They're chained to a difficult framework and a large amount of the value they provide as a tool comes from their plugin library so they can't just start ripping things out. To compete with unreal and unity they'd have to have a ton of funding, a layer of FOSS-competent management (a somewhat rare thing), and many more developers.Ģ) Gimp: Yes but that will never happen. Making a 2D/3D game engine is an incredibly complex task and they have only a handful of people writing code. Godot is doing pretty well with the resources they have. Not the person you replied to but here's my take for the two that I can comment on:ġ) Godot: No. Blender supported creation of training materials pretty well, too Because the application domain Blender is in is so complex, training is important, and the competition probably underestimated making their products affordable for teaching institutions (call me out if wrong, I am not as confident on this point). adopting Python for scripting just when Python was becoming the default programming language for non-programmers In Blender's area integration, automation, tooling are all very complex, and they made some good key decisions, e.g.
Blender did good community management, with Blender Artists and other initiatives
#Houdini engine software
Blender took user research seriously, running events and inviting artists over and watching them use the software
#Houdini engine movie
Blender took dogfooding seriously, with their open movie projects This makes a lot of stuff happen - taking care of not-fun things, having stable contact points, professionalism, doing good fundraising, etc. Blender, OTOH, tried to make sure there's core staff doing it fulltime basically from the get-go, I think.
Lots of classic FOSS communities have trouble identifying with paid development for example, worrying it will lead to a form of classicism in the community, etc. Blender came out of commercial, and the community was never really anti-commercial.
0 kommentar(er)
