BIG BLEND

General discussion about the development of the open source Blender

Moderators: jesterKing, stiv

Post Reply
WilliamMitchell
Posts: 0
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 11:42 am

BIG BLEND

Post by WilliamMitchell »

Yo Yo Yo...

it's me again.

Hey, just wondered.
With your help getting Blender running and so...
It's a big package, full with incredible features,
which I think is so professional, which made me
think.

It's just under 7 megs, forget all the Plugins Folders.
So, what makes commercial packages like Lightwave
so massive big in size?

The thing is I cant see a difference. Ok I have not
Lightwave for myself, but a mate does.

Try to make this nice Walkthrough Demo in Lightwave
(blender download page). Does one need to shrink
the Hard Drive around 350 Megs for this?

Size matters. The smaller the better I think.
It also increases overall System performance.

What do you think?
Am I right?, if I say Blender maches the big guys
quite easy?

The Tutorials speak for it.

SamAdam
Posts: 0
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 1:28 pm
Contact:

Post by SamAdam »

it has no included tutorials, image textures, preloaded shaders, plug-ins, help files, models, et.c.
but it is getting better.

Monkeyboi
Posts: 251
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 1:24 pm
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Contact:

Post by Monkeyboi »

I have thought about the exact same thing. And even if Blender had a few more built-in meshes and materials it would still be about the same size it is. I don't know if you should be asking "How come Blender is so small" or "how come the other pro apps are so big".

Maybe they include empty mess that hogs up space but doesn't do anything. It could be the american saying "the bigger, the better"..

SirDude
Posts: 233
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2002 7:37 pm
Location: University of Minnesota (USA)
Contact:

Post by SirDude »

I'm sure alot of it initally stems from something like this thinking:
Were distrubuting it on a CD so we have 600M to fill up
what do you guys got...

After that all of that stuff is "Standard" or most of it anyway
and off you go...

lukep
Posts: 0
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2004 1:39 pm

Post by lukep »

SirDude wrote:I'm sure alot of it initally stems from something like this thinking:
Were distrubuting it on a CD so we have 600M to fill up
what do you guys got...

After that all of that stuff is "Standard" or most of it anyway
and off you go...
there is also the C++ standard libraries syndrom :

As many pro app are programmed in C++ and use external libraries for which they have only a binary, you have to link against the whole library if you use a single class.

In contrast, when doing the LSCM code, B-ix and Bjornmoose took the pain to keep only what is needed, removing unused code. This may account for many megs in a single library and a 3D app has dozens of those.

This is

Pablosbrain
Posts: 254
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 7:39 pm

Post by Pablosbrain »

I have and own Lightwave 8. I have owned lightwave since version 5... It is a wonderfull application. Not as cheap as blender which I'm slowly starting to like over all the "high end" applications including Lightwave, Max and others. But to answer the question why are the other apps so big when installed?

1. Lots and lots and lots of example files... and not just a mesh here and a mesh there... animated examples of all the new features and functionality, all the textures needed to render those examples. As well as prerendered versions so you don't have to render them to see the final output.

2. As with max and I'm assuming others... you can also install the SDK to build scripts and plugins and such. For blender think Python. If you added the full install of Python to blender it would at least triple its size.

3. System drivers... such as Dongle Drivers, Windows Media Drivers, DirectX, OpenGL, Quicktime and more are usually also included on the discs. Sometimes even crossplatform versions of the application... like in lightwave... you can get both mac and pc versions with the duo dongle setup on one/two discs.

4. as SirDude already stated... Fill up a CD/DVD? What else can we throw on here... And they usually include demo versions of all their and other third party software/plugins... for lightwave its stuff like Aura, Digital Fusion and more.

So.... AS you can see.. its not all application... Lightwave is actually not that large if you get rid of all the non essentials. And just like lightwave... if we packed Blender onto a disc.. as is done with the tutorial books and such they are also filled with tons of extras that can be installed. When you start thinking about it... I use Wings3D, Blender, Yafray, Gimp, Python and I'm sure several others... right there your talking about 20 megs at least if not more... and then think crossplatform versions of each of those. It starts to add up.

[EDIT]

Its also not all useless stuff... a lot of it is great for learning... the fact that you get all that in one package is great! Of course... if your used to a program and understand how to use it already... you usually don't have to install anything other than the core program... which... usually is still a bit larger than blender as a core program.

WilliamMitchell
Posts: 0
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 11:42 am

Post by WilliamMitchell »

Ok...

If one is reading the fact that Blender has been deployed at
least partially for Spiderman...

Hey, that's so good!, it makes you think.

Antares
Posts: 0
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 4:04 pm

Post by Antares »

if i sum up the size of my blender installation then i got over 24MB. this calculation included:
1.basic blender installation
2.manual
3.plugins
4.fonts
5.scripts

xand
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2002 9:46 am

Post by xand »

and up to 2.14, blender filled only a floppy disk.
less then 1.44 Mo.
blender increase a lot in few times.

+++

iluvblender
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2002 12:45 am
Location: Mumbai, India
Contact:

Post by iluvblender »

I compress blender binaries using upx http://upx.sourceforge.net/, once they are compiled. the size of compressed exe is half of the original. I need not decompress to use it, so thats cool.

Samjh
Posts: 0
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 3:28 pm
Location: Australia

Post by Samjh »

The thing is I cant see a difference. Ok I have not
Lightwave for myself, but a mate does.

Try to make this nice Walkthrough Demo in Lightwave
(blender download page). Does one need to shrink
the Hard Drive around 350 Megs for this?

Size matters. The smaller the better I think.
It also increases overall System performance.

What do you think?
You're trying (and a lot of people make this mistake) to compare and contrast the workings of a high-end industrial-strength package, with a freeware package for hobbyists and low to mid-range applications (ie. industrial visualisations, and some broadcast media).

Packages such as Lightwave are big, because they:
  • sometimes provide multi-platform installations in one box.
  • have extensive documentation for extensive range of features
  • have large number of tutorials, including video tutorials, in order to reduce the learning curve, and subsequently reduce the cost of retraining its users
  • provide many plug-ins and external enhancements in order to meet the stringent demands of upper-range work (such as final VFX work in feature films)
....among other reasons.

On the other hand, Blender has NONE of such requirements. It doesn't provide any documentation, nor any industrial-strength plugins, nor any extensive tutorials, nor multiplatform installations in one download. It is really a bare bones package.
Ok...

If one is reading the fact that Blender has been deployed at
least partially for Spiderman...

Hey, that's so good!, it makes you think.
Too much gaggle is being made over this.

Blender being used for pre-vis work is good news. But it's nothing to hoo-hah about. A software package that is used for pre-vis by one artist isn't much of an endorsement. Maybe it is being used by others too, but pre-vis? Yes, it is an important step in production, but importance doesn't necessarily dictate quality of software being used for it.

When Blender is used for post-production VFX, or similarly high-demand application, then we can start popping the champagne. :D
Am I right?, if I say Blender maches the big guys
quite easy
I like Blender as much as any user here. But realistically, Blender doesn't match high-end commercial apps.

Blender has a large array of interesting features. But what matters in the industry isn't the number of features, but the quality of the outcome.

Commercial packages like Maya, 3DS Max, Lightwave, and Houdini, can produce very complex effects efficiently, and is also capable of producing effects not included in its standard feature set, but are programmed into it by the artists themselves. Furthermore, and here's the cracker, they can produce high-quality outcomes, which Blender seriously lacks.

Blender can match the features of high-end commercial packages, but only in small to medium scale. I really doubt whether Blender could replicate or exceed the quality of extremely complex scenes like the "Womping Willow" in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, without taking any more time than the artists at MPC did.

Number of features matter surprisingly little. The efficiency, power, versatility, and quality of outcome, matter much more. And that is the real difference between those high-end commercial apps, and freeware ones like Blender.

WilliamMitchell
Posts: 0
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 11:42 am

Post by WilliamMitchell »

well...

you say:
____________________________________________________________

Commercial packages like Maya, 3DS Max, Lightwave, and Houdini, can produce very complex effects efficiently, and is also capable of producing effects not included in its standard feature set, but are programmed into it by the artists themselves. Furthermore, and here's the cracker, they can produce high-quality outcomes, which Blender seriously lacks.
____________________________________________________________

But isn't the blender-Foundation all about that?

...making Blender a better product?

I think all involved in the development, are doing a very
good job.

take PovRay.org. for example.
I have seen Images rendered with povray which lets the guys
in Berlin go mental. And you can integrate povray with Maya.

For Blender the Yafray engine is just excellent.


:wink:

Samjh
Posts: 0
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 3:28 pm
Location: Australia

Post by Samjh »

I'm talking about Blender as it is now. Of course, as Blender improves, it will get more and more competitive. In 10 years time, who knows if we'll see Blender win an Academy Award for technical achievement. :D

But remember that other software packages also improve. Blender improves in small increments quickly, while big-name packages improve in fairly large leaps over long periods of time.

Yafray is indeed excellent. A very promising general-purpose renderer.

I'm getting quite interested in Toxic recently, since it produces some very realistic images. It might even rival the likes of Brasil and Mental Ray, given enough time.

Post Reply