On 02/10/2016 02:46 PM, Vicente Carro wrote: > They are talking about the future. Most of the comments are in future > tense, mentioning "the future" or that they are collaborating with the > "development". And please don't get me wrong, I completely agree that > Blender should support at least one of these new formats. But not instead > of FBX.
Oh sure, as I said the two things are not incompatible. But perhaps all those people who need FBX support should either donate money to Blender or hire a developer to work on that specific feature full-time, given that reverse-engineering is a time-consuming and hard task and it wouldn't be fair to take time away from features from which the whole community might benefit (as opposed to a subset of users who explicitly need compatibility with proprietary technologies). > When you see glTF(or the others) in this list ( http://www.vfxplatform.com/ > ), then we talk. Meanwhile is a very promising thing that is not there yet. > (note: Those guys are the ones that in fact set the standard in the VFX > industry. And FBX is in the list.) I'm glad that most of those things are not proprietary, except these three: Intel TBB, Intel MKL and FBX (and probably ACES as well, I'm not sure about this license [0]). My question is - what makes FBX so special compared to other formats that an exception should be made for it in a list of standardized/free technologies, other than the fact that many people use it? [0]: https://github.com/ampas/aces-dev/blob/v1.0.1/LICENSE.md _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
