Slashdot Mirror

I compiled it from their SVN repository. If I recall correctly its rather straight forward and it uses the awesome cmake build system.

http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Dev:2.5/Doc/Building_Blender/Linux

According to the page that was linked to, 2.5x does have a redesigned GUI. They use an unconventional version number scheme where 2.50-2.52 were alpha versions and 2.53-2.56 were beta, which explains why such a major change seems to have appeared with a minor version number update - it didn't, but you probably never used the 2.50-2.56 versions.

It was not only a re-design of the gui, that's just a sub product. They have redone all the underlying api to improve animation capabilities and facilitate extensions and adding of new features. Check the release log http://www.blender.org/development/release-logs/blender-257/

Sometimes it's hard to make a distinction.

I'm always looking for ways to be supportive of FSF's stances, but they are a puritan organization. As such, they present views that they know won't gain mainstream acceptance but that's ok, since something more reasonable will gain it. And that's where I stand: I don't consider words of FSF to be holy, but I will support a more "secular" view.

Same here. It's unreasonable to consider an offering "libre" to be truly possible without being fully "unpaid". Not because they are linguistically indistinct concepts, but because they are not to be expected. Licensing schemes, as they exist today for end users, typically allow software that costs thousands to develop (if not monetary, then in food) to be available for lower prices. "Splitting the cost."

Software needs funding before it exists. It's unreasonable to offer people a "donation jar" to fund software that doesn't exist yet and is unproven. Rare examples of success are not always truly success. Most software is funded a-priori in good faith that somehow one can pay it back. How? By selling a-posteriori. Selling software that must be freely copyable by the recipient is possible, and explicitly supported by FSF, this is rarely feasible nowadays if developing software is your primary work in life. This is because you will rarely have the success of Blender in order to sell other merchandise. A lot of work done under free software platforms is done by volunteers, but a lot of highest quality work is done by companies that have other means of earning money. It's really hard to get quality software written fast when it's not your primary thing in life and with free software, it's hard to make it a primary thing. And if you can't think of writing free software as of a profession because you don't have the financial backing to write free software, FSF bluntly says you shouldn't think of it as your profession. I can't dig it out right now, but it's either somewhere on FSF's site, on GNU site, or on Stallman.org.

It's easy to pretend "libre" isn't followed by "unpaid". It's also easy to see that it's just a pretense. Let's hope that FSF's list of high priority projects does prove me wrong, that you indeed can stick out a donation jar and expect the money to flow a-priori. Because then I will indeed dedicate myself to working on tons of free software projects that I've either started already, or just wanted to work on. I want to work on a good blogging tool for GNU/Linux and Mac. Can I get a-priori funding for that? Or is it easier to dismiss pride and ideals and just sell on the Mac App Store, not opening the source since something like this might happen?

If you are a talented coder who has an interested in graphics; simulation; animation; painting; video editing; digital compositing; game engines; AI; or just about anything else related to 3D animation; video editing and compositing; or games you might consider applying for Blender.

Here is a preliminary list of ideas, we are open to suggestions (in general only half of the proposals we recieve are items on the list) especially if it is something that you worked on for a school project.

http://wiki.blender.org/index.php?title=Dev:Ref/GoogleSummerOfCode/2011/Ideas

a new animated series is now in development that incorporates many open source middleware and wrappers [...] the Kinect, OpenNI, Brekel, MotionBuilder and Maya.

Maya? Not the open-source Blender?

Blender Game Engine

Insert your foot into your mouth.

Granted, I think it's much more likely that you're correct :)

There has already been controversy on the Blenderartist.org forums and on Blender mailing lists (IIRC). As Ton Roosendaal (Blender Foundation chairman) concludes in the press release Rebranding Blender, "Sunlight is the best disinfectant". It was probably with this in mind that someone submitted this /. story.

I've been telling Ton about scams like this since 2006 when they were cropping up on ebay. In fact, the old link used to be http://www.blender.org/cms/Re-branding_Blender.545.0.html . He's well aware about them, so It's good to know that he's is actually speaking out about it now.

What's wrong with distributing copies of GNU/Linux for a fee (e.g. Red Hat)? And what's wrong with distributing copies of Blender + video tutorials + clip art + other non-free goodies for a fee?

The problem is that they hide the fact that it's GPL, and they use copyrighted artwork that they do not have permission to use, and do not respond to requests to remove such content.

Read more here: http://www.blender.org/blenderorg/blender-foundation/press/re-branding-blender/

Worry not, they plan to have a new default keymap by the time the final version of 2.5 is released (i.e. by the time 2.6 is released) and that will have ctrl-z as the default for undo. I'm not entirely sure why it hasn't been done yet. I've seen some talk on the blender.devel list about issues with the configuration system, so maybe that has something to do with it. It's still on the TODO, though, so for now I still have faith that the new keymap will be included in this release.

Does anybody else think it's weird to see books being released for a beta version of Blender when Blender 2.6 will be coming out in a matter of months?

Worry not, they plan to have a new default keymap by the time the final version of 2.5 is released (i.e. by the time 2.6 is released) and that will have ctrl-z as the default for undo. I'm not entirely sure why it hasn't been done yet. I've seen some talk on the blender.devel list about issues with the configuration system, so maybe that has something to do with it. It's still on the TODO, though, so for now I still have faith that the new keymap will be included in this release.

Does anybody else think it's weird to see books being released for a beta version of Blender when Blender 2.6 will be coming out in a matter of months?

When I read the headline I thought "why would anyone care?" There are plenty of good, free engines out there already.

ioquake3
XreaL
Cube 2
Irrlicht
OGRE
Crystal Space
Blender
Panda3D

And if John Carmack doesn't go back on his word, id Tech 4 will soon be free.

Blender doesn't require installation. Just download the standalone tarball (or more likely a ZIP archive) and unpack it somewhere.

That's a response to the fuckup with the Windows installer. Blender.org used to recommend the Windows installer. Now, they write "ANOTHER NOTE: The preferred way for installing Blender is the .zip. When installing as administrator still creates problems for non-administrator users." (That last sentence isn't even a sentence.) Downloading the .zip file and unpacking it does provide a single-user install, after which the start menu icon and file association have to be set manually. It's the sort of thing the command-line crowd thinks is good enough.

On the Linux side, there's the message "NOTE: 64bit build for Linux currently broken. Will be re-uploaded when fixed."

The last Blender developers meeting reports that there are "too many 'Blender doesn't start' bugs.". Er, yes.

Blender doesn't require installation. Just download the standalone tarball (or more likely a ZIP archive) and unpack it somewhere.
Here, I'll even link to it for you: http://download.blender.org/release//Blender2.55beta/blender-2.55-beta-windows32.zip
(Or, the main download page for when that's out-of-date.)

Just drop that in My Documents, unpack, and run blender.exe.

Blender doesn't require installation. Just download the standalone tarball (or more likely a ZIP archive) and unpack it somewhere.
Here, I'll even link to it for you: http://download.blender.org/release//Blender2.55beta/blender-2.55-beta-windows32.zip
(Or, the main download page for when that's out-of-date.)

Just drop that in My Documents, unpack, and run blender.exe.

You're an applied mathematics student, so look for applied math projects. That way, you're newbie skills will be best put to use leveraging what you already know. There'll still be plenty you'll have to learn along the way, so put what you know to good use. Instead of projects like boost, sage, or octave, look for projects that have heavy applied math requirements like BRL-CAD, Blender, CGAL, and many many others.

Pick a community that interests you. Download the source code, compile and run the software, find their bug list, start fixing bugs. Introduce yourself when you have something useful to contribute (not just vaporware) or if you get stuck and need help.

Plenty of math-specific projects at http://www.dmoz.org/Science/Math/Software/ too.

You should really get in touch with Ton (the main Blender developer, head of the Blender institute and the producer of the short). Contact information is here: http://www.blender.org/blenderorg/blender-institute/

Few Hollywood movies have that result for FLOSS.

Blender Foundation has developed a reputation for helping our community in significant ways.

What do you mean by "our community" and why do I get the distinct impression from you and other FLOSS supporters that you consider FLOSS an end, not a means? I'm not even sure what goal you'd consider FLOSS to be a means to, frankly.

Non-profits that fund housing for the poor are awesome because they fund housing for the poor, not because they use "open" floor plans that can be freely reused. I think free software is awesome. I'd help any of my neighbors with modest amounts of labor for free, lend my tools, etc, because I think reciprocating good will leads to stronger communities and better overall society to live in. I would never, EVER consider the particular means to be more important than good will towards another.

You minimize the ways in which it is different with your hard to take seriously "kudos".

Blender Foundation's self stated goals are to establish services for Blender users, maintain Blender, and obtain funding for Blender.
Maybe if all you can say is "thanks for the free movies and supporting FLOSS", their goals are not as endearing to others as you think.

Ignoring your joke, but the Blender Institute is based in the Netherlands. The

The Blender Game Engine is actually quite suitable for an introductory game design course, and it has two completely free books written for learning it, plus a huge number of example games and scripts. Almost all of the logic can be scripted with 'logic bricks' (a minor amount of simple python scripts are needed for some typical behaviours).

http://download.blender.org/documentation/gamekit2/
http://download.blender.org/documentation/gamekit1/

Also see Yo Frankie - which shows what a team can accomplish in a short time

http://www.yofrankie.org/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7RRaEvWqJc

Blender itself is now quite easy to create game assets in, and works well as a level editor.

The Game Engine is not exactly cutting edge, but then cutting edge isn't of much benefit for learning game design.

The Blender Game Engine is actually quite suitable for an introductory game design course, and it has two completely free books written for learning it, plus a huge number of example games and scripts. Almost all of the logic can be scripted with 'logic bricks' (a minor amount of simple python scripts are needed for some typical behaviours).

http://download.blender.org/documentation/gamekit2/
http://download.blender.org/documentation/gamekit1/

Also see Yo Frankie - which shows what a team can accomplish in a short time

http://www.yofrankie.org/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7RRaEvWqJc

Blender itself is now quite easy to create game assets in, and works well as a level editor.

The Game Engine is not exactly cutting edge, but then cutting edge isn't of much benefit for learning game design.

I just downloaded the 480 and expanded it to fullscreen and the 1920 movies from http://orange.blender.org/download and played them both at the same time on my two identical 1920x1200 monitors. I even switched them.

Yes the 1920 is much clearer. However if I would not have them side by side, I would not mind watching the 480 one. 99MB or 815MB. Just to be sure, I also downloaded the 1024 versions, so I can see if there is a difference between avi and mov. Not that much of a difference.

Now these are watched on 24" screens. I could imagine if I had a 60" or bigger then the difference would be more noticeble, but then the distance I would watch it would be bigger as well, making it all even out again.

So if I need to select between 'normal' tv and HD, then I will stick to what I have as it is not worth the price difference.

The story, for me, is of higher importance then the quality of the medium. As long as there is a big price difference, I will stick to what I have.

WTFV (Watch The Friendly Video)

(It's the Sintel trailer...)

His test video he's watching is Sintel which is a free, open source CG movie soon to be finished.

I still have my old A1000 somewhere around here (if it didn't get thrown out, I haven't even touched it in years). I still have a genlock and video toaster. The graphics were matched by PCs and Macs about 10 years later. Sound and video were matched by PC's about 15 years later. I reminisced about Amigas quite a few years ago, after reading about the death of Jay Miner. It brought back memories and melancholy. I read the article at least 10 years ago, and it was at least 4 or 5 years old then... Still, it was a great machine. I liked it. It was a Unixy machine. Too bad it didn't have memory protection. It never caught on, which is too bad. The computing landscape is still richer because of it. The first proto version of what became Blender was written on the Amiga. In many ways, the work at Xerox PARC flowed more directly to Amigas than it did to Apples or PCs. It was just more advanced than most people wanted at the time. Pity.

Many heavy FOSS users end up contributing and occasionally leading development efforts. The myopic focus on companies that 'sell' software is not a metric that helps. If you compare the amount of licenses bought or sold, then FOSS won't show up on the chart. We saw that in the late 1990's when Microsoft marketeers went around to Fortune 500 and other companies and asked the CFO if, based on purchasing, any FOSS was used in-house. That's just letting Microsoft Marketeers (or as they now call themselves, Researchers) mince words to block out the rest of the universe. To that point, there are probably ten thousand companies that use software for every one that markets itself as a development house.

Keep focus on using the software. FOSS is more flexible and wins hands-down when the discussion is about the advantages of using the software.

I have a friend whose 14-year-old son spends all his time gaming, like any normal teenager. However, my friend would like to find a more productive interest for him and asked me how to get him into coding.

...besides gaming and coding, that is. I mean, if finding a "more productive interest" is more important to your friend as a parent, then there are other computer-related activities that involve more brainpower than simply fragging or planting imaginary fauna or flora. Why not get him into something closely related to his passion? How about game asset creation? Get him into 3D design, say, with a free program like Blender.

Remember, there are many productive activities relating to games.

He may like writing, look in to that. Writing for video games is becoming more relevant as the technology improves.

He may be interested in art:

If so, get Blender. It is a free 3d animation and modeling package w/ a very substantial community that could help him learn and it can use various scripting languages that it could encourage him to learn. Also, it has a built in game engine. http://www.blender.org/

Try to look at gaming as a large scale production and I am certain he can find some element he is good at and interested in.

I was one of those game obsessed kids. Now I am a 3D artist.

Unlike Hollywood movies, this one is open source, so you can go jump in and make it better...

http://durian.blender.org/get-involved/

Yes, this is the 3rd Blender Open Movie. 1st one being Elephant's Dream (2006), 2nd one Big Buck Bunny (2008). Durian started in 2009 only: http://durian.blender.org/2009/05/

Typical Slashdot fashion; way to be a kill joy. Anyway, I DID say almost. Read my post again.

Additionally

Short 3D animation film, 5-8 minutes -- http://durian.blender.org/about/

Now... SHOO!

If you do it early enough, your name may end up in the film credit scroll for everyone to see (see the section "DVD sponsors"). How many people are willing to pay for some ego boost?

(We discussed the beginnings of this project in 2007.)

Well, that is incorrect. You've linked to an article about Peach and Apricot projects, both of which were completed.

This is a seperate, 4th project, Durian (Orange being the first)

That's also something that can't be done with music or movies. You can't give away movie sets, cameras or unmixed multi-track recordings for free.

That depends. Some of the Blender movies do it. You can't give away physical props so easily, since they're physical, but that's a fundamental difference with physical versus digital.

I wish I had known that complicated things can't be achieved when I was younger and it would have saved me and my friends a lot of time. What you are describing is like ray tracing and that is quite impossible I know, now that you have informed me.
Blender
As far as finding the hand of the ceiling cat, that is obvious in the wonderful lulz that illuminate us.
I know what you mean about the stars, every night I look up and they wander about like fireflies with no obvious pattern.
If these techniques were already employed in other wavelengths then I might refute your statement, but alas I have no proof.

For those wondering: http://www.blender.org/development/release-logs/blender-250/
Blender 2.5.0 has a new GUI layout.

Sadly, the winner will almost certainly be edited in Final Cut Pro on a Mac ;)

No, the winner will almost certainly be edited in Blender on Linux, just like "Elephants Dream", "Big Buck Bunny" or "Sintel".

Sadly, the winner will almost certainly be edited in Final Cut Pro on a Mac ;)

No, the winner will almost certainly be edited in Blender on Linux, just like "Elephants Dream", "Big Buck Bunny" or "Sintel".

Sadly, the winner will almost certainly be edited in Final Cut Pro on a Mac ;)

No, the winner will almost certainly be edited in Blender on Linux, just like "Elephants Dream", "Big Buck Bunny" or "Sintel".

Lets not forget things like Big Buck Bunny (http://www.bigbuckbunny.org/) the whole video was made with FOSS tools. Hell, here's the list of every program/software they used:

Blender http://www.blender.org/

GIMP http://www.gimp.org/

Python http://www.python.org/

Inkscape http://www.inkscape.org/

SVN http://subversion.tigris.org/ (I think thats the right link)

Ubunutu http://www.ubuntu.com/

...and only with programs that they want you to use...

Wait, what?! How do you people not get modded down for this blatant misinformation? There are absolutely no restrictions on what applications you can run on OSX, as evidenced by the vast selection of free and open source software available for it, much of it competing directly with apple products.

I am not sure why they couldn't do like blender did, and open source it if they got enough money--or preferably public domain it. I'd probably be willing to chip in some money just out of curiosity of what they had. Being able to use their models and code might not be such a bad prospect either...

So, how, exactly, did he do this for $300? Did he do all the models and rendering in Blender, or what? How did he shoot it, and how did he then combine the rendering with the live action?

I've played with various modeling, animation, and rendering tools. It's really, really painstaking work. And nice renderings take a ridiculous amount of time on computers. I know that they are fast nowadays, but, still, you need either a bunch of computers or CUDA working for you. Did he fail to mention that maybe he used his Univ. cluster to do rendering, or something like that?

Take a look at the videos by people at Blender: http://www.blender.org/features-gallery/movies/ Some of them are well done, but they don't have this nice combination of live action with the rendered. I'm calling BS on this until I know a little more.

Silverlight DRM does not work on Linux nor do Silverlight 3 functions. The Mac version will die once SIlverlight gets real market share. See IE for Mac as previous evidence.

2D
http://www.synfig.com/
http://ktoon.toonka.com/
http://www.pencil-animation.org/
3D
http://www.blender.org/

Probably more as well, but those are the first ones I found. synfig seems like the best candidate.

Interesting you (and those who replied to you) should mention Blender's difficult interface, because that's one of the main things they're working on improving right now. Just yesterday they released the first Alpha of a the new 2.5 series, with an extensively (completely?) redesigned GUI meant to be easier and more logical to beginners, and both the GUI as well as keyboard shortcuts are now completely customizable.

Here is the page with info on it: http://www.blender.org/development/release-logs/blender-250/

The final new version (which will probably be version 2.6) is expected to be released in mid-2010.

If they were going to do this, I would suggest using Blender instead. Its open source and every bit as good as Maya 3D studio etc (From what I have read) Granted I have not used Maya myself, but look at what the pro's can do with blender http://www.blender.org/features-gallery/gallery/art-gallery/

You've been working on this for *years* without any concept of gaining critical mass within that time? WTF? ... Doesn't sound like you're a businessman. Sitting in your basement building a new technology get's you nowhere - other than 'Broke County' - if you don't have a plan or a crew to help you launch it. ... whatever ...

There is one thing you should keep in mind when building a new mocap system: MoCap is one part, the other part is its software. No matter how cheap the MoCap setup, if the software is too expensive and/or to unwieldy to integrate you won't open new markets.

See to it that your system becomes a standard on its own and is fully integrated into Blender. You have the advantage of having a leading figurehead FOSS project that intersects with your field on which you hop on to the bandwagon. Blender is gaining critical mass as we speak and it's very likely to become an industry standard as soon as they get renderman integrated. Which can't be that long anymore.

Go ask Ton Roosendaal (Blender Project Lead) about his plans on this and have a few from the coreteam look at your MoCap system. You'll be able to use the new input and contacts to get some real world experience and feedback with your system. They've just started working on the next Open Movie, Durian. If your tech is that good, maybe they can allready use it and gather some field data for you, no? On top of that, going the FOSS way isn't the worst thing to do, since you're in the hardware business.

My 2 cents.

You've been working on this for *years* without any concept of gaining critical mass within that time? WTF? ... Doesn't sound like you're a businessman. Sitting in your basement building a new technology get's you nowhere - other than 'Broke County' - if you don't have a plan or a crew to help you launch it. ... whatever ...

There is one thing you should keep in mind when building a new mocap system: MoCap is one part, the other part is its software. No matter how cheap the MoCap setup, if the software is too expensive and/or to unwieldy to integrate you won't open new markets.

See to it that your system becomes a standard on its own and is fully integrated into Blender. You have the advantage of having a leading figurehead FOSS project that intersects with your field on which you hop on to the bandwagon. Blender is gaining critical mass as we speak and it's very likely to become an industry standard as soon as they get renderman integrated. Which can't be that long anymore.

Go ask Ton Roosendaal (Blender Project Lead) about his plans on this and have a few from the coreteam look at your MoCap system. You'll be able to use the new input and contacts to get some real world experience and feedback with your system. They've just started working on the next Open Movie, Durian. If your tech is that good, maybe they can allready use it and gather some field data for you, no? On top of that, going the FOSS way isn't the worst thing to do, since you're in the hardware business.

My 2 cents.

Linux may be free, but there's no truly viable MS Office alternative, nothing that matches Exchange, there's no professional level Photoshop, there's nothing to edit videos with, nor post processing, good luck doing complex audio work

Ardour, anyone? It has been around for quite a few years, and is a really great professional grade DAW/production system. Try googling before posting something quite that ridiculous.

If you are a creative professional -- Linux is completely worthless. Sorry, but it is. I wish that were not the case, but there's no professional-level creative apps for Linux.

I guess all those Xara users, Ardour users, Cinelerra users, MainActor users, Blender users, VariCad users, Jahshaka/CineFX users, etc, are completely boned.

Of all the programs available for Linux, few are of comparable quality to those available to Windows or OSX.

That's just stupid. There are programs of poor quality on all of the major operating systems. Linux has its share of badly put-together programs, but saying that "few" are of comparable quality simply illustrates that you don't spend very much time with Linux systems or just have very poor choice in software.