What makes blender a worse software that what the industry uses?

>>568447
Basically people are butthurt (why?) because free software can't possibly be as good as what the industry uses.

It probably started because the actual companies are jews and don't want people to use anything besides their software. This is why you have shills who claim that Max/Maya are shit and you need to use Maya/Max instead.

tl;dr: Trust your own eyes. Not a jews/shills.

>>568447

The real problem with blender is the license. If it weren't for the license, it would have more industry adoption.

Basically, anything developed for Blender hhas to be released to the public under the same license as Blender itself. Therefore any studio making pipeline integration stuff or special tools for Blender would be investing time and money into making something their competition could just pick up and use for free.

Essentially, what makes Maya and other commercial software 'better' for the industry is that studios get to have their own insider stuff that gives them an edge. That's all.

>But blender doesn't have X feature!

Those features generally start as plugins created by outside groups because of the profit motive. They want to sell them. Users of the commercial package the plugin is for likes it a lot, and thhere is wide adoption. The package manufacturer sees that and buys the plugin rights, and directly integrates it as a feature.

In essence, commercial packages get most of their advanced features by buying out others' innovations. That means the features aren't native strengths of the commercial packages, bbut rather are strengths of the packages' manufacturers' bank accounts.

Sadly, Blender has to wait for someone interested in having that feature to start a project to make it just because they want it, and humans aren't good at that kind of thinking typically.

File: MV5BMTQyOTg2MjYzOV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNTg1ODQxNA@@._V1_UX182_CR0,0,182,268_AL_.jpg (17KB, 182x268px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 182x268px

>not using z brush

>>568477
Except the GPL doesn't require you to provide anything if you keep the modifications private. If a company wants to create specialized tooling and extensions to blender, they are under no obligation to expose the source code or trade secrets they've used to make those changes.

However, if a company wants to commercialize or make public any of their modifications, under the conditions of the GPL they legally must provide access to the source code of those changes.

>>568447
It probably still has the stigma of being generally horrible to use after all these years, compare something like Photoshop to GIMP and you'll see the parallels between say Max and Blender. Now consider that Adobe also has a whole suit of applications with full interoperability and countless extensions and plugins going for it.
Blender is perfectly fine for personal projects, but since other packages are already well established in workflows that aren't changing any time soon, it's simply more reasonable to have your artists learn new software than have your special snowflake figure out how to integrate with everyone else.
Let's say you have a need for big, complex, rule-based particle systems, you pretty much have only two real options here; Houdini or Thinking Particles for Max. Which means that whether you like it or not, you're going to have to grit your teeth and implement one of these in your workflow, so naturally it's a good start to have someone who already knows how to use Max and/or Houdini.

maybe employers don't like blender because they think that different workflows over-complicate things. and they are right actually. but it depends what are your duties. for a generalist they prefer someone who uses maya or 3ds because they know some 3ds and maya themselves and rather tackle problems that comes from those programs.

if your role is not an animator or a generalist it doesn't matter what you use. but most jobs are for animators and people who know a little bit of shading + lightning

>>568490
Actually not fucking true
https://www.blendermarket.com/products?categories=scripts-and-addons

>>568505
>>568477

Mostly these. You can create professional work with Blender, but intermeshing with others on projects and also not having millions of dollars in funding for research hurts Blenders approach. Like someone else said, Blender also had a very bad reputation in the past, where it was actually trash like is still being parroted as of now. It's very hard to get rid of a rep, but at least they're trying. Use Blender if you want, it's more the artist than the software, though not entirely.

>>568447
Most likely pipeline. I heard blender is pretty unintuitive and complicated but I also heard that it's very good software and its growing. And people are just conservative and horrible persons in general so they say shit.

>>568489
> most popular sculpting software
> mentions it all the time anyway
Do you feel it? The heat — soft at first but it's growing — when other softwares like 3D coat breathing down your neck? You don't change in the face, you try not to think about it but something is there, going in the back of your head like a tick, pulsing: "Am I safe?"
No, buddy. No software can rule alone forever. Count your blessings, z-kid, your time is almost up.

>>568517
>not fucking true
>posts unrelated link to back up baseless point

>>568517
Ok, if a company wants to release modifications to the Blender program itself, it must follow GPL. Plugins are not derivative versions of Blender and are instead separate programs which have the ability to interface with Blender and exempting the authors from having to GPL their work and open source it.

Blenderfags are so pathetic. What Grimes is to /mu Blender is to /3 even when there are dozens of better alternatives out there.

>>568555
>mayafag trying to defend his abandonware

>>568555
(You)

>>568555
"Dozens of better alternatives"
Alright hotshot. Name 12 other programs that can do everything blender can. And they have to be free.

File: file.png (11KB, 363x149px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 363x149px

Blender fags, help me.

In maya blendshapes properly are send into the fbx so I can put it in unity and unreal, where I can change them at will.

However in blender they just never get passed along, maybe because they are called shape keys instead.

How do I export it to preserve my blend shapes? Youtube videos aren't helping

>>568571
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvjwTnS6vhA

>>568572
I was hoping for actual blendshape values rather than blending between animations but I guess that's just how it has to be.

>>568574
you can only export either frames or actions to unity.
you can just create actions for your shapes i guess, but im no animator

>>568575
what are these actions?

>>568574
Never messed with Unity, but this guy claims it's possible. Quick google search comes up with this.
http://answers.unity3d.com/questions/615216/importing-blend-shape-animations-from-blender.html

>>568571
>>568574
Also apparently you have to turn off "Apply modifiers" in the geometry tab. If you hover it, there's a warning that it'll disable shape keys. (Which is why you'll need to apply modifiers before export.)

>>568588
This worked. thanks lads

>>568477
If you develop addons for blender you can sell them, you do not have to give them away for free.