Talk:Blender (software)/Archive 1

The program was initially distributed as freeware until NaN went bankrupt in 2002.
this sounds a bit silly. :) i think it should be described like here: http://www.blender.org/cms/History.53.0.html


 * I'm not so sure, the link you provided doesn't say clearly if it was free before NaN went bankrupt in 2002. To quote:
 * "...At the core of NaN was its desire to create and distribute a compact, cross platform 3D tool for free. ... NaN's business model involved providing commercial products and services around Blender. ... This over extension resulted in restarting NaN with new investors and a smaller company in April 2001. Six months later NaN's first commercial software product, Blender Publisher was launched. ..."
 * --Lemontea 08:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

NPOV
There is so much editing to make this article NPOV that I hardly think its worth it.


 * However, leaving a notable topic like this out of the scope of Wikipedia is too much a pity to bear with... --Lemontea 08:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

2.40 doesn't exist yet.
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)

On Portal:Free software, Blender is current featured article
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)

Userbox
shows:

-- Protocoldroid 03:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Confusing sentence
I removed the last sentence of the "Advanced Features" section, which read:


 * This makes it practically impossible to convert a ".blend" file to another format, although dozens of import/export scripts make it possible to convert files with little loss of information.

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)
 * Right, there you go. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

User count 250000?
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.


 * Good question I did an estimate once based on active blenderartists user base then a multiplier based on global usage. However my numbers were quite a bit lower.  The source of the 250,000 is a quote from this Blender page regarding registered users http://www.blender.org/cms/Free_Blender_Fund__ca.70.0.html  LetterRip 18:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

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.


 * Hi, I just removed that link again (although I wasn't the original remover). Textures are different from materials in the 3D industry.  A material presets library is refering to algorithmically defined materials that utilize a combination of shaders to create the material appearance.  LetterRip 19:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually there were also materials behind that link.

Wikipedia Is Not a Changelog.
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)


 * Hi I trimed it quite a bit, I think it should probably be removed entirely and instead provide an overview of what major features Blender has and then just link to the release note pages. LetterRip 18:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Trimmed it further and reorganized it. Now it provides a brief list of major changes since going open source, with a link to release notes for further details. LetterRip 19:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Publisher
Anyone heard of Blender Publisher? 80.47.32.66 14:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Blender Publisher was the name of commercial version of Blender before NaN went bankrupt, and then licensed the source code to the Blender Foundation under the GPL. LetterRip 06:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Ogre
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)
 * Agreed, and removed. qwe 02:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Compositing
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)

Cleaning of cites
Okay. The article has tons of web references... but looks like I was the first one to add a &lt;ref&gt; to the article. Anyway, all of the web citations should use the 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)

Merge the two articles?
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)
 * On second thought, it's been tagged since october, and nobody did nothing, so I'll just remove it then. If anyone objects, you can put the tag back in and leave a talk here.~ Feureau 14:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * IMO, Suzanne isn't notable enough to deserve her own article. She's unknown outside of the Blender community (unlike the Utah Teapot), which doesn't have a large enough marketshare (if that's even the right term) for specific minor mascots to have their own articles. Having a section within the main Blender article would be fine, if you think she's really notable enough. As far as the Suzanne Awards, I'd argue they're not really notable(since the audience is a fraction of the total Blender community - again, a brief mention in the main Blender article would be more than sufficient (and including an EL to an appropriate site with winners and losers). VirogIt's notmy fault! 02:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Since the Suzanne (Blender primitive) is now a redirect to this page, I suggest adding a section to explain what it is. It's not even mentioned except for Suzanne Awards; on the other hand, the Suzanne Awards page does not even explain why the awards are named so. I may add a section myself as soon as I find some more precise background and historical information - UncleZeiv 22:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning up the grammar and language issues
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).


 * Agreed. I just made some small changes in the hope to improve wording in the first part of the article. If those changes are agreed upon, I would like to continue. I am afraid that eventually, though, some reorganization of the article will be needed anyway. UncleZeiv 23:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "I was hopping others would join me" Tee hee. You'll be checking for typos will you? Oh mercy.

Video
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)

Plumiferos
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)

Blender 2.43 - New Version (18.02.2007)
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).

Category:Computer-aided design software
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)
 * Not sure - what is the purpose of the category? Blender is not a real CAD app I'd say, but it can be used for simple CAD tasks - so might make sense to have it in the category. --Allefant 11:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't found much information about this topic:, this feature isn't also mentioned in Blender's manual and even in current article.


 * While searching on Blender's website I found one old (2003-2005) topic:  and one dead project:.


 * It seems that Blender isn't desinged for CAD and it's support isn't planned.


 * So, what do others thinks about it?
 * 88.196.38.179 19:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It really depends on the 'type' of CAD one wants. It exports to standard CAD formats; its output is used for the input of machining tools.  People use it for unit precise drawings.  However it doesn't do CSG (Constructive Solid Geometry) and to do dimensioning it requires external scripts. LetterRip 04:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 'Computer Aided Design' is obviously a ridiculously broad term, but by use 'CAD' has come to mean something akin to "used to create 2d dimensioned drawings", as opposed to 3D modeling software which Blender is. Sure, software in both categories overlaps alot more than it used to, but if we were to put Blender in the 'cad' category, we'd have to do the same for a ridiculous number of other 3d modeling applications, none of which (including Blender) are commonly used for this purpose Miscreant 08:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually many CAD users would not consider '2d drawings' to be CAD - Ie most CSG users do not consider 'mere drafting' to be CAD. Often times a product isn't in a category due to marketing and segmentation interests of the parent company.  Blender and QCad are the only things in the 'Free CAD software' list that actually are reasonably considered CAD. "we'd have to do the same for a ridiculous number of other 3d modeling applications" not really - at a minimum I'd expect any CAD software to support CAD format standards DXF and/or STEP and/or IGES at a minimum.  "none of which (including Blender) are commonly used for this purpose" - from blenderartists.org it appears that Blender is used a fair amount for this type of work.LetterRip 07:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If you can find some appropriate projects on the internet that use Blender in a CAD setting, I might be more convinced of your argument. I cant find much at all on blenderartists.org of these sort of projects. Also, as a side point, i think you'll find most vector graphics software 2d or 3d supports DXF import/export. Software I mean that you'd have to call 'CAD' if you decided to include Blender in the definition is other 3d modelling software like 3dsmax, maya, etc. or even more related 2d packages (Adobe Illustrator, inkscape, etc.), all of which will import/export DXF as blender does Miscreant 14:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Blender Versions (News)
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 Version 2.4

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.


 * I've no idea if this stuff is correct; nothing of the sort is mentioned on the Blender homepage, and a google search for 'futuristic templates' turns up nothing in the context of blender. I've followed Blender's development for many months and haven't heard anything about it. The original contributor for that article seems to have disappeared, so I vote to just scrap all of it if it can't be confirmed. -- Wapcaplet 16:57, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * That's 100% bullshit. I am one of the devs and one of the major Blender rules is "no high version numbers". So the next version of blender will be 2.46. The version with the refactored event system will be version 2.50.

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).

This article sounds too much like an advertisment for Blender than an objective article on the program.
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).


 * Hmm I'm not sure why other articles not having those sections make it an 'advertisement' - most of the other articles on 3D tools are extremely poorly done and incomplete. However a brief search reveals that although they don't have specific sections for such content, the articles contain such information within them - ie the ZBrush article "it is used by companies ranging from ILM to Electronic Arts"; and in the Maya article "Alias worked with Sony Pictures Imageworks" (and a specific mention of Spiderman 2).  Personally as a someone reading about 3D software - significant work related to the software is something of interest. LetterRip 19:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I see no problem in an article about a movie or work that was created primarily with one 3d program to cite the tool used, but a section in an article about the tool citing creations made though use of the tool is pretty much the same thing as the gallery page at a 3d tool's homepage. It's there to sell the tool. The other articles about 3d programs that have comments about what studios use them and what works were created with them should get cleaned up too, but this Blender article is by far the biggest offender. 71.83.126.45 07:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Anything the reflects positively on a tool would act as an 'advertisement' for, and anything within an article that reflects negatively on a tool would act as an 'advertisement' against. The only questions are - is the information accurate; is the information provided something that would be of interest to a reader about the topic.  If I read about Maya or ZBrush I most certainly want to know of some important or significant works that are associated with those tools.  Also if you are refering to mentions of Elephants Dream - it was a project created and executed by the Blender Foundation as a specific tool to improve the features of Blender - not mentioning it would be a major omission.  Also a large scale commercial feature animation that uses a single 3D tool almost exclusively for its content creation pipeline is unheard of in the 3D industry - thus the mention of Plumiferos is relevant.  If there was a mention of other less significant stuff (ie Blenders usage for some animatic work in Spiderman 2; or Blenders usage in the XMen game for modeling) then I would agree that it shouldn't be present.  If you mean the 'artists using Blender' I don't see how that can really be construed as 'advertising', but certainly wouldn't object to its removal. LetterRip 06:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed (with statement above). Clearly, stating the capabilities of the suite still falls within the range of neutral assessment. Now withholding said information -- that could be construed as malicious and (anti)competitive. Furthermore, any public developments of relevance associated with it are also truthful and informational, and as such they belong in the page. The removal of the "Noted Artists" section I would support, or rather, its renaming: "noted" is not a deterministic a criteria as everyone has a different idea of the qualifications are. A more clear-cut designation probably would work better (e.g., Blender artists that achieved public notoriety beyond the community.) CubOfJudahsLion 20:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you're also missing the fact that Blender is fundamentally different from other packages, because it is free and open source. That large commercial projects are using it is of interest, more so than learning that they used a commercial package. I'm a professional 3D animator who uses another package, and I was quite interested to see what Blender had been used for - apart from Ele-berloody-phants dream.--202.63.45.194 (talk) 12:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Blender external link advertisment
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)


 * No, you did the right thing. We might re-add it when they finish the website. Thanks for pointing that out. :)  RC-0722 communicator/kills 15:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Does Blender use GPU for rendering ?
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)

Source code
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)
 * Yes, complete sources are available: http://www.blender.org/download/source-code/ --Allefant 16:22, 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)

Official Blender Model Repository
Link doesn't seem to be working... AnonMoos (talk) 03:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

File format merger
There is overlap between Blender (software) and .blend (file format). I propose that .blend (file format) be merged into Blender (software). Tcrow777Talk 08:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed: No reason for such a small article to have its own page when it could be easily integrated. Nigholith (talk) 12:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed: This file extension won't possibly expand any further. It would always remain a stub if we leave it as an article. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Wow! I almost never get unanimous agreement! Tcrow777Talk 00:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

comparison, other software
"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)
 * I was about to say the same, AutoCad is not even 3D.84.74.173.190 (talk) 23:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the complete sentence should be removed. The reason for the smaller size is that the Blender distribution is missing any examples or documentation - which is likely what takes up most space in other software. Therefore the numbers can't be compared. --Allefant (talk) 03:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Blender file compatibility
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)

Blender UI
I've removed:


 * It has a highly idiosyncratic user interface, which has been criticized as unintuitive but defended as very efficient. Once the initial learning curve is over, modelling with blender is faster than alternatives such as 3D Studio Max or Lightwave 3D.

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)


 * Blender's UI is perversely difficult to learn for anyone who's used to standard UI conventions. It seems that whenever there's a choice of two ways to implement something, (1) the way most PC/Mac/Atari/Linux etc programs would do it, and (2) another way, Blender deliberately chooses the other way. The usual conventions for mouse actions and modifier keys (eg. "Alt" for program UI functions, "Ctrl" for document functions) are ignored. Even selecting and moving objects with the mouse is initially a struggle, because Blender default-installs under Windows in such a way that selecting objects is done with the right mouse button rather than the left. There's no logical reason for this, other than that the GUI designers either didn't appreciate the conventions, or deliberately chose to go against them. Menus don't work the same way as in other programs. Icons aren't applied similarly to the way they appear on other programs. There's no top-level "Edit" menu with "Cut/Copy/Paste" functions. They've also implemented their local help system within the program rather than as a separately launched application, and that's imposed its own unnecessary limitations, too (no printing, no cut and paste). It would have involved less work if they'd simply implemented the local help system as a set of HTML pages, but instead, they've once again invented their own system. The "shortcut keys" listing is organised by key ("What functions can I access through the "A" key") rather than by function ("What key do I have to press to do a particular thing").


 * The alternative control system that they've developed isn't quite internally consistent. For instance, if you want to close a pane (say, the keyboard shortcut listing), it's bad enough that the usual Ctrl-F4 doesn't work and launches a whole other pane, but if you want to close that pane with the mouse, and go looking for a standard corner "close" icon, there isn't one. Rather than the usual "X" or the occasionally used "open door" (for "leave"), or even an "up" arrow (implying navigational hierarchy), they've invented their own unique "exit" icon, and horizontal left-pointing arrow. Why? Well, perhaps to someone versed in command-line programming who's never seen a modern GUI, the "backspace delete" key on the keyboard might be considered as symbolising "back", and it does have a left-pointing arrow, because back in the DOS days, deleting a character would delete it from the left side of the text cursor. So you might think, Ah, there's a (text-based programming era) reason for this symbol, and, of course, I can achieve the same effect by pressing the backspace key that the icon refers to. So you try it and it doesn't work.


 * The Windows version also has flaky mouse-handling routines and doesn't always quite do even what the programmers meant it to. Installing Blender under Windows without Python results in a message saying that not having Python doesn't matter, but then you get a screen of "hash" and objects that can't be clicked. To fix the problem, you have to assume that the only "helpful" information the program has given you so far is wrong, and that you ==do== need Python. Installing Python and rebooting then fixes the problem.
 * Then the program loads and flashes up a splash screen with a bunny on, but the thing disappears before you can read it. When you try to launch the splash screen from within the program, it disappears as soon as it's drawn itself, before you can read it. So the way that the program presents itself to the user hasn't been properly debugged.


 * So the novice user who's used other programs and wants to dip their toe into 3D graphics by trying Blender is in trouble. They can't explore the program intuitively, because the program takes no account of GUI conventions, except where it seems to be deliberately acting against them, the local help system sucks, the GUI code is flaky, and the user is then left doubly uncertain as to whether the thing they just tried with the mouse failed because that's not how the program is supposed to work, or whether it failed because the program's GUI is buggy.


 * So yes, calling Blender's user interface "unintuitive" and "highly idiosyncratic" is fair comment.
 * It's probably not so bad if you don't use the mouse and aren't aware of the usual conventions of how a user-interface is expected to work, and of course if you generate your objects programmatically using scripts, then most of this probably doesn't matter. If you're already a 3D computer graphics "pro" and your background is in script-driven modeling and command-line-driven rendering engines, then Blender probably seems reasonably straightforward compared to other similarly-arcane keyboard-driven custom graphics engines. But to someone who approaches Blender expecting it to behave like all their other windows/icons/mouse -driven software, it's a shock. It's like getting into a car and finding that you steer left and right with the gearstick, the big steering wheel in front of you is for tuning the radio, and that you go into reverse gear by fiddling with your seat adjustment controls. ErkDemon (talk) 15:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Having 200.000 tabs is also not intuitive - maya + max3d. Nono! "intuitive" is a user defined subjective thing. 195.4.204.233 (talk) 16:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that this article should have a section on the criticism of Blender's interface and responses because I think this is important to consider for people wanting more information about the program, since it is an issue that often comes for people on the beginning end of the program's learning curve. Could this be NPOV if it referenced real articles, reviews, or postings by people? -Fadookie Talk 20:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Minimum system requirements?
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)
 * They can be found here: EagleYS (talk) 11:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Outdated comparisons
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)

2.5 Rewrite
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)

FBX import?
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 to help keep others from stumbling into the same "trap" as I did, only to have the edit promptly reverted.

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)


 * Blender had fbx import functions up to and including the latest stable version, but as 2.5x is a complete rewrite that also includes the Python API, it's currently not back yet AFAIK. But as 2.6 is nearing release, it should be back, as it's probably in use quite heavily. In the meantime, one has to import through a 2.4 version, save the file and open it in 2.5. Asav (talk) 20:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits
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)
 * I've informed the editor of WP:NPOV and WP:NOTADVERTISING on my talk page.--George100 (talk) 11:48, 29 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)


 * You're making this harder than it needs to be. The whole article needs work. If you've got wp:reliable independent sources about Blender, great. Here's what to do:


 * 1) Read the sources;
 * 2) ignore what you know (it's actually easier to edit topics you know nothing about),
 * 3) find something in the source that you think is worthy of mentioning in the article,
 * 4) read the current article to see what it already says about that topic,
 * 5) either add it to the article or edit an existing part of the article to include the sourced commentary using a WP:TERSE writing style.
 * And avoid phrases like "3D modeling is both an art and a science" at all costs. GDallimore (Talk) 08:23, 1 June 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)


 * Jambay, it doesn't matter how reasonable a statement seems to you. This is an encyclopedia. Anything that could possibly be controversial should be backed by a reliable source.  If you want to write a textbook instead of an encyclopedia, try WikiBooks. —Stepheng3 (talk) 22:02, 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)


 * Eurgh. That's a dreadful article. Only one source for the entire thing! No, try something like Opera (web browser). Although, as I write, it looks like someone has been adding some random stuff to the lead paragraph, so it would be better take a look at the style and citations in the main body of the article to get an idea of how to write a good article. GDallimore (Talk) 23:12, 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)

Reference for the secion about Suzanne?
I'm not gonna put a 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)

Models
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)


 * There's Blend Swap. It's not an official Blender site, but it was used by Project Durian. --Zundark (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks dude,trick question,any Sonic models?>.> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.44.144.215 (talk) 04:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Any other sites? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.44.144.215 (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not a help site. Go ask on a blender site. GDallimore (Talk) 22:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You know that guy is me.

2 things asked by Tailsman67
(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)
 * (1) Apple portal covers every piece of software that runs on Mac OS X. Blender runs on Mac OS X.


 * (2) Huh? Fleet Command (talk) 06:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Half 3D? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.178.176.128 (talk) 13:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, half 5D. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.24.94 (talk) 05:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal
The content in the Ton_Roosendaal article can easily be explained in the context of Blender_(software), 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 agree. The page on Ton Roosendaal is quite short and it seems that it would be more appropriate on this page instead.
 * --Dude1717 (talk) 23:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't merge: I think in its current size and detail, the article on Ton Roosendaal should not be merged with Blender/History any more. First, because it contains few but relevant personal details that would not work or make sense here in this article. Second, because it describes the development centered around Ton and not so much around Blender, in higher detail than appropriate here (I think). I understand the proposal looking at the version of the article on Ton from May, but I think it has improved and become more relevant on its own. --Julian H. ( talk  ) 08:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't merge I also feel the current version is not short, so should not be merged. -- Tito Dutta  ✉  16:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I retract my proposal, much of the weasel wording and fluff has been removed/edited. I believe the article can stand on its own now. -Miranda (talk) 03:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Criticism/Comparison?
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)


 * I added a link to a comparsion chart that is being created at CGTalk. The interface (non standard usage of mouse and key bindings) are a source of criticism by many users.  LetterRip 18:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * IMO, part of the explosion in popularity of home computers in the 1980s is usually attributed to the implementation of common user-interfaces across different programs and even different platforms (Atari/Amiga/Windows/Mac/Linux) - this meant that when users had learned one program on one platform, they then knew the default behaviours and menu and key commands of almost everything else. In particular, Cut/Copy/Paste was almost universally implemented.


 * For more advanced users, the common keycommands became so ingrained that they became reflexes - Ctrl-Z for undo, Control-X, Control-C and Control-V for Cut/Copy/Paste, Ctrl-S for Save File, and so on. The standard implementation is to use the Alt key for functions that are monitored by the operating system, including the program frame and menus (so the Alt- key lets you do things like minimising and maximising the app, and gives an alternative way of accessing menu entries), and the Ctrl key for editing the current document. So where Alt-F4 closes the whole program, Ctrl-F4 only closes the document. Similarly, where Alt-Tab moves between programs, Ctrl-Tab moves between documents. It's a standardised system.


 * Blender throws all this acquired knowledge away, and invents new ways of using the interface that sometimes seem to be different just for the sake of being different. Default mousebutton behaviour of systems with two-button mice is for the left button to select an object and the right button to call up extended functions. Blender instead uses the right button for select, for reasons that nobody seems to be able to explain.


 * Similarly, Blender chooses not to use the Cut/Copy/Paste paradigm (even though it would be trivial to implement). Most software uses Ctrl-D for "Duplicate", Blender uses Shift-D, even though Ctrl-D isn't assigned to anything, so there's no reason why Ctrl-D couldn't have been used.


 * For a new user, the perverseness of the interface is frustrating as hell, not just because you don't know where anything is or how it works, but because so much of the program seems determined to avoid as many standard interface conventions as possible (for no obvious reason other than it can), that it sometimes feels as if the designers are laughing at you. If you're going to be committing to spending long, long hours using Blender, then you can teach your brain to switch between "normal computer" mode and "Blender" mode, but it's an extra and unnecessary part of the learning curve, that some users will resent and other will simply give up on before they've had a chance to do anything useful with the program.


 * Also, by ignoring the usual convention that Alt- key commands are "owned" by the operating system, non-standard Blender functions that depend on Alt- combinations are prone to breaking when a new OS release decides to use that combination itself, and no longer passes the event down to the Blender event handler (typically some combinations of Alt- with mouse actions). So some of the non-standard Blender behaviours have to be relearned again, on Blender installations where the default Blender settings don't work properly.


 * Don't get me wrong, someone's put a hell of a lot of work into Blender's advanced interface, and it represents an impressive amount of thought about user interfaces and efficiency, and for programmers who normally use a command line or write code directly, the Blender interface probably isn't any worse than the normal system (and in some ways is more sophisticated and more speedy). However, for the bulk of computer users, the degree to which Blender's interface doesn't work as expected verges on antagonism, as as a result, I think that a lot of people who might otherwise enjoy using Blender casually (say, for a quick one-off project), don't. I've now used Blender for a few projects and found it really valuable, but because of the GUI issue, I never feel that I can recommend the program to people. Which is a shame. ErkDemon (talk)


 * There are reasons for all these decisions that, in my opinion, become obvious when using Blender for a long time. One is that, if you learn 200 key bindings, it's more important that they are internally consistent than that 5 of them are consistent with other tools. Ctrl C / Ctrl V work for many things just as you would expect them to work. The ownership of the Alt-key by the OS is nothing I can observe in a Table of keyboard shortcuts.


 * There are surely a handful of things that are unusual, but I think your list is an exaggeration and in comparison to what you have to read and learn anyway to be able to use a tool like Blender, I would say these points are close to irrelevant. I never feel like I have to switch between normal-mode and Blender-mode. And if someone doesn't like a key binding, changing it is very easy, the same applies to the usage of lmb and rmb. — Julian H. ✈( talk  ) 16:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Expansion

 * Dear Julian H. ( talk  ) and Dude1717 (talk),

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.
 * Sincerely, FDJK001 (talk) 07:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the way this is done in the German language article is actually pretty good, that could be used as a basis I think. — Julian H. ✈( talk  ) 10:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It is good. I'll use that as a model. The software was originally Dutch but the German article is the better one. Peculiar. Thank you.
 * FDJK001 (talk) 20:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC).

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Blender (software). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071023161523/http://worldsbestlogos.blogspot.com:80/2007/10/blender-logo.html to http://worldsbestlogos.blogspot.com/2007/10/blender-logo.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150523144608/http://www.blender.org/development/release-logs/blender-257/ to http://www.blender.org/development/release-logs/blender-257/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Blender 2.76b is the latest stable release from the Blender Foundation
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)

Ease of use
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)


 * I don't think you will ever get a satisfying answer to such a question because whether something is easy or difficult is mostly subjective. --Maths314 (talk) 09:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Blender (software). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070304080023/http://www.blender.org:80/development/release-logs/blender-240/ to http://www.blender.org/development/release-logs/blender-240/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090120083347/http://www.blender.org:80/development/release-logs/blender-248 to http://www.blender.org/development/release-logs/blender-248/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090611183623/http://www.blender.org:80/development/release-logs/blender-249/ to http://www.blender.org/development/release-logs/blender-249/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Blender (software). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110720000311/http://ocw.tufts.edu/Course/57 to http://ocw.tufts.edu/Course/57

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Category
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)

add critical response section
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)


 * Neither is a reliable source, which is definitely required for critical coverage: anyone can have an opinion and put it online on a BBS or in a podcast. If it really is a widespread issue you would expect it to be picked up by mainstream sites, or reported in a reputable review.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 16:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161109103037/http://libregraphicsworld.org/blog/entry/whats-up-with-dwg-adoption-in-free-software to http://libregraphicsworld.org/blog/entry/whats-up-with-dwg-adoption-in-free-software

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Remove the Bpython link
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
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)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Blender 2.79.png

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Blender Version 2.570.jpg

COI editing
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)
 * This was actually a copyvio. 84.250.17.211 (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Armory (game engine)
Blender Game Engine will be deleted in Blender 2.8. 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)
 * Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or unverifiable information. It is a collection of what other reliable, verifiable and independent, secondary sources say. 84.250.17.211 (talk) 04:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC) ; edited 04:34, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Create a new category?
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've changed a lot of things!
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.

Relocations

 * Feature subsections shuffled into what roughly correspond to a workflow in Blender.
 * Images in the gallery into appropriate sections.
 * Release history and hardware & software support info are put into a new Releases section.
 * User interface gets its own section, since Features was getting too big.
 * The existing Cycles section gets merged with Eevee & other rendering engines.

Removals

 * Some unsourced phrases such as "fully-functional" which promote certain Blender features.
 * Redundant images

– XYZt (talk  &#124;  contribs) – 11:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Links to other 3D software in See Also
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)
 * By MOS:NOTSEEALSO, links should not be repeated. Feel free to remove them. – K4rolB (talk) 11:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Makes sense, thanks. ✅. codl (talk) 12:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Hardware requirements
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)

Logo usage
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

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
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)
 * Experience curiosity1.png
 * What are the rules (are there "rules"?) for screenshots of NASA-made computer programs? Has the US government bothered to make up such rules yet?Jimw338 (talk) 17:26, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

To-do list
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)

¿Original Neo Geo Blender Have Box?
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."

Trinhhoa (talk) 23:46, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

"Modified Versions"
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)

Splitting proposal
I propose that the section Blender (software) 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)


 * Oppose split: I scanned about half the section and saw only one citation that looked like it could be an independent possibly reliable source. The section is full of self-published, primary sources and WP:RSPYT. -- Yae4 (talk) 21:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

3.6.1 is actual version of 3.6 LTS
see https://www.blender.org/download/lts/3-6/ 2A02:6D40:34CD:2E01:E033:29A3:8CBD:6460 (talk) 14:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've added 3.6.1 to Wikidata, so the infobox now shows the correct version. --Zundark (talk) 17:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

On the citation of origin of "Suzanne"
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)


 * You can't use personal correspondence as a citation, it has to be published somewhere the readers can verify. MrOllie (talk) 02:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll try to talk them into put this on his website. LackOfInspiration1 (talk) 02:24, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Split proposal
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)


 * Arlo James Barnes 18:35, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

"Use in industry" section
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)

Major rewrite?
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)


 * I've been thinking about a major rewrite for a while but I've been wary to actually do it due to time and also because I'm still quite new to wikipedia and I was hoping for a second opinion. At the moment the page has become quite bloated as it combines the info on  thesoftware, the blender community, the blender foundation, and the open projects. I think these need to be split up into there own pages. I think the infomation should also be simplified as there is currently an excessive amount of detail, something that is partially my fault. Mylo pinto rizvi (talk) 18:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * some specific changes that could be done is removing the cycles 'supported features' table and turning the 'use in industry' section into a list. Mylo pinto rizvi (talk) 18:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I am experienced and I can give a second opinion. When it is time, I can also recruit other opinions such as from WikiProject Software/Free and open-source software task force or a similar community.
 * Agree on split of projects - Blender_(software) and Blender_(software) could be WP:SPLIT into a new article, and just summarized here in a brief section. I was looking in other software articles for similar splits, and I could not immediately find one, but Blender may be special because it so often is a tool for making media products which themselves get Wikipedia coverage. I think this is an unusual case as a tool which makes movies which themselves are popular.
 * Agree on reforming features. Wikipedia generally only summarizes media from third-party sources, but computing is different. For various reasons - including computing having little third-party coverage, and editor interest in trying to document software despite that - there is Manual of Style/Computer science. This guideline gives some encouragement for editors to cite self-published computing resources. For this article, I am not sure what is reasonable to include or exclude, but as you note - there is too much here in this article to be readable and accessible. Some content should go, and whether it gets split or deleted can be an editorial decision.
 * I am here to react to your other ideas and edits.  Bluerasberry   (talk)  17:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * A while ago I tried to split cycles into a new page as it is technically a separate project as there are various plugins that integrate it into different software and it is also used in gaffer, though the draft got rejected as it wasn't considered notable (which i agree in retrospect). I think though the status of cycles is something that should be considered.
 * I have also created two user sandboxes to start rewriting the blender page and to create for a blender open projects page.
 * User:Mylo pinto rizvi/Blender (software)
 * User:Mylo pinto rizvi/Blender Open Projects
 * The open projects page might be unnecessary as I've just realised the the Blender Foundation has a section on them. The Blender Foundation page also needs updates as it has some out of date information. Mylo pinto rizvi (talk) 18:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * User:Mylo pinto rizvi/Blender Open Projects and Blender_Foundation both are about movies made with Blender. I am not knowledgeable about how things work in this ecosystem, but at a glance, I think the "foundation" projects include support and sponsorship from the foundation, but also there are other projects including the ones on your list which got funded in other ways. Is that the case? Regardless, I can imagine moving projects from both Blender (software) and Blender Foundation to a dedicated "Blender Open Projects" page, as listing all the projects is undue for both the software and foundation, while also both of those pages should point to a list of projects.
 * As to your rewrite at User:Mylo pinto rizvi/Blender (software) - this is a massive undertaking. Let me ask in another thread.  Bluerasberry   (talk)  19:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I only remembered about the Blender Foundation page in the middle of writing my previous message. I agree that the open projects should go in the blender foundation page and I will delete open projects user page. Mylo pinto rizvi (talk) 19:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I also support splitting out the Blender projects section as a new article. Ambivalent on also splitting out use in industry. Moonreach (talk) 16:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Draft rewrite
Consider User:Mylo pinto rizvi/Blender (software)

Mylo can you briefly answer some points
 * 1) Name content sections to split from this article, and other Wikipedia articles which would be the target of merging that content.
 * 2) Which content sections do you think should be deleted outright without split or merge?
 * 3) Wikipedia typically discourages the inclusion of WP:PRIMARY sources, but there are lots of exceptions. Here in this article I see many citations to Blender Foundation, Blender Institute, blender.org, and similar. What approach do you suggest for evaluating whether we need to keep this information? Options
 * 4) Delete all information backed by these sources
 * 5) Case-by-case on everything
 * 6) Name some sections right now to surely keep, or to possibly shorten after discussion
 * 7) In my opinion, many articles benefit from identifying a few highly authoritative sources, vetting and trusting them, then trying to cite those authorities more often. Can you recommend or identify something like a reputable textbook on Blender, which we might use for guidance? Currently there are 300 citations to different sources, and while that is not necessarily bad, one-off articles are generally less authoritative than a thoughtful larger work.

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)


 * On 1 + 2 : Open Projects and Online Services should definitely be moved to the blender foundation page. The features section should be simplified. Supported Features and Integrator should be removed. Modified versions could also be removed as I don't think there are any blender forks that would be considered notable. Mylo pinto rizvi (talk) 19:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * On 3 + 4 : I think it will be difficult to find none primary sources. There's the Blender developers blog (https://code.blender.org/), the blender foundation news blog (https://www.blender.org/news/) and the blender docs (https://docs.blender.org/). For secondary sources there is blendernation though I doubt that I would get used that much. On a blender manual, I have a copy of Blender by Example(2nd ed.) which could be useful. I think it would still be good to back up information with secondary sources when possible. The only section that I think wouldn't benefit from secondary sources would be the release history. Mylo pinto rizvi (talk) 19:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)