![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
this sounds a bit silly. :) i think it should be described like here: http://www.blender.org/cms/History.53.0.html
There is so much editing to make this article NPOV that I hardly think its worth it.
Okay, here's the deal: 2.37a is the current stable Blender version. That's what the web site currently recommends you to download. 2.40 currently exists in form of alpha releases. So please, if you stick a new version to the infobox, at least make it clear that that's the real version to download. Perhaps the infobox should have separate stable and preview release numbers, as in, say Mozilla Firefox article, but I don't know how they did that voodoo there. Also, at this point, I don't think it's really yet that important to ramble on the new features, especially if that rambling only consists of links to changelogs / release notes. -- Wwwwolf 18:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Just to let you know. The purpose of the featuring an article is both to point readers to the article and to highlight it to potential contributors. Gronky 19:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
{{User:Protocoldroid/User blender}} shows:
![]() | This user supports the Blender Software Project |
--
Protocoldroid
03:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I removed the last sentence of the "Advanced Features" section, which read:
If someone knows what this was supposed to mean, could you please clarify it and add it back in? Thanks. -- Mark Yen 02:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
How it is possible to know there is 250000 Blender users? Besides, this number has been here for ages and has surely changed. I tried to remove it but somebody put it back.
Probably same person who removed a link to free library of Blender materials I added ( http://www.tellim.com/texture_cd/). This link is also on official Blender site so I don't see why it should be removed. As a matter of fact, I will go and put it back to Development.
Seriously, the development section has to be trimmed a lot. Wikipedia article is supposed to tell about the application broadly, as in "what the application is capable of". Yes, release history is important, but it needs to document the broad changes, too. As in "Blender 2.42 was a giant honkin' patch that added a lot of features that were used in ED movie, like (this) and (that) and (the another)." Nobody, nobody is interested to hear that it had "new python scripts" or that Blender finally has a loop/path select. The latter goes in the features section. No wait, no one needs to hear about that in features section - any more than you can learn that "Wow, Blender has the surprisingly amazingly uncommon tool to select and - knock me down with a feather - remove Mesh Vertexes."
I'm not saying it doesn't matter. I'm saying this is an encyclopaedia: compact, relevant information for people who have no idea what this software does and what's so special about it. -- wwwwolf ( barks/ growls) 22:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Anyone heard of Blender Publisher? 80.47.32.66 14:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
is there any particular reason Ogre particularly is listed in the "See Also" part? 216.152.208.1 01:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I can't say for sure, but blender is commonly used to make OGRE models, and a Blender->OGRE plug in is linked from the Blender3D webpage. -- I80and 23:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
well, im sure Blender is used for a lot more than just OGRE models, and there are many other exporters on the Blender3d site as well. i don't see any reason to single out OGRE specifically, and not have anything else too. 216.152.208.1 19:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Is blender advanced enough to be listed on the compositing page as a professional tool? (Or is that list itself a bad idea that shouldn't be encouraged? I'm not overly fond of big lists of products.) -- kop 03:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm no expert at compositing, but Blender does have a very rich, modular, and powerful compositing mode that can be expanded. I'd say yes, but I have very limited experience with other packages, so I can't say for sure. -- I80and 23:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
It's compositor is currently mostly integrated its rendering pipeline so it isn't currently directly comparable. I'd suggest waiting till at least the next release before doing so. LetterRip 10:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay. The article has tons of web references... but looks like I was the first one to add a <ref> to the article. Anyway, all of the web citations should use the {{ cite web}} template rather than just an external link. Would be cool if the links would be checked and citations would be made consistent. -- wwwwolf ( barks/ growls) 16:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Someone suggested a merger of Suzanne (Blender primitive) and Suzanne Awards into this article.
For the blender primitive, I think it definitely needs to be it's own article, just like the utah teapot and some other 3d object I see around here.
The suzanne awards also deserves an article of it's own especially that the award is awarded annually and there's bound to be entries on who's getting an award for what and it'll keep bloating by itself. Already there's four categories that can be expanded upon. It's totally separate of what a wikipedia entry on blender is supposed to be. So, if nobody minds (that is, a concensus can be reached) let's remove the two proposal on the page. ~ Feureau 14:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
This article is, in quite a few places, rather poorly worded or written. I was hopping others would join me in simply passing it through a bit of an editorial process, one which I have already begun. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zbobet2012 ( talk • contribs) 05:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC).
I made a neat little animation using the rigid body dynamics animation system. Should I upload the video/screen captures? - 24.218.139.94 03:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Just added a short note about Plumiferos. I would like to note that the project seems to be very important to the Blender Foundations, and that developers try to satisfy their "this is what happens when Blender is used in production" requests and bug reports readily. Unfortunately, it's difficult to find references to this. Any ideas? - UncleZeiv 19:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
New version, new features and a new site look&feel.
It would be nice if the link in right upper corner (www.blender3d.org) will be changed to www.blender.org since it redirects to blender.org. Maybe a new picture that demonstrates one of blenders many :) new capabilities. Sorry for my 0.1 cent english. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Presmute ( talk • contribs) 11:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC).
Is Blender really CAD software? So much as I know it is not. I think it should be removed from "Computer-aided design software" category. 88.196.38.179 21:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Blender Version 2.4
I haven't added this to the main page because I think its secondary information that users can get by clicking on the discussion tab. Ton Roosendal announced the features list for 2.4 on the developers forum and it looks like many things will be added to blender including support of stack based shape manipulators (ala 3DsMax). There will be other major changes.. I don't know if I have the abilities to make the necessary documentation changes to Wikipedia's main blender page documenting all the current features of blender.. It seems the page could go through a bit of a makeover. Also note all the external links below the page (including mine, to my video tutorials) probably should be removed because they detract from the page. But as long as they are there I thought I would link my page. The "Star Trek" link seems not to exist so I annotated it as "dead". Whoevers that is should remove it, or redirect it. -- Rofthorax 11:43, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Blender V.6.0 is the newest speculated version of a series of Blender Game and animation programs. It is designed under the overall supervision of Ton Roosendaal.
Blender V.6.0 is believed to have newer capabilities such as better GUI, animation organisation, and the newest capability, Futuristic Templates.
There will be NO new GUI or something. The new thing is, that the user can fully customize the GUI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.4.204.242 ( talk) 15:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Goals for after 2.4 haven't really been set - 2.4 has additional targets for Project Orange particularly multipass rendering and general rendering engine improvements (likely motion blur, and improved anti aliasing), also you left off 16 bit per channel support for renders - also more improvements in the animation tools are planned (particularly the SOC project on constraints will be integrated). For after 2.4 there is a desire to add additional customizing in particular customizable keybindings and menus (not a priority for Ton but it is for many other developers).
I've removed the "Artists using Blender" section and "Usage in the media industry" as none of the other articles on 3d software have such sections that I know of. I've also nominated that this article get checked for neutrality. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.83.126.45 ( talk) 08:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC).
The last external link leads to an 'under construction' page. I therefore think that this is an advertisment, of if it isn't should be removes anyways. I will remove it for the time being. Sorry if this is the wrong thing to do.
207.112.75.26 ( talk) 21:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
May a sentence be add to tell if Blender use the GPU for rendering ? I honnestly don't know and I think this information has its place here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.190.208.38 ( talk) 11:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Is the part of source code of Blender that actually draws the images on the screen available in C? I'd be interested to download it. -- 212.149.219.120 12:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! - 212.149.219.120 12:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Don't forget that the license is GPL and therefore all changes + your code has to be made public (with your redistribution) again under GPL. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.4.207.44 ( talk) 20:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Clarifying, the source only needs to be made available if you distribute your modified version, but giving code back is pretty much universally regarded as the friendly thing to do. Grandmartin11 ( talk) 04:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Link doesn't seem to be working... AnonMoos ( talk) 03:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
There is overlap between Blender (software) and .blend (file format). I propose that .blend (file format) be merged into Blender (software). Tcrow777 Talk 08:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
"whereas software like AutoCAD requires around 2 GB" AutoCAD is not the same type of software. maybe more informative to compare to other 3d modelers? 2z2z ( talk) 13:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
The .blend file format is *mostly* backwards and forwards compatible, but there are exceptions - a bug in the file format means that files saved in 2.32 or later with themes will cause problems in earlier versions, for example. This claim should be removed or rewritten in a better way.
I also had problems, once, using files created on a 64-bit small-endian Alpha machine with a 32-bit big-endian SGI box. I presume that the same issue would exist trying to open older files of this type. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.217.234 ( talk) 02:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Version 2.32 is totally irrelevant in year 2008 with blender 2.45. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.4.204.242 ( talk) 16:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I've removed:
I did so because I could think of no way to make these claims seem anything other than purely subjective without being weasel worded. In my experience, Blender is no harder to learn (nor necessarily faster) than any other 3D suite. -- Wapcaplet 23:30, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
I disagree. Blender's UI is notoriously hard to learn. A very popular piece of software, Cinema4D is a walk in the park compared to it. I think something should be mentioned, but I agree wording it well is important.
I agree! Blender's UI is NOT hard to learn. Mayas + Max are really bad. Lightwave3D was also nice. Cinema 4d is just confusing for blender users. (and maybe the way arround)
Blender's UI is just far more complicated than need be. Lesser Shadow ( talk) 11:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to find the Minimum system requirements for running Blender, but I haven't had luck so far. If you know where to find that, please post. Looked on blender.org, blenderartists.org and google. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sevenzark 7 ( talk • contribs) 04:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
The first link in the "Comparison with other 3D software" section is outdated and misleading. I think the other two links give enough information anyway so there's no need to keep the first. Six Ways ( talk) 15:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I added a tag to update the article, It needs to be updated to reflect the final 2.5 release, most of the information refers to 2.4x. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shotalot ( talk • contribs) 06:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
As the Features section currently reads, it sounds like Blender has both import and export capabilities for the FBX format. Due to that sentence in this article, I installed Blender so that I could use it to edit an FBX model I bought, only to discover that unlike the OBJ, DXF and COLLADA formats listed in that sentence, the FBX format is only available on Blender's "File / Export" submenu, not on the "File / Import" submenu. I made a two-word edit [7] to help keep others from stumbling into the same "trap" as I did, only to have the edit promptly reverted. [8]
Am I missing something here? Is there an FBX import feature hidden somewhere that I'm not noticing, or is FBX import available as a plug-in or something?
The only other reason I can think of as to why I might have been reverted is because that sentence conflates the Python scripting capability with the import/export capability, so technically the sentence as it stands is correct because it would be possible to write your own FBX importer using Python. If that's the case, then I think the solution is to list the out-of-the-box import/export capabilities (listing only the most significant formats) on a separate line from the Python line, so that adding "(export only)" after FBX would be unambiguously correct. That change is what I plan to do if nobody replies here soon. Red Act ( talk) 14:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted a significant number of recent edits which include highly non-neutral language and chatty dialogue style writing. These strike me as entirely inappropriate, even ignoring the personal attack which was bot-reverted. I have reached my 3 revert limit on this and will not be reverting further, but hope other editors will agree and continue to revert similar edits, as George100 has (thanks!).
The lead of this article is not where there is work required. What is necessary is to find more reliable, independent sources which discuss blender (eg, are there any reviews of the newest release?) and those opinions or facts can be introduced into the body of the article before being summarised in the lead. GDallimore ( Talk) 13:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Looks like this is the right place to discuss what to update and "how" - though we will likely disagree on various style details, my interest is in improving and updating the Blender (Software) page. I thought I had started out simply enough by making a very minor change; that did not go well. Further more extensive updates, were also a problem. I would like to work together with all concerned to move forward. So, to that end... What section, or sections, do you believe deserve the most attention? Apparently a "top-down" update is not preferred so perhaps a "piece-by-piece" approach will be more acceptable.
I can provide references to external/independent versions of content for consideration before applying to the Wikipedia page to prevent any further "edit war" situations. Jambay ( talk) 19:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
What I meant by "external/independent versions of content" was having a separate page with my content "suggestions" for review prior to updating wiki in order to prevent edit disputes.
As for "3D modeling is both an art and a science." - seems perfectly reasonable to me. That should be followed by information about the technical and creative aspects relating to 3D modeling and how one might go about applying those skills and principles using Blender. Perhaps this doesn't belong in the Blender article, though I believe it applies.
Jambay ( talk) 20:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Appreciate the comment, to clarify, you would rather see a reference, such as 3D_modeling (see Models section). That is much more detailed and separates the "art", "science", and other categories rather than making a simple statement within an article? Jambay ( talk) 23:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip - only just getting started so if I find bad examples, if you let me know they are such will do my best not to repeat. However, it seemed relevant :) Jambay ( talk) 23:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not gonna put a {{citation needed}} tag after the section about Suzanne, but where does the information come from? I would like to read the source if it's available. It would also be good for the article to put one or two references in or after the section. — Kri ( talk) 15:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Does Blender have a website where you can get models? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.44.144.215 ( talk) 18:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
(1)Why is there an Apple.Inc portal here.
(2)Can Blender do 2.5D? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.48.207 ( talk) 19:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
The content in the Ton_Roosendaal article can easily be explained in the context of Blender_(software)#History, and the Blender article is of a reasonable size in which the merging of Roosendaal will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Furthermore, there are many issues with the Ton Roosendaal article that I have raised in the Talk page. Even if a merge is not necessary, I do believe that such a page cannot stay as is.
-- -Miranda ( talk) 11:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I would personally like to know how it compares good and bad to other software, otherwise, it reads a bit like a marketing blurb. Surely there are reasonable reviews/critiques that can be quoted from and cited? I notice on this page that someone said that it had a 'idiosyncratic' interface. Sounds interesting... does anyone else think this? Is this a common criticism? -- Vryl 19:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Some expansion must take place in this article on Blender so as cover the newer versions 2.71b an 2.72a, and also the 2.73a that just came out, and the changes it has gone through in a list. The description of each individual release must be terse and to the point, similar to the article on Ubuntu, another piece of open-source software. In that article each release distro gets a description, varying in length depending on how drastic the change is.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Blender (software). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
http://www.blender.org/download/ Blender 2.76b was released on November 3, 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.217.255.18 ( talk) 11:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
I have made attempts to find out how easy or difficult it is to use the program. So far, neither the company, nor the person who created the tutorial videos for the program have returned my message. Is there anybody that can address this important issue? 173.86.61.122 ( talk) 04:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Blender (software). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Blender (software). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I was wondering why Blender is placed within the Category:Technical communication category. The article doesn't mention it and I can't see the immediate connection. - Shiftchange ( talk) 06:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
many people find the newer version of blender unusable because of its very complicated ui.
https://blenderartists.org/forum/showthread.php?312290-Blender-UI-needs-serious-improvements-(Andrew-Price-is-right!) https://soundcloud.com/andrew-price/episode-8-a-change-of-plan
back in blender 2.49 it was easy and intuitive to make basic pictures games and animations. now i cant figure out how to do anthing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.63.109.13 ( talk) 15:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Blender (software). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
The top of the page displays a red link for Bpython, and should be removed, unless the page is created. Balon Greyjoy ( talk) 00:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Recomended graphics card is capable dual mointor 4k each, and 30 bit color without mention, that mentioned cards ("NVIDIA GTX 1080 or better, AMD Radeon RX 580") are not capable of this!!! Only Nvidia Quadro and Amd Radeon Pro are capable display 30 bit color per pixel... I think your recommendations can be user confused, and lead to wrong buing decision. One can think that if he/she buy top consumer card (NVIDIA GTX 1080 or better, AMD Radeon RX 580) he/she gets 30 bit color but he/she fail with this shortly after delivery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.146.103.209 ( talk) 06:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 15:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 22:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/87.241.196.145, particularly Special:Diff/868615800 and attempts to introduce unreliable sources into the article (such as those related to reverts Special:Diff/871048150 and Special:Diff/870984152). 84.250.17.211 ( talk) 16:48, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Blender Game Engine will be deleted in Blender 2.8. [1] One of the best replacements for it is Armory.
Information about it was added to the article ( 1, 2), but was later removed. I think that it should be added to the article in the section WebGL authoring because it supports WebGL, maybe in another section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.241.196.145 ( talk) 03:18, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
References
What if we created a new category for Blender, along with articles on several projects derived from Blender such as the Blender Artists Forums (website: http://blenderartists.org/forum, among the most popular forums for Blender), Blenderart Magazine (website: http://blenderart.org, a free, downloadable magazine with each issue handling a particular area in 3D development) and Blendernation (website: http://www.blendernation.com, a site with articles and new on Blender and all surrounding it)?
That would hold articles such as the one on Elephants Dream.
Blender is significant enough to deserve it's own category.
As previously mentioned, Suzanne is indeed not significant enough to have her own article so I agree that we should merge that article with the one on Blender (software).
I agree. Plus i would like to give some tips to any who need help with blender (software) as i am currently in production of an animated movie. Elavery1 ( talk) 07:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
I wanted to consolidate the bullet points in the Features section into prose which somewhat flow into each other. The outcome is listed below. Some of these changes may not feel right, such as the case of both a Rendering section in Features and another separate Rendering Engine section. Make further adjustments as you see fit.
– XYZt ( talk | contribs) – 11:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
3DS Max and Maya are linked in See Also. Should they be removed? They're already linked in several navbars below. Or should the section be expanded to include other popular pieces of 3D software like Cinema4D? codl ( talk) 10:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
I have removed the section (just a table). I do not feel this is suitable for an encyclopedia entry. It does not even say what version. It suggests "2.80 and later versions". UserTwoSix ( talk) 02:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Hardware | Minimum | Recommended | Production-standard |
---|---|---|---|
Processor | 64-bit dual core 2 GHz CPU with SSE2 support | 64-bit quad core CPU | 64-bit eight core CPU |
Memory | 4 GB RAM | 16 GB RAM | 32 GB RAM or more |
Graphics card | OpenGL 3.3 compatible card with 1 GB video RAM | OpenGL 4 compatible card with 4 GB video RAM | OpenGL 4 or higher compatible cards with 12 GB or more video RAM, OpenCL 1.2+ or CUDA 3.0+, and OPTIX |
Display | 1280×768 pixels, 24-bit color | 1920×1080 pixels, 24-bit color | Dual FHD 1920×1080 pixels, WQHD or UHD, 24-bit color or HDR with 30-bit color |
Input | Mouse or touchpad | Three-button mouse | Three-button mouse and graphics tablet |
OpenGL version | 3.3 or higher (Blender 2.80 and later versions) |
I have removed the 'Blender icon' (Blender.png) image from this page. It is not the Blender icon or logo, and looks like it has been made by a third party. Unfortunately there's no logo pages on the blender website (there will be with the new site), but there's a brief history of the logo here, with some 'unofficial' usage guidelines: http://www.mopi.nl/blogo/ -- Mattebb 03:36, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have never seen the logo in the article on the Blender website or in any official documentation. -- adbabypenguin
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 11:23, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
hi I'm new to doing these talk page things but here are some changes that I will I think will benefit this page.
Mylo pinto rizvi ( talk) 10:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Email ask Ton about if Neo Geo sell Blender in box (common for software in 1980s and 1990s). I add Ton's answer here for history and research:
We never sold Blender in a box in the 90s. There might CDs and manuals from Blender on ebay or so. We don't have this here, not digital either.
— email from Ton Roosendaal (2022.07.09)
Trinhhoa ( talk) 23:46, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Why not just call them "forks"? For all intents and purposes, that's what they are. See:
https://www.blender3darchitect.com/blender-3d/list-blender-fork-projects/ JohndanR ( talk) 21:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
I propose that the section Blender (software)#Open projects be split into a separate page called Open projects of the Blender Foundation. This section takes up a significant part of the article, and is not really so much about the software itself. Zarex ( talk) 00:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
see https://www.blender.org/download/lts/3-6/ 2A02:6D40:34CD:2E01:E033:29A3:8CBD:6460 ( talk) 14:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
I see that the "Suzanne" section lacked citation, the part that says it's a reference to "orangutan Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back", I've contacted a blender dev via email and confirmed that reality is (almost) the case, however I can't seems to make a email reply as citation. LackOfInspiration1 ( talk) 02:15, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
I would like to rekindle the discussion about the proposed split for the Open Movies into their own article, as it got archived a while ago and I think it would be much more correct considering the current page isn't very granular in dealing with more things besides just the Blender software. I support the split, but will note there are not enough sources and information there for this to survive as an independent page right now. The Blender open movies get plenty of independent coverage, but we'd need to find these sources and expand that section either before moving or as part of the move edit. Pinging @ Zarex as the only unbanned user of the previous discussion. YuriNikolai ( talk) 05:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
I believe this section should be kept, but re-written. It is well-sourced and contains valuable information. I don't like that it lists random movies that used Blender. Either make a somewhat comprehensive list of such movies, or just cite a few notable ones in prose. — Hugo Spinelli ( talk) 08:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
@ Mylo pinto rizvi: I see you have been editing the article a lot.
Can you briefly summarize your ideas for changing it and updating it? Is there any particular support or feedback that I could offer? Thanks. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Consider User:Mylo pinto rizvi/Blender (software)
Mylo can you briefly answer some points
More later - please do not think too hard about answering these. I am just starting conversation and trying to get oriented. Bluerasberry (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
this sounds a bit silly. :) i think it should be described like here: http://www.blender.org/cms/History.53.0.html
There is so much editing to make this article NPOV that I hardly think its worth it.
Okay, here's the deal: 2.37a is the current stable Blender version. That's what the web site currently recommends you to download. 2.40 currently exists in form of alpha releases. So please, if you stick a new version to the infobox, at least make it clear that that's the real version to download. Perhaps the infobox should have separate stable and preview release numbers, as in, say Mozilla Firefox article, but I don't know how they did that voodoo there. Also, at this point, I don't think it's really yet that important to ramble on the new features, especially if that rambling only consists of links to changelogs / release notes. -- Wwwwolf 18:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Just to let you know. The purpose of the featuring an article is both to point readers to the article and to highlight it to potential contributors. Gronky 19:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
{{User:Protocoldroid/User blender}} shows:
![]() | This user supports the Blender Software Project |
--
Protocoldroid
03:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I removed the last sentence of the "Advanced Features" section, which read:
If someone knows what this was supposed to mean, could you please clarify it and add it back in? Thanks. -- Mark Yen 02:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
How it is possible to know there is 250000 Blender users? Besides, this number has been here for ages and has surely changed. I tried to remove it but somebody put it back.
Probably same person who removed a link to free library of Blender materials I added ( http://www.tellim.com/texture_cd/). This link is also on official Blender site so I don't see why it should be removed. As a matter of fact, I will go and put it back to Development.
Seriously, the development section has to be trimmed a lot. Wikipedia article is supposed to tell about the application broadly, as in "what the application is capable of". Yes, release history is important, but it needs to document the broad changes, too. As in "Blender 2.42 was a giant honkin' patch that added a lot of features that were used in ED movie, like (this) and (that) and (the another)." Nobody, nobody is interested to hear that it had "new python scripts" or that Blender finally has a loop/path select. The latter goes in the features section. No wait, no one needs to hear about that in features section - any more than you can learn that "Wow, Blender has the surprisingly amazingly uncommon tool to select and - knock me down with a feather - remove Mesh Vertexes."
I'm not saying it doesn't matter. I'm saying this is an encyclopaedia: compact, relevant information for people who have no idea what this software does and what's so special about it. -- wwwwolf ( barks/ growls) 22:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Anyone heard of Blender Publisher? 80.47.32.66 14:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
is there any particular reason Ogre particularly is listed in the "See Also" part? 216.152.208.1 01:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I can't say for sure, but blender is commonly used to make OGRE models, and a Blender->OGRE plug in is linked from the Blender3D webpage. -- I80and 23:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
well, im sure Blender is used for a lot more than just OGRE models, and there are many other exporters on the Blender3d site as well. i don't see any reason to single out OGRE specifically, and not have anything else too. 216.152.208.1 19:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Is blender advanced enough to be listed on the compositing page as a professional tool? (Or is that list itself a bad idea that shouldn't be encouraged? I'm not overly fond of big lists of products.) -- kop 03:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm no expert at compositing, but Blender does have a very rich, modular, and powerful compositing mode that can be expanded. I'd say yes, but I have very limited experience with other packages, so I can't say for sure. -- I80and 23:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
It's compositor is currently mostly integrated its rendering pipeline so it isn't currently directly comparable. I'd suggest waiting till at least the next release before doing so. LetterRip 10:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay. The article has tons of web references... but looks like I was the first one to add a <ref> to the article. Anyway, all of the web citations should use the {{ cite web}} template rather than just an external link. Would be cool if the links would be checked and citations would be made consistent. -- wwwwolf ( barks/ growls) 16:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Someone suggested a merger of Suzanne (Blender primitive) and Suzanne Awards into this article.
For the blender primitive, I think it definitely needs to be it's own article, just like the utah teapot and some other 3d object I see around here.
The suzanne awards also deserves an article of it's own especially that the award is awarded annually and there's bound to be entries on who's getting an award for what and it'll keep bloating by itself. Already there's four categories that can be expanded upon. It's totally separate of what a wikipedia entry on blender is supposed to be. So, if nobody minds (that is, a concensus can be reached) let's remove the two proposal on the page. ~ Feureau 14:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
This article is, in quite a few places, rather poorly worded or written. I was hopping others would join me in simply passing it through a bit of an editorial process, one which I have already begun. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zbobet2012 ( talk • contribs) 05:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC).
I made a neat little animation using the rigid body dynamics animation system. Should I upload the video/screen captures? - 24.218.139.94 03:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Just added a short note about Plumiferos. I would like to note that the project seems to be very important to the Blender Foundations, and that developers try to satisfy their "this is what happens when Blender is used in production" requests and bug reports readily. Unfortunately, it's difficult to find references to this. Any ideas? - UncleZeiv 19:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
New version, new features and a new site look&feel.
It would be nice if the link in right upper corner (www.blender3d.org) will be changed to www.blender.org since it redirects to blender.org. Maybe a new picture that demonstrates one of blenders many :) new capabilities. Sorry for my 0.1 cent english. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Presmute ( talk • contribs) 11:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC).
Is Blender really CAD software? So much as I know it is not. I think it should be removed from "Computer-aided design software" category. 88.196.38.179 21:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Blender Version 2.4
I haven't added this to the main page because I think its secondary information that users can get by clicking on the discussion tab. Ton Roosendal announced the features list for 2.4 on the developers forum and it looks like many things will be added to blender including support of stack based shape manipulators (ala 3DsMax). There will be other major changes.. I don't know if I have the abilities to make the necessary documentation changes to Wikipedia's main blender page documenting all the current features of blender.. It seems the page could go through a bit of a makeover. Also note all the external links below the page (including mine, to my video tutorials) probably should be removed because they detract from the page. But as long as they are there I thought I would link my page. The "Star Trek" link seems not to exist so I annotated it as "dead". Whoevers that is should remove it, or redirect it. -- Rofthorax 11:43, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Blender V.6.0 is the newest speculated version of a series of Blender Game and animation programs. It is designed under the overall supervision of Ton Roosendaal.
Blender V.6.0 is believed to have newer capabilities such as better GUI, animation organisation, and the newest capability, Futuristic Templates.
There will be NO new GUI or something. The new thing is, that the user can fully customize the GUI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.4.204.242 ( talk) 15:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Goals for after 2.4 haven't really been set - 2.4 has additional targets for Project Orange particularly multipass rendering and general rendering engine improvements (likely motion blur, and improved anti aliasing), also you left off 16 bit per channel support for renders - also more improvements in the animation tools are planned (particularly the SOC project on constraints will be integrated). For after 2.4 there is a desire to add additional customizing in particular customizable keybindings and menus (not a priority for Ton but it is for many other developers).
I've removed the "Artists using Blender" section and "Usage in the media industry" as none of the other articles on 3d software have such sections that I know of. I've also nominated that this article get checked for neutrality. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.83.126.45 ( talk) 08:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC).
The last external link leads to an 'under construction' page. I therefore think that this is an advertisment, of if it isn't should be removes anyways. I will remove it for the time being. Sorry if this is the wrong thing to do.
207.112.75.26 ( talk) 21:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
May a sentence be add to tell if Blender use the GPU for rendering ? I honnestly don't know and I think this information has its place here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.190.208.38 ( talk) 11:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Is the part of source code of Blender that actually draws the images on the screen available in C? I'd be interested to download it. -- 212.149.219.120 12:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! - 212.149.219.120 12:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Don't forget that the license is GPL and therefore all changes + your code has to be made public (with your redistribution) again under GPL. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.4.207.44 ( talk) 20:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Clarifying, the source only needs to be made available if you distribute your modified version, but giving code back is pretty much universally regarded as the friendly thing to do. Grandmartin11 ( talk) 04:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Link doesn't seem to be working... AnonMoos ( talk) 03:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
There is overlap between Blender (software) and .blend (file format). I propose that .blend (file format) be merged into Blender (software). Tcrow777 Talk 08:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
"whereas software like AutoCAD requires around 2 GB" AutoCAD is not the same type of software. maybe more informative to compare to other 3d modelers? 2z2z ( talk) 13:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
The .blend file format is *mostly* backwards and forwards compatible, but there are exceptions - a bug in the file format means that files saved in 2.32 or later with themes will cause problems in earlier versions, for example. This claim should be removed or rewritten in a better way.
I also had problems, once, using files created on a 64-bit small-endian Alpha machine with a 32-bit big-endian SGI box. I presume that the same issue would exist trying to open older files of this type. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.217.234 ( talk) 02:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Version 2.32 is totally irrelevant in year 2008 with blender 2.45. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.4.204.242 ( talk) 16:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I've removed:
I did so because I could think of no way to make these claims seem anything other than purely subjective without being weasel worded. In my experience, Blender is no harder to learn (nor necessarily faster) than any other 3D suite. -- Wapcaplet 23:30, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
I disagree. Blender's UI is notoriously hard to learn. A very popular piece of software, Cinema4D is a walk in the park compared to it. I think something should be mentioned, but I agree wording it well is important.
I agree! Blender's UI is NOT hard to learn. Mayas + Max are really bad. Lightwave3D was also nice. Cinema 4d is just confusing for blender users. (and maybe the way arround)
Blender's UI is just far more complicated than need be. Lesser Shadow ( talk) 11:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to find the Minimum system requirements for running Blender, but I haven't had luck so far. If you know where to find that, please post. Looked on blender.org, blenderartists.org and google. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sevenzark 7 ( talk • contribs) 04:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
The first link in the "Comparison with other 3D software" section is outdated and misleading. I think the other two links give enough information anyway so there's no need to keep the first. Six Ways ( talk) 15:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I added a tag to update the article, It needs to be updated to reflect the final 2.5 release, most of the information refers to 2.4x. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shotalot ( talk • contribs) 06:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
As the Features section currently reads, it sounds like Blender has both import and export capabilities for the FBX format. Due to that sentence in this article, I installed Blender so that I could use it to edit an FBX model I bought, only to discover that unlike the OBJ, DXF and COLLADA formats listed in that sentence, the FBX format is only available on Blender's "File / Export" submenu, not on the "File / Import" submenu. I made a two-word edit [7] to help keep others from stumbling into the same "trap" as I did, only to have the edit promptly reverted. [8]
Am I missing something here? Is there an FBX import feature hidden somewhere that I'm not noticing, or is FBX import available as a plug-in or something?
The only other reason I can think of as to why I might have been reverted is because that sentence conflates the Python scripting capability with the import/export capability, so technically the sentence as it stands is correct because it would be possible to write your own FBX importer using Python. If that's the case, then I think the solution is to list the out-of-the-box import/export capabilities (listing only the most significant formats) on a separate line from the Python line, so that adding "(export only)" after FBX would be unambiguously correct. That change is what I plan to do if nobody replies here soon. Red Act ( talk) 14:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted a significant number of recent edits which include highly non-neutral language and chatty dialogue style writing. These strike me as entirely inappropriate, even ignoring the personal attack which was bot-reverted. I have reached my 3 revert limit on this and will not be reverting further, but hope other editors will agree and continue to revert similar edits, as George100 has (thanks!).
The lead of this article is not where there is work required. What is necessary is to find more reliable, independent sources which discuss blender (eg, are there any reviews of the newest release?) and those opinions or facts can be introduced into the body of the article before being summarised in the lead. GDallimore ( Talk) 13:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Looks like this is the right place to discuss what to update and "how" - though we will likely disagree on various style details, my interest is in improving and updating the Blender (Software) page. I thought I had started out simply enough by making a very minor change; that did not go well. Further more extensive updates, were also a problem. I would like to work together with all concerned to move forward. So, to that end... What section, or sections, do you believe deserve the most attention? Apparently a "top-down" update is not preferred so perhaps a "piece-by-piece" approach will be more acceptable.
I can provide references to external/independent versions of content for consideration before applying to the Wikipedia page to prevent any further "edit war" situations. Jambay ( talk) 19:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
What I meant by "external/independent versions of content" was having a separate page with my content "suggestions" for review prior to updating wiki in order to prevent edit disputes.
As for "3D modeling is both an art and a science." - seems perfectly reasonable to me. That should be followed by information about the technical and creative aspects relating to 3D modeling and how one might go about applying those skills and principles using Blender. Perhaps this doesn't belong in the Blender article, though I believe it applies.
Jambay ( talk) 20:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Appreciate the comment, to clarify, you would rather see a reference, such as 3D_modeling (see Models section). That is much more detailed and separates the "art", "science", and other categories rather than making a simple statement within an article? Jambay ( talk) 23:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip - only just getting started so if I find bad examples, if you let me know they are such will do my best not to repeat. However, it seemed relevant :) Jambay ( talk) 23:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not gonna put a {{citation needed}} tag after the section about Suzanne, but where does the information come from? I would like to read the source if it's available. It would also be good for the article to put one or two references in or after the section. — Kri ( talk) 15:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Does Blender have a website where you can get models? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.44.144.215 ( talk) 18:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
(1)Why is there an Apple.Inc portal here.
(2)Can Blender do 2.5D? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.48.207 ( talk) 19:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
The content in the Ton_Roosendaal article can easily be explained in the context of Blender_(software)#History, and the Blender article is of a reasonable size in which the merging of Roosendaal will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Furthermore, there are many issues with the Ton Roosendaal article that I have raised in the Talk page. Even if a merge is not necessary, I do believe that such a page cannot stay as is.
-- -Miranda ( talk) 11:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I would personally like to know how it compares good and bad to other software, otherwise, it reads a bit like a marketing blurb. Surely there are reasonable reviews/critiques that can be quoted from and cited? I notice on this page that someone said that it had a 'idiosyncratic' interface. Sounds interesting... does anyone else think this? Is this a common criticism? -- Vryl 19:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Some expansion must take place in this article on Blender so as cover the newer versions 2.71b an 2.72a, and also the 2.73a that just came out, and the changes it has gone through in a list. The description of each individual release must be terse and to the point, similar to the article on Ubuntu, another piece of open-source software. In that article each release distro gets a description, varying in length depending on how drastic the change is.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Blender (software). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
http://www.blender.org/download/ Blender 2.76b was released on November 3, 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.217.255.18 ( talk) 11:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
I have made attempts to find out how easy or difficult it is to use the program. So far, neither the company, nor the person who created the tutorial videos for the program have returned my message. Is there anybody that can address this important issue? 173.86.61.122 ( talk) 04:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Blender (software). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Blender (software). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I was wondering why Blender is placed within the Category:Technical communication category. The article doesn't mention it and I can't see the immediate connection. - Shiftchange ( talk) 06:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
many people find the newer version of blender unusable because of its very complicated ui.
https://blenderartists.org/forum/showthread.php?312290-Blender-UI-needs-serious-improvements-(Andrew-Price-is-right!) https://soundcloud.com/andrew-price/episode-8-a-change-of-plan
back in blender 2.49 it was easy and intuitive to make basic pictures games and animations. now i cant figure out how to do anthing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.63.109.13 ( talk) 15:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Blender (software). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
The top of the page displays a red link for Bpython, and should be removed, unless the page is created. Balon Greyjoy ( talk) 00:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Recomended graphics card is capable dual mointor 4k each, and 30 bit color without mention, that mentioned cards ("NVIDIA GTX 1080 or better, AMD Radeon RX 580") are not capable of this!!! Only Nvidia Quadro and Amd Radeon Pro are capable display 30 bit color per pixel... I think your recommendations can be user confused, and lead to wrong buing decision. One can think that if he/she buy top consumer card (NVIDIA GTX 1080 or better, AMD Radeon RX 580) he/she gets 30 bit color but he/she fail with this shortly after delivery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.146.103.209 ( talk) 06:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 15:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 22:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/87.241.196.145, particularly Special:Diff/868615800 and attempts to introduce unreliable sources into the article (such as those related to reverts Special:Diff/871048150 and Special:Diff/870984152). 84.250.17.211 ( talk) 16:48, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Blender Game Engine will be deleted in Blender 2.8. [1] One of the best replacements for it is Armory.
Information about it was added to the article ( 1, 2), but was later removed. I think that it should be added to the article in the section WebGL authoring because it supports WebGL, maybe in another section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.241.196.145 ( talk) 03:18, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
References
What if we created a new category for Blender, along with articles on several projects derived from Blender such as the Blender Artists Forums (website: http://blenderartists.org/forum, among the most popular forums for Blender), Blenderart Magazine (website: http://blenderart.org, a free, downloadable magazine with each issue handling a particular area in 3D development) and Blendernation (website: http://www.blendernation.com, a site with articles and new on Blender and all surrounding it)?
That would hold articles such as the one on Elephants Dream.
Blender is significant enough to deserve it's own category.
As previously mentioned, Suzanne is indeed not significant enough to have her own article so I agree that we should merge that article with the one on Blender (software).
I agree. Plus i would like to give some tips to any who need help with blender (software) as i am currently in production of an animated movie. Elavery1 ( talk) 07:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
I wanted to consolidate the bullet points in the Features section into prose which somewhat flow into each other. The outcome is listed below. Some of these changes may not feel right, such as the case of both a Rendering section in Features and another separate Rendering Engine section. Make further adjustments as you see fit.
– XYZt ( talk | contribs) – 11:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
3DS Max and Maya are linked in See Also. Should they be removed? They're already linked in several navbars below. Or should the section be expanded to include other popular pieces of 3D software like Cinema4D? codl ( talk) 10:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
I have removed the section (just a table). I do not feel this is suitable for an encyclopedia entry. It does not even say what version. It suggests "2.80 and later versions". UserTwoSix ( talk) 02:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Hardware | Minimum | Recommended | Production-standard |
---|---|---|---|
Processor | 64-bit dual core 2 GHz CPU with SSE2 support | 64-bit quad core CPU | 64-bit eight core CPU |
Memory | 4 GB RAM | 16 GB RAM | 32 GB RAM or more |
Graphics card | OpenGL 3.3 compatible card with 1 GB video RAM | OpenGL 4 compatible card with 4 GB video RAM | OpenGL 4 or higher compatible cards with 12 GB or more video RAM, OpenCL 1.2+ or CUDA 3.0+, and OPTIX |
Display | 1280×768 pixels, 24-bit color | 1920×1080 pixels, 24-bit color | Dual FHD 1920×1080 pixels, WQHD or UHD, 24-bit color or HDR with 30-bit color |
Input | Mouse or touchpad | Three-button mouse | Three-button mouse and graphics tablet |
OpenGL version | 3.3 or higher (Blender 2.80 and later versions) |
I have removed the 'Blender icon' (Blender.png) image from this page. It is not the Blender icon or logo, and looks like it has been made by a third party. Unfortunately there's no logo pages on the blender website (there will be with the new site), but there's a brief history of the logo here, with some 'unofficial' usage guidelines: http://www.mopi.nl/blogo/ -- Mattebb 03:36, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have never seen the logo in the article on the Blender website or in any official documentation. -- adbabypenguin
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 11:23, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
hi I'm new to doing these talk page things but here are some changes that I will I think will benefit this page.
Mylo pinto rizvi ( talk) 10:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Email ask Ton about if Neo Geo sell Blender in box (common for software in 1980s and 1990s). I add Ton's answer here for history and research:
We never sold Blender in a box in the 90s. There might CDs and manuals from Blender on ebay or so. We don't have this here, not digital either.
— email from Ton Roosendaal (2022.07.09)
Trinhhoa ( talk) 23:46, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Why not just call them "forks"? For all intents and purposes, that's what they are. See:
https://www.blender3darchitect.com/blender-3d/list-blender-fork-projects/ JohndanR ( talk) 21:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
I propose that the section Blender (software)#Open projects be split into a separate page called Open projects of the Blender Foundation. This section takes up a significant part of the article, and is not really so much about the software itself. Zarex ( talk) 00:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
see https://www.blender.org/download/lts/3-6/ 2A02:6D40:34CD:2E01:E033:29A3:8CBD:6460 ( talk) 14:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
I see that the "Suzanne" section lacked citation, the part that says it's a reference to "orangutan Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back", I've contacted a blender dev via email and confirmed that reality is (almost) the case, however I can't seems to make a email reply as citation. LackOfInspiration1 ( talk) 02:15, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
I would like to rekindle the discussion about the proposed split for the Open Movies into their own article, as it got archived a while ago and I think it would be much more correct considering the current page isn't very granular in dealing with more things besides just the Blender software. I support the split, but will note there are not enough sources and information there for this to survive as an independent page right now. The Blender open movies get plenty of independent coverage, but we'd need to find these sources and expand that section either before moving or as part of the move edit. Pinging @ Zarex as the only unbanned user of the previous discussion. YuriNikolai ( talk) 05:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
I believe this section should be kept, but re-written. It is well-sourced and contains valuable information. I don't like that it lists random movies that used Blender. Either make a somewhat comprehensive list of such movies, or just cite a few notable ones in prose. — Hugo Spinelli ( talk) 08:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
@ Mylo pinto rizvi: I see you have been editing the article a lot.
Can you briefly summarize your ideas for changing it and updating it? Is there any particular support or feedback that I could offer? Thanks. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Consider User:Mylo pinto rizvi/Blender (software)
Mylo can you briefly answer some points
More later - please do not think too hard about answering these. I am just starting conversation and trying to get oriented. Bluerasberry (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).