen to make that mistake
| twice.
|
| The bonus of this approach is apple needed to directly
| sponsor+support blender to make it happen.
| smoldesu wrote:
| OpenGL was inevitably going to be depreciated, you won't
| find me crying many tears over it's grave. Vulkan is an
| entirely different beast though, one that Apple _should_
| support. They have the resources to make it happen, any
| excuses they make are quite obviously perfunctory and
| dismissive. Maybe Apple doesn 't need a cross platform
| graphics API, but I do. Their 'devil may care' attitude
| towards backwards compatibility doesn't make me confident
| in owning a Mac.
| andrepd wrote:
| > The general guideline will be to keep Blender functionally
| compatible with 2.8x and later. Existing workflows or usability
| habits shouldn't be broken without good reasons - with general
| agreement and clearly communicated in advance.
|
| Oh boy. How I _wish_ so much that other software developers would
| follow this principle... It seems nearly every software I use and
| rely on has to change its appearance and interface every 6-12
| months, breaking familiarity for no objective reason, and simply
| because "it looks better" to look at (and not necessarily to
| use!) to the subjective eyes of someone.
| scotty79 wrote:
| I wish they didn't. A lot of very popular software is stuck
| with counter-intuitive interfaces that pose huge entry barrier
| for anyone approaching them. Only for the people who learned 20
| year old idiosyncrasies to feel at home.
| runevault wrote:
| The question I always ask myself as an outsider, is this
| actually weird and outdated, or is it something that, once
| you get used to, actually makes people able to work more
| optimally. Sometimes those power tool design decisions are
| just bad old decisions, sometimes they really do enable the
| user. Look at Vim, not for everyone, but if you are willing
| to learn to invest in its crazy, specific style of user
| interface people can fly in a way other interfaces don't seem
| able to quite keep up with.
| scotty79 wrote:
| There's always path to making things more approachable no
| matter how powerful they are.
|
| You could alter vim in a way that people who have years of
| expeirience of computer use and browser use know at least
| how to quit goddamn thing without googling it. Or maybe
| even create short text, save it, open it again, move blocks
| of text around. For an average person vim has 100% less
| utility than the notepad.
|
| The power of vim doesn't come from obscure keyboard
| shortcuts. It comes from editing using parametrized
| commands (as far as I understand). You could make modern
| editor with the same power as vim where a person can just
| sit in front of and start working with immediately and
| gradually learn that things she's doing manually she could
| do faster using command mode. And those commands might be
| the same as in vim because once you go beyond area of
| shared intuition you can do whatever you want.
|
| The problem of vim is that it started in the era where
| shared intuition didn't cover basic text editing. And this
| area grew since then but vim refused to acknowledge this.
| DiggyJohnson wrote:
| Is that a problem, or just reality? One thing I think of
| a lot these days is the "domain community and the
| beginner problem". Specifically, many communities I'm
| tangentially related to seem to overcompensate for
| beginner comfort at the risk of missing the entire depth
| of the domain.
|
| I do not see it as a problem that Vim doesn't supply the
| features you're describing, though I do understand where
| you're coming from. I am affirmed in my view when we
| remember that vim runs in a terminal emulator, and the
| features you're describing are non-trivial to implement
| in that environment.
|
| I don't mean to sound pedantic, but I don't see this as a
| problem at all. As it relates to Vim, or many other tools
| and domains. If Vim was incentivized to increase the size
| its user-base, I may agree, but this is not the case.
| runevault wrote:
| You can't always build something that lets you act like a
| beginner and gradually transition to the power user
| version, or at least people haven't always found ways to
| make that work. The UX challenge of allowing both
| experiences in the same app, especially with the ability
| to gradually move from one to the other, is very very
| complex.
| moffkalast wrote:
| Well blender just did that exact thing going from 2.7 to 2.8
| recently, although it was at least somewhat justified. But now
| that they've reworked it it doesn't make sense to do it again
| any time soon.
| lewispollard wrote:
| I feel like that move really should have been a major version
| bump, it was a big move across the board where many aspects
| of functionality changed or were removed, UI locations and
| naming completely changed, keyboard shortcuts and UX changes
| across the board, and so on.
|
| Minor bump 2.7 -> 2.8 = everything breaks, your workflow no
| longer functions, you have to relearn the API, online
| resources and documentation no longer relevant for many
| aspects of the editor
|
| Major bump 2.8/9 -> 3.0 = everything is compatible with 2.8??
| Just feels like 2.8/2.9 and what's referenced in the blog
| post should have been version 3 to me, but maybe they had
| some technical reason regarding the backend and scripting
| APIs?
| dagmx wrote:
| It was a major version number change. Per the top of the
| blog post here, they're switching to a new versioning
| system with 3.x
|
| Prior to 3.x, the major version was the .X part and the 2
| was somewhat meaningless.
|
| E.g their versioning prior to 3.x is 2.major.minor.patch
| and will now switch to major.minor.patch
| bsanr2 wrote:
| The laws of digital physics say that FOSS jank must be
| conserved, they just moved it to someplace people won't
| mind. I'd rather have weird update numbers than weird
| updates.
| Uehreka wrote:
| I don't have any inside info, but the vibe I got back then
| was that Blender just considered the x in 2.x to be the
| major version (with the idea that they weren't going to
| release a 3.0). Though if that was true, it seems they've
| changed their minds in the couple years since.
| [deleted]
| thepete2 wrote:
| You're right. I'm so annoyed by firefox changing its interface
| every once in a while instead of coming up with a _good_ one
| that they can actually keep stable for years...
| onion2k wrote:
| If Linux kernel devs had just written v5.14 first they
| wouldn't have needed to bother with any of the previous 90 or
| so releases. The fools!
| tux3 wrote:
| The linux kernel does not break its users, save rare
| exceptions (security fallout).
|
| I've rarely seen a program maintain two UIs forever when
| they feel like refreshing their looks
|
| Not that I mind UI change, but I think the comparison
| misses the point: if it's good enough, for some people UI
| breaks just cost more than they gain in the redesign. So
| it's not about reaching perfection. It's about finding a UI
| only just solid enough that it can stop breaking.
|
| I don't necessarily agree personally, but I can understand
| that point of view.
| orangepurple wrote:
| Everything you need to know about Linux avoiding breaking
| user programs
|
| https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/12/23/75
| DonHopkins wrote:
| Blender has had built-in well-supported full-featured pie
| menus for a long time, but Firefox still doesn't, and it's
| nowhere on the roadmap.
| yibers wrote:
| I can guess from the comments what Blender does, but I am
| actually not familiar with the tool.
|
| I wandered around the website provided in the link above, but
| didn't find a simple explanation as to what Blender is about.
|
| Perhaps adding such an explanation to the website can be useful.
| Mikeb85 wrote:
| There's lots of articles posted to HN concerning specific
| topics, tools, etc... Not everything needs to be explained
| upfront, you can do your own research.
|
| In this case, a simple click on the Blender icon goes to their
| homepage, which explains it's 3D modelling software.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| Does https://www.blender.org not make it super clear?
|
| - Render Engine
|
| - Modeling, Sculpt, UV
|
| - VFX
|
| - Animation & Rigging
|
| - Story Art, Drawing 2D in 3D
|
| How much more clear could they make it?
| Operyl wrote:
| The front page literally goes through the features of blender,
| with screenshots and descriptions of features:
|
| "Modeling, Sculpt, UV Blender's comprehensive array of modeling
| tools make creating, transforming and editing your models a
| breeze.
|
| * Full N-Gon support * Edge slide, inset, grid and bridge fill,
| and more * Advanced sculpting tools and brushes * Multi-
| resolution and Dynamic subdivision * 3D painting with textured
| brushes and masking * Python scripting for custom tools and
| add-ons"
|
| not sure what else they could need, it does exactly what you're
| asking for.
| mastax wrote:
| Take a look at IanHubert's lazy blender tutorials:
| https://youtu.be/JjnyapZ_P-g. They're a minute long each, so
| not useful as tutorials. But they do a good job of showing
| generally what Blender can do, and how an experienced artist
| approaches solving a particular problem.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| I was confused when I first encountered it too. It does so much
| that I was left wondering if it is for digital animators, for
| 3D-printer artists? 2D art?
|
| It turns out all those types use it (but I believe it started
| out for digital animators primarily).
| rogual wrote:
| I love Blender, but have been stuck on version 2.7 due to what I
| can only describe as some sort of icon dyslexia.
|
| For 2.8, all the Blender icons were replaced with monochromatic
| ones. This is a very popular trend and a lot of programs are
| replacing their icons in this way, so it's obviously fine for
| most people, and I realize this is probably a niche accessibility
| need I have.
|
| But, to use the new icons, I find I have to check each one every
| time to find the one I want. Instant recognition is no longer
| possible. For me, this extra cognitive load makes it difficult to
| use Blender for more than a few minutes at a time.
|
| Blender is a fantastic product and one of the best examples of
| what open-source can be, but I for one will be appreciating it
| from afar, and remaining on 2.7 until there is a way to get more
| usable icons.
| daniel-thompson wrote:
| I too cannot deal with monochromatic icons. FYI, 2.9 did
| (re-)introduce color to many of the UI icons, which made it
| much easier to use for me than 2.8.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| It makes perfect sense, we are (most humans) visual creatures
| and color adds an extra dimension of information. Your issue
| sounds quite legit.
| matthew_kuiash wrote:
| Wow! I thought it was just me. I find it _incredibly_ difficult
| to read icons. Even small design changes throw me - the most
| annoying was the change in speaker icon across versions of
| Windows. The bigger the icon the less of a problem it is but
| those fiddly toolbar icons throw me all the time. I have
| mentioned this to a few folk but honestly thought I was on my
| own.
| ckdarby wrote:
| You could look at using a streamdeck to avoid using the icons
| altogether.
| jtxt wrote:
| Perhaps this will help you. https://blenderartists.org/t/would-
| you-like-the-colorful-2-7...
| uxcolumbo wrote:
| So there is no way to mod the tool bars so you can show the old
| icons?
| valine wrote:
| I mean you could always swap out the assets and rebuild. The
| icons are compiled into the binary so there's no easy way to
| swap them out without recompiling blender.
| alxlaz wrote:
| > This is a very popular trend and a lot of programs are
| replacing their icons in this way, so it's obviously fine for
| most people, and I realize this is probably a niche
| accessibility need I have.
|
| It's not a niche accessibility need, it's a universal
| accessibility need that's been commonly understood for decades.
| Insufficient differentiation is one of the factors that
| originally drove the increase of colour count (and later, as
| display hardware allowed it, resolution) in icons 30-ish years
| ago.
|
| This trend is not driven by universal preference for
| monochromatic icons but by the cargo cult that UX has become.
| polk wrote:
| This is only true if we pretend that UI design is largely
| about button-level optimization. Clearly it needs to work on
| the macro level as well, and it's not farfetched to assume
| that optimizing every button, icon and text label for their
| individual local maxima will result in an application that's
| overall too cluttered for anyone but the most experienced
| users.
| alxlaz wrote:
| This is not a binary thing. There is such a thing as an
| interface that is clean and uncluttered, while still using
| icons that are at least distinguishable from each other.
| Otherwise you get none of the benefits of an uncluttered
| interface -- e.g. you have to hover by each button and read
| the tooltip to find the right one, which is precisely the
| kind of thing a clean interface is meant to avoid in the
| first place.
|
| Also, Blender is not a grocery list app. While disregarding
| novice users does result in an application that's
| impossible to learn and that's obviously bad, it's equally
| unproductive to optimize an interface for people who see it
| for the first time. Blender is the kind of application that
| you spend tens, if not hundreds of hours learning before
| using it productively (let alone professionally). That's
| the target audience you're designing for, not people who
| download it and uninstall it if they get bored in the first
| thirty seconds.
| polk wrote:
| Sure, my comment is in response to the claim that
| monochrome icons are user-hostile and pushed by a cargo-
| culting UX profession.
|
| Plenty of professional tools (Photoshop, Final Cut,
| Figma) have monochrome icons without it being a usability
| issue. These are all content creation tools, including
| Blender. The UI and content should not be fighting for
| attention. It's clear which of those two should primarily
| be on display.
|
| I think it's entirely possible that Blender just has poor
| icons - but it seems demonstrably false that monochrome
| icons are inherently inaccessible.
|
| My best guess is that Blenders real issue is a lack of
| structure and clear grouping. Providing the icons are in
| a logical place, it's easy enough to find the correct
| one, without them needing to be visually distinct on
| literally every dimension. But if there's no logic to the
| placement and the icon you're looking for could be one of
| thirty, then I agree that's an usability issue - just not
| that the icons are at fault.
| [deleted]
| bschwindHN wrote:
| > all the Blender icons were replaced with monochromatic ones
|
| GIMP did this too and it absolutely blows. Thankfully you can
| revert back to the "legacy" icons.
| BeFlatXIII wrote:
| Is it a simple checkbox in the preferences dialogue or do I
| need to edit a config file for that?
| aquova wrote:
| It's in the preferences UI:
| Edit->Preferences->Interface->Icon Theme. There's 6 or so
| options in there.
| moron4hire wrote:
| There were some significant reorganizations from 2.7 -> 2.8,
| 2.8 -> 2.9, and again from 2.9 -> 3.0. It's upsetting to see
| this much churn over this short of a time for Blender.
|
| Blender has always been very keyboard driven, but I don't use
| it often enough to have most of the shortcuts memorized. Even
| those seem to have changed, though. I'm sure there is a setting
| in the preferences to restore the old shortcuts, but it doesn't
| really feel like an appropriate thing to do with such a complex
| piece of software.
|
| I know Blender has a "reputation" for being difficult to use.
| It used to be earned, over a decade ago, and it was indeed an
| impediment to getting new users. I felt like--as even just a
| casual user--Blender had hit a good sweet spot of organized,
| predictable, and powerful. It's just the very nature of 3D
| modelling to be complex, and it feels like most complaints
| about its interface these days are just from completely new
| people who don't understand this.
|
| That seems to be one of the dangers of Free Software. Having no
| monetary barrier to entry, you get a LOT more first-time users.
| Without the sunk cost of having spent several thousand dollars
| on 3DS Max or similar, they don't have an emotional incentive
| to stick through the learning curve yet.
| prox wrote:
| The add on market is really growing, and something like
| Fluent Power Tools add an amazing array of hard surfaces
| modeling, and easy to use.
| moron4hire wrote:
| Oh yeah. To be clear, I still love Blender. It's just that
| some of these changes (like different icons, moving
| property fields to different places, changing the default
| keyboard shortcuts), seem like they're coming from the
| wrong place. It can get hard to search for information
| about doing specific things in Blender and making sure the
| video you end up finding (cuz it's always a video, _sigh_ )
| matches the version of Blender you're using.
|
| I've spent so much time watching videos and being confused
| because the fields they show are not in the same place in
| the version I'm using. It's one of the reasons I choose to
| stick to the default preferences as much as possible: I
| don't use Blender often enough to know exactly what I'm
| doing all the time, so I want my system to match what other
| people are presenting.
| prox wrote:
| I feel you, that does happen. My search usually adds the
| version number, to weed out that post from 2006 from
| Blender 2.25 :)
| dannytatom wrote:
| i hope they eventually add more support for 2D in the style of
| toonboom or after effects. being able to draw with vectors,
| create puppets, and then animate them. 2d animation is sorely
| lacking when it comes to open source software.
| Olumde wrote:
| _sigh_ ... Still no C++ API :-(
| ralusek wrote:
| If there was a single feature I could see added to Blender, it
| would be to share more functionality between objects and
| collections. Blender has an organizational concept called
| objects, which are containers with position, scale, rotation, and
| they contain within them the mesh data. These can be warped,
| arrayed, cast, decimated, etc, through the use of non destructive
| modifiers.
|
| Now, these objects can be combined into a higher level
| organizational container called a collection. These, too, have a
| position, scale, rotation, etc, and behave much the same way as
| objects. They can even be combined into parent collections.
|
| Now, what I would love would be to have them gain much of the
| functionality of objects that they don't currently have, most
| importantly modifiers.
|
| Say I was building a well. I make a single brick, an object. I
| can array this brick object to create a wall, and I can add a
| corner to the wall, and add it all to a collection. Now I have
| this wall "object," and maybe I want to array it 8x around a
| center point in order to create an octagonal well. I can't,
| because I can't place modifiers on collections. For all intents
| and purposes, it is just another object, and would love to see
| any push towards allowing it to behave as such.
| hrnnnnnn wrote:
| Check out Geometry Nodes.
| ralusek wrote:
| I have, they're super useful. They basically illustrate that
| what I'm talking about is entirely feasible. In the same way
| that you can non destructively combine object mesh data into
| higher order objects, this functionality should be available
| in the object hierarchy graph.
| pdosev wrote:
| Have you tried geometry nodes? It lets you use meshes from any
| object, allowing you to build up modifiers non linearly. I
| would say it covers 90% of the feature you're proposing.
| throw_m239339 wrote:
| You basically want Cinema 4D mograph. Unfortunately, Blender
| does not do that at all, unless you use Animation nodes addon,
| which works, but it's an addon.
| hrnnnnnn wrote:
| There's a major update coming to the geometry nodes feature
| in 3.0. It does a lot of the same stuff as animation nodes
| and even has the same lead developer.
| gmueckl wrote:
| Collections and objects have fundamentally different purposes.
| An object's job is to anchor a bit of geometry information
| (e.g. a mesh) in the scene. Collections serve as hierarchical
| grouping and instancing. Instancing is specifically intended to
| not produce deep copies of objects. This is essential for
| creating some types of really complex scenes. Any modifier -
| destructive or otherwise - requires one or more deep copies to
| act on. Providing modifiers on collections isn't good UX
| because it blurs the line between what is and isn't an
| instance.
| [deleted]
| ralusek wrote:
| Yes, except that you CAN instance collections. You can do
| linked imports of collections and you can do linked
| duplicates of collections. And I understand the difference
| conceptually, but what I'm saying is that the distinction
| always ends up being arbitrary to me from and actual usage
| point of view. If I've made a wall or a tower out of mesh
| data directly, or a collection of objects, it makes no
| difference to me in regards to my intentions. I have a wall
| that I would like to instance around my scenes, and I have
| all the same motivations for wanting to use non-destructive
| workflow as I would were it an object. If I were to have to
| combine my collection into an object, it defeats the purpose.
|
| Say I was building a scene like King's Landing. For each
| building, I'd like to have a file representing that building,
| that I can instance around a scene representing, say, a city
| block. I'll do a linked import of the building, so any
| changes I do to the building will take effect around the
| scene, and I'd like to make use of arrays and other modifiers
| for ad hoc instance changes. Again, my motivations for
| wanting a non destructive workflow are completely the same,
| regardless of whether that building is an object or a
| collection.
|
| Now, as of now, my only option is for it to be an object.
| However, what if I want to use a collection of other objects
| in order to build the building? I want a cellar door that I'd
| like to have instanced. I'd like a ladder outside, and a few
| barrels on the second story. I want these instanced for all
| the same reasons. My preference, of course, would be for the
| building to be a collection of all these things, but if I
| want to then treat my building as one of these such objects
| at the next higher level of detail, I can't.
|
| So you're dismissive of my intentions by insisting that the
| difference is meaningful, whereas I simply see it as a
| failure of abstraction. Objects and collections are
| ultimately both worldspace coordinates holding mesh data, the
| only difference is if they're nested at all. And like I said,
| collections CAN be nested. That relationship is already
| established. Collections CAN be instanced, that use case is
| already established. It's really just the modifiers that are
| missing. And from a programming perspective, the logic of
| "get the mesh data from the object I've been assigned to in
| order to apply this transformation" is the only thing that
| needs to be tweaked. Rather than going one level deep, it
| will say "and if this is mesh data, stop, else iterate."
| hjaarnio wrote:
| You're correct in saying there's no real difference between
| objects and collections, but there is a meaningful
| distinction between mesh data and objects, in the object
| just being a container for the mesh. The modifiers,
| including array, actually work on the underlying mesh data,
| not the at the object level, and produce a mesh object as
| an output. As such, the array modifier does not utilize
| instancing but actually copies the mesh data multiple times
| in memory (both RAM and GPU memory), which is definitely
| not what you want with large, complicated scenes.
|
| So it's not actually about the modifiers being able to be
| used for what you want in one scenario and not being usable
| in in a slightly different scenario; the array modifier is
| not really the tool for the job here at all.
|
| The tool to be used for both of the use cases here is
| instancing, not the modifiers. Setting up your scene with
| multiple levels of collections and using proper instancing
| (which the array modifier is not) certainly is possible,
| there's just a couple of pieces of the puzzle that you seem
| to be missing (or unobvious hoops you have to know about,
| depending how you look at the UX).
|
| Instead of arguing about philosophy and good UX design, I
| hope you don't mind me elaborating in a more step by step
| way on how to actually set a scene such as your example up.
|
| You can spawn a collection instance at the location an
| "empty" type object, by selecting "collection" as the
| instancing type at the instancing section of object
| properties. You can have many of these empties and position
| them manually if you were so inclined.
|
| The other thing is that you can use a mesh to spawn
| instances of an object at each face of the mesh. So you can
| create a mesh object, and set up instancing to spawn
| aforementioned "empty" object, that in turn spawns the
| whole collection, at each face of the mesh. (You do this by
| parenting the empty to the mesh, and setting instancing
| type to "Face" in the instancing panel).
|
| This mesh would typically be rather simple, for example
| just a couple of disjointed faces scattered where you want
| your collections to spawn. Or just a single face, and mesh
| modifiers applied to it, such as array. So instead of
| arraying the collection, we array a mesh consisting of a
| single face, and each face of the arrayed mesh spawns an
| empty that spawns the collection, but the end result is the
| same. (No idea why each face can't be set to spawn the
| collection directly and we need an intermediate "empty").
|
| You can also set instances to appear from particle systems
| etc, for example if you want your houses to just be
| randomly scattered on a surface of an object (like mesh in
| shape of the city or so)
| gmueckl wrote:
| I get what you're saying and it's possible to implement all
| that, but the current workflow is what it is for a reason.
| Applying modifiers to collections would result in too many
| UX surprises and pretty bad footguns.
|
| What you want would be less of an issue in a tool that
| allowed for a more procedural approach where the assembly
| of complex objects is part of a modifiable construction
| history that is separate from the final scene graph. In
| such a context, merging objects is technically destructive,
| but repeatable. I've written such a modeler once.
| atoav wrote:
| I especially like that they plan to decouple Time from Frames.
| That could lead to extremely cool ways to deal with time in the
| future (e g. automating speed changes via keyframes to slow down
| or speed up time globally.
| doctoboggan wrote:
| Blender is such an amazing tool. I have a side business where I
| create 3d printed jewelry with my customer's fingerprints on it
| in gold and silver (https://lulimjewelry.com) and I use Blender
| on the backend for all of the jewelry creation.
|
| I run blender headless in a docker container on google cloud run.
| When needed I invoke it with an image and have a blender script
| "engrave" that image on the jewelry and output an STL file.
|
| It is incredibly flexible to script in python, although its not
| very "pythonic". The UI is quite stateful (edit mode, object
| mode, which items are selected, etc) and you have to keep track
| of that state in your program. But once you get around those
| issues you can do quite a lot, and its all a free program!
| fallat wrote:
| Using lost-PLA casting?
| doctoboggan wrote:
| The rings are printed in wax and then a plaster mould is made
| using the wax. The gold or silver is cast using the plaster
| mould.
|
| I don't do any of it myself, I have a casting partner who can
| do it for me. You can also find online services like
| shapeways to do it as well but they charge a lot mire than
| the real casting houses. Some casting houses I've worked with
| were the back ends to shapeways themselves.
| myrealusername wrote:
| Could you provide the names of some of the casting houses?
| I've only used Shapeways for some personal projects, but
| would love to have some more options. Nice shop, BTW.
| onion2k wrote:
| _I have a side business where I create 3d printed jewelry with
| my customer 's fingerprints on it in gold and silver_
|
| There's a plotline for an episode of CSI crying out to be
| written here..
| Kye wrote:
| CSI: VRChat
| danuker wrote:
| > my customer's fingerprints
|
| And you get to build a database for any state agencies that
| might be interested in buying (or taking)!
| loudmax wrote:
| > build a database for any state agencies
|
| As opposed to building a database for private agencies?
| vletal wrote:
| They mean pub key / certificate fingerprints. Gosh... :)
| danuker wrote:
| Huh? Is building a database of actual finger fingerprints
| not worthwhile?
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| Not really, unless you're trying to build up a private
| fingerprint collection which can't be used for criminal
| cases anyway.
| doctoboggan wrote:
| I'll happily engrave your public key on a ring!
| doctoboggan wrote:
| When I started this I spent some time googling to see what
| sort of harm came come from your fingerprints being leaked
| and I couldn't find anything concrete. It's not trivial to
| take a photo of a fingerprint and turn it into something
| capable of fooling a smartphone fingerprint reader. Someone
| with the ability to do that probably also have the ability to
| lift your print from the thousands of things you touch in
| your daily life.
| moron4hire wrote:
| As opposed to the database the state agencies already have
| because they take your fingerprints when you get ID?
| tdrdt wrote:
| Totally agree. Some time ago I also ran Blender headless with a
| script to render 'product shots' of a product that is available
| in over hundred different combinations. What is also very nice
| is that you can turn on API hints when you navigate over an
| element in the GUI. So you can quickly learn how to access or
| manipulate data.
| doctoboggan wrote:
| Yeah you can also have it print the python command called for
| every action you take in the GUI
| g19fanatic wrote:
| Could you point me to some documentation for this? This has
| been the only hindrance for me to automate things without
| digging into the documentation myself
| capableweb wrote:
| You can use the `--debug-wm` flag for that. CTRL+C when
| hovering a button also copies it's API action. https://do
| cs.blender.org/api/current/info_tips_and_tricks.ht...
| darkstarsys wrote:
| That's a really cool application of Blender! I'm also using
| Blender headless in docker containers on Google Cloud, though
| not using Cloud Run. I'm doing it for self-service molecular
| visualizations -- "create your own molecule video". It's at
| https://bioviz-studio.com. But I run up to 50 dual-T4 instances
| for speed (Cycles X helps a lot!). And I agree the python API
| is a bit weird, and hard to use, but once you get the hang of
| it you can create really complex and interesting scenes just
| using python.
| winternett wrote:
| Blender is amazing for the 3D rendering it can do, and for the
| fact that it is free... But it is intimidating to people who
| don't learn it inside and out from a production standpoint when
| they are doing a lot more than just importing simple objects.
|
| But I kind of wish they had a "Blender Light", without all the
| features and config options, and with a less complex UI... I've
| been using Panzoid to do certain things, but Panzoid can't do
| rigging on imported object files...
|
| I usually want to make animated videos in support of the music
| I release on my label, but right now doing so is either
| expensive or time consuming. I also don't want to put in film-
| studio effort or money into each music video release, because
| that is not a good business model, and my time is limited...
| The costs of being a creator are rising fast, only solid
| workflows will ensure survival.
| HelloNurse wrote:
| The added value of complex software like Blender is that it
| makes _every_ task possible, reducing the risk of having to
| start over a project with better tools because easy to learn
| software with a constrained workflow and limited features was
| selected at first. 3D modeling and rendering is particularly
| suitable for this style of tool because there are many, many
| editing operations that can be applied to 3D models and many
| uses they can be put to.
|
| Simplified software is suitable for simple, throwaway needs
| where the risk of choosing wrong and the cost of changing
| tools are low: yesterday I had to split a PDF file for the
| first and presumably last time in my life and I just printed
| it to a file by page ranges, without bothering to select,
| install and learn to use a PDF editor like Acrobat.
|
| Mastering general, not "light" software is the only practical
| foundation for relatively professional "solid workflows" (as
| opposed to learning the basics of 3D modeling or something
| else with minimum accidental complexity); there might be a
| place for very advanced and/or very efficient but very
| specialized tools (e.g. MagicaVoxel, procedural generators of
| 3D models, Substance Painter) but only as an addition for
| equally specialized situations, not as an easy route.
| jedimastert wrote:
| > But I kind of wish they had a "Blender Light", without all
| the features and config options, and with a less complex UI
|
| I get what you're talking about, sort of an "iMovie" to
| Blender's "Final Cut Pro". I think 2.80 actually did a ton of
| work in that regard, if you've seen it since then. It could
| definitely be simpler though, and with the UI programming the
| way it is I suspect it wouldn't take all that much internal
| change.
|
| Unfortunately, I think a lot of the reason it's as
| intimidating as it is is because the main aim for buy in for
| now is studios who favor the power user maximal interfaces of
| Cinema 4D and Maya and the like
| capableweb wrote:
| > But I kind of wish they had a "Blender Light"
|
| Since Blender is open source, it would be possible for some
| other group to fork Blender and remove parts of the UI for
| users like you.
|
| I really wish the core team wouldn't focus their effort on
| this. Blender is a professional tool for professional users.
| Having to balance between "dumbing down" the UI for first
| time users and providing a user interface for power users
| makes it hard to please either one of them, so I'm happy
| Blender currently focuses on the pro users.
| wlesieutre wrote:
| You might be interested in the "Blender 101 (Application
| templates)" item in this roadmap:
|
| _> Being able to configure Blender for personal workflows is
| a key Blender target, part of the 2.8 project._
|
| _> To bring configuring even one step further, .blend files
| can be used to replace the standard startup file - creating
| 'custom versions' of Blender this way. These templates will
| allow to completely configure UI layouts, define custom
| keymaps and enable add-ons to run at startup. A smart Python
| scripter can design complete new applications this way, using
| vanilla Blender releases. As prototypes the team will release
| a couple of simple templates: a video-player review tool and
| the 100% dumbed down 'Monkey Blender'._
|
| _> A template used this way will be called "Blender
| Application Template" or just "Blender App". Planning is to
| have this working as beta for Blender 3.1, after extensive
| testing and reviews by contributors and module teams._
|
| I think the bigger issue you're going to run into with "make
| Blender but simple" is that the subset of features that _you_
| want in a simplified blender is a different subset from what
| other people want. You want to do rigging on imported object
| files, but for somebody else rigging is a feature that would
| get cut out completely. They 're just trying to model a
| doughnut and a coffee mug and do a still render of it, or at
| most animate the camera moving around the scene.
| peytoncasper wrote:
| I just wanted to say that your process sounds incredibly
| awesome. I was curious, what type of instance do you have
| running behind your Cloud Run job?
|
| I know rendering can be quite heavy on a CPU, but it sounds
| like you're running a series of commands to generate a model
| instead
| doctoboggan wrote:
| Honestly I am running it on the lowest level instance, (1
| CPU, 512 memory).
|
| And I dont actually do any rendering on this instance, just
| the STL generation. I use Threejs to display/render the STL
| once its done.
| chrisweekly wrote:
| Cool setup; have you posted more about it?
| hwers wrote:
| I love how hacky this solution is (yet inspiring that it drives
| a business).
| sydthrowaway wrote:
| I have a question about your business. Do you 3d print metal
| yourself?
| doctoboggan wrote:
| No, I partner with a casting house.
|
| And the metal is actually not 3D printed. How it works is the
| design is printed in wax first, this wax is then used to make
| a plaster mould into which the molten metal is cast.
| sydthrowaway wrote:
| can ender 3 print wax?
| wlesieutre wrote:
| No, you'll want an SLA printer rather than FDM. Something
| like an Elegoo Mars.
|
| Though there's a bit of an issue going on in that space
| right now where the company that makes the controller
| boards for the affordable consumer models has decided to
| DRM lock their file format and require all of these
| printers to use their proprietary slicer (Chitubox),
| locking out the generally better liked open source
| alternative (Lychee).
|
| If that's an issue for you, you might be able to find an
| older model that hasn't been updated to recent firmware,
| but personally I'm waiting on any resin printers until we
| see how this shakes out. There was some noise about Chitu
| hearing the community and creating an SDK, but Lychee
| didn't sound very excited about it.
|
| EDIT - actually it looks like someone has created a lost
| wax casting filament for FDM printers. Look for
| "MoldLay". But in terms of printing detail, for small
| jewelry type projects resin printers are still going to
| be the better choice.
|
| https://filament2print.com/gb/lay/645-moldlay.html
| supernes wrote:
| Great to see they're working on Metal support for the viewport
| (and Vulkan, of course). Apple took their sweet time coming
| onboard as a sponsor, but now that they have I hope it will give
| the developers all the support they need to work out the issues.
| thechao wrote:
| Fingers are very crossed for a touch-capable Blender.
| wkirby wrote:
| Not quite what you're after, but Blender in sidecar works
| really, really well for pen-based workflows. I can sculpt and
| texture paint with the Apple Pencil and it all just... works.
| happyhardcore wrote:
| I was interested in this workflow, would be a big
| motivation to get an iPad pro when the time comes to get a
| compatible MacBook too. Are there any limitations you've
| found especially with modifier keys compared to a dedicated
| wacom tablet?
| Tomte wrote:
| I do understand that this a roadmap for the 3.x series and not
| for the very first 3.0 release, but oh boy, is that a lot!
|
| Improvements across the board. Is there even a subsystem that
| doesn't have big plans? Apart from physics, and that seems to be
| subsumed into Everything Nodes.
| tdrdt wrote:
| Well some things are already done. For example Cycles X will be
| released at the end of this year.
| hrnnnnnn wrote:
| The 3.0 beta came out last night. The speed increase is
| staggering, I can easily use cycles in real-time in the
| viewport now!
| breakingcups wrote:
| Oh wow that sounds amazing. I didn't know what to expect
| but even if the increase is only 25% of what you describe
| it'd still be amazing.
| xvilka wrote:
| I wish they would extract their GUI layer as some framework. It's
| so good that would be perfect for many programs.
| mrspeaker wrote:
| That sounds like a great idea, but I'm not sure how "framework-
| able" a great UI it is.
|
| I was wondering how you might apply a Blender GUI layer to GIMP
| (I tolerate GIMP, but I love Blender). I imagine the issues run
| deeper than just the surface level UI? It would be a great
| experiment though!
| A-Train wrote:
| Agree. Even yesterday I was praising Blender's node editor and
| I'm encouraging the developers to mimic its functionalities in
| a product we are building.
| schleck8 wrote:
| > Eevee [...] screen space global illumination
|
| Awesome!
| smoldesu wrote:
| My GPU is crying tears of blood!
| EmilyHATFIELD wrote:
| The Blender x Internet project is called Meta! quite unfortunate
| timing
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-10-28 23:02 UTC)