查看: 722|回复: 2


发表于 2016-1-27 13:56:29 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式

>  During Blender conference 2015, the question was raised why blender did not support these ideas or projects, Mr Roosendaals' reply was: "if you want that, you will just have to create your own community" (I am paraphrasing here, but it is essentially what he said)

Well obviously there's a rationale for not going for a plugin architecture. As for any concept, there are pros and cons related to Plugin architectures.

Blender's architecture is not plug-in based at all, and that's purposely so, by design.
3D Max - for example - was designed ground up with a plugin architecture.

To convert the current design into a plugin architecture is not a recommended project. It will conflict too often with (old) designs. You better start from scratch with a new design then.

Secondary: plugin architectures are popular for closed source environments, or semi-open environments where the goal is to build a commercial infrastructure for plugin vendors. That is not something I believe will serve our goals better. Did you check the "open fx" plugins? It's a disaster, plugins adding watermarks over your art telling you to pay them first.

If we want to have a true free/open source creation environment, we have to make sure that the program works without needing a plugins externally. For everything, the whole pipeline. On top of that we can make sure that this environment is extensible and configurable. Addons and occasional plugins then can help with it, but can be limited to expert cases or special use cases.

But I can be wrong! Revive K3D or Moonlight3d - all plugin architectures who claimed Blender to be a disaster 12 years ago already. I would love to see competition and see other approaches to make 3d tools work well.



使用道具 举报

 楼主| 发表于 2016-1-27 13:57:25 | 显示全部楼层
Hi Kai,

The open movie datasets were never available for download, to save precious bandwidth. These were sold as DVDs in our store. Helped to make Blender!

The costs you had to pay for 1 movie project DVD box ($34) is higher than 3 months access to download every movie project in cloud now ($30). Cloud uses a commercial CDN for this.

You only pay for the service, it's all free data still. Share and use it as you wish.

Obviously the issue is not about the money you would have to pay for plugins, it's about reducing the functional scope of the core software project (free & public benefit) and forcing users to start shopping to get stuff done (commercial or 'free' plugins). This infrastructure would invite crippling and 'evaluation' plugins and deliver you to the mercy and moods of vendors who will likely not consider public benefit as important as Blender Foundation does.

回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

发表于 2016-2-2 11:23:14 | 显示全部楼层
有趣,ton 只是因为其它闭源软件多数用插件系统,并插件是收费模式就决定blender不做插件系统.是否说我做软件核心开发的应该有收入,你们做插件的人应该免费提供?  如果核心功能足够强大,当然不需要什么插件.这样的话你必须保证核心功能可以满足所有人的需求.
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册



站长推荐上一条 /1 下一条

Blender最新中文教学视频|小黑屋|手机版|Archiver|Blender中国 ( 蜀ICP备17002929号  

GMT+8, 2017-11-18 14:13 , Processed in 0.149734 second(s), 20 queries .

Powered by Discuz! X3.3

© 2001-2017 Comsenz Inc.

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表