The remaining two unported official add-ons: X3D and 3DS #62576
Labels
No Label
Interest
Animation & Rigging
Interest
Blender Cloud
Interest
Collada
Interest
Core
Interest
Documentation
Interest
Eevee & Viewport
Interest
Geometry Nodes
Interest
Grease Pencil
Interest
Import and Export
Interest
Modeling
Interest
Modifiers
Interest
Nodes & Physics
Interest
Pipeline, Assets & IO
Interest
Platforms, Builds, Tests & Devices
Interest
Python API
Interest
Rendering & Cycles
Interest
Sculpt, Paint & Texture
Interest
Translations
Interest
User Interface
Interest
UV Editing
Interest
VFX & Video
Meta
Good First Issue
Meta
Papercut
Module
Add-ons (BF-Blender)
Module
Add-ons (Community)
Platform
Linux
Platform
macOS
Platform
Windows
Priority
High
Priority
Low
Priority
Normal
Priority
Unbreak Now!
Status
Archived
Status
Confirmed
Status
Duplicate
Status
Needs Info from Developers
Status
Needs Information from User
Status
Needs Triage
Status
Resolved
Type
Bug
Type
Design
Type
Known Issue
Type
Patch
Type
Report
Type
To Do
No Milestone
No project
No Assignees
5 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference: blender/blender-addons#62576
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
No description provided.
Delete Branch "%!s(<nil>)"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
This task is mainly to decide whether we want to keep those two formats in our 'IO' pool. I thought I’d ask because am not sure how useful/popular they are nowadays, and because port will not be a small and easy task (at least for X3D, I started working on it today, but we have to at least switch from tessface to full poly and/or looptris, and rewrite the whole material/shader code…).
We also have some new, fairly popular formats (like gltf), so maybe it is time to prune a bit older formats support? Maintaining even one or two formats is a heavy task in itself (you know about which one I am thinking about ;) ).
I don’t have any particular feelings about those two formats, so if they are seen as still valuable, I can keep working on the x3d one, just thought we should talk about it before spending days on it.
Added subscribers: @mont29, @brecht, @ideasman42, @JacquesLucke, @Sergey
Some EDA and CAD are using X3D as an interchange format. For example, that's how i did some 3D models created in Blender and then ported to KiCAD. Quite sure there are more usecases like that.
There is, of course, route Blender -> OBJ/PLY -> FreeCAD -> STEP -> EDA/CAD, but that is more cumbersome.
3DS i am not aware of any real world recent usecase. And there is always a route 3DS -> Blender 2.7x -> BLEND -> Blender 2.8x.
I think we can drop 3ds from officially supported add-ons and leave porting that to the community.
For X3D I guess the main thing is geometry support. If material support takes a long time I would consider leaving that to the community too.
Out of curiosity. What is the difference in material handling between X3D and other formats? Or those others also don't support materials in 2.8?
OK, will keep working on X3D then, at least for the geometry part.
@Sergey I added a wrapper around shader nodes (mainly bsdf one), that exposes a material in a similar, easy-to-handle way as our old 'fixed pipeline' model. That change alone requires some work, but is certainly manageable. Issue with X3D is (although I did not check in details yet), that X3D exporter seems to generate glsl shader chunks… I will check that after geometry is done, and if too complicated to port over, just 'disable' it for now.
This issue was referenced by blender/blender@e5e6c3b52c
Changed status from 'Open' to: 'Resolved'
Added subscriber: @MartinZ
3ds format is still widely used for sharing models online. Many furniture manufacturers use it for example and it may be very helpful and convenient to have native support for it for those of us doing arch viz. It is very sad to see it dismissed with such a short discussion.