Talk:Blender (software)

Computing: Software / Free and open-source software Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by Free and open-source software (assessed as High-importance).

Film: Filmmaking

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Filmmaking task force.

Video games Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Kelly Metzger (4 participants)
David McGarry (2 participants)
Stumble Guys (8 participants)
Do You Like Horny Bunnies? (8 participants)
Carlos Pesina (2 participants)
Atlus USA (4 participants)
Danny Mastrogiorgio (2 participants)
Police Trainer (2 participants; relisted)
Beam Invader (5 participants; relisted)
Sephiroth (20 participants; relisted)
The Boss (Metal Gear) (6 participants; relisted)
Silfade (3 participants; relisted)
Balloon Brothers (4 participants; relisted)
Enigma Engine (4 participants; relisted)
ClanLib (8 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

VfD[edit]

From VfD, I've redirected this article here. Please check if this information is correct.—Eloquence (comment added in December 2003)

Documentation[edit]

The above two are the documentation of blender, is it ok to add them to link section? (Because in the blender program there is a link linking to these pages)

Going open source[edit]

There is no direct proof of correlation between Blender going open source and software lowering prices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T-tus (talk • contribs) 2005-06-18T13:00:55 (UTC)

that is right — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.124.86 (talk) 2009-02-05T15:52:10 (UTC)

(this message is defunct considering Blender is no longer available commercially. Ton Roosendal's Company NaN went bankrupt, and with some luck was able to convince the Angel Investor that funded his startup to allow him to release the sources to the world. Blender's development continues as a result of the sale Blender branded Merchandise and Contributions). -- —Kiernan 05:04, 28 July 2005 (MST)

This message is meaningless,as the problem mentioned does not directly refer to a violation of Wikipedia's policies. Even if it is viewed as an issue, it is solved by the statements at http://www.blender.org/about/license/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.235.232.46 (talk) 2022-03-07T15:42:18 (UTC)

ATI issues[edit]

Would the issue with ATI graphics cards be notable? I know that was issue keeping me from running Blender for a while until I found a workaround (AFAIK, there's been no official fix, though I haven't kept up in the last three months), and I seem to recall it was specifically addressed as a large problem on the site.

I think this should be mentioned as well. This is a major problem with Blender (actually, it's more of a problem with ATI). I've been using a work around that leaves support for about 10000 polygons before getting unworkable lag (this is on a 128MB graphics card). I can run Blender faster on a 32 MB card that isn't an ATI. Hopefully the OpenGL problems in ATI will be fixed. -Alden

GPU Rendering: distributed memory with nvlink possible[edit]

Since Version 2.90 this limitation of sli cards is broken with Systems with nvlink.

https://www.blender3darchitect.com/blender-cycles/blender-2-90-cycles-updates-in-multi-gpu-nvlink/

Major rewrite?[edit]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Mylo pinto rizvi: I am experienced and I can give a second opinion. When it is time, I can also recruit other opinions such as from Wikipedia:WikiProject Software/Free and open-source software task force or a similar community.

Agree on split of projects - Blender_(software)#Use_in_industry and Blender_(software)#Open_projects 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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Mylo pinto rizvi: User:Mylo pinto rizvi/Blender Open Projects and Blender_Foundation#Open_projects 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Draft rewrite[edit]

Consider User:Mylo pinto rizvi/Blender (software)

Mylo can you briefly answer some points

Name content sections to split from this article, and other Wikipedia articles which would be the target of merging that content.
Which content sections do you think should be deleted outright without split or merge?
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
1. Delete all information backed by these sources
2. Case-by-case on everything
3. Name some sections right now to surely keep, or to possibly shorten after discussion
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]