Blender also isn’t really a CAD software. There are other free CAD programs, like open scad and FreeCAD (is that the name) but I’ve heard mixed opinions on whether they’re really up to the task of replacing Autodesk.
Neither is Maya, the listed Autodesk product which Blender directly (and somewhat successfully) competes against.
FreeCAD covers a lot of ground, but is most comparable to Inventor from the Autodesk suite. I still think Inventor wins out but FreeCAD has made leaps and bounds recently.
i got confused myself … first I thought it was about CAD software … then read many comments … then noticed something was wrong … then looked again carefully at this image of wiki and thought : okay, this is confusing … I can say more … do not know more.
My high school STEM classes taught us how to use Autodesk Inventor and I can use it very well now but it’s hard to pick up another CAD software without it feeling weird.
And ultimately this is why I want governments and international organizations funding foss cad software. The tools for innovation should be publicly accessible without such expensive costs. And it’s the sort of thing that society will benefit from every jackass having access to
I’ll add, from a organisational risk perspective, a government should ensure its not locked into reliance on corporations. There’s certainly an assumption especially in the government’s I work in, Microsoft 365 has no viable alternative. Yet that itself should be warning for the ACSC or signals directorate invest in open code such that if the provider aligns with a country you change positions on, you can fork your code, tender off its continued support to new maintainers, and continue on.
Well, I know that ultimately nobody will get in trouble even if fears became reality. Everyone will put up their hands and say “we couldn’t see this coming and we had no alternative so there’s nothing that could have been done to prevent it.”. It’s just a disappointment that it becomes a missed opportunity for taxpayer investments to be invested, instead of lost to corporate fees straight overseas.
The problem is often academic capture. Universities teach Autodesk software and most companies expect you to use Autodesk software.
Blender also isn’t really a CAD software. There are other free CAD programs, like open scad and FreeCAD (is that the name) but I’ve heard mixed opinions on whether they’re really up to the task of replacing Autodesk.
Neither is Maya, the listed Autodesk product which Blender directly (and somewhat successfully) competes against.
FreeCAD covers a lot of ground, but is most comparable to Inventor from the Autodesk suite. I still think Inventor wins out but FreeCAD has made leaps and bounds recently.
Autodesk is more than CAD, like Adobe is more than Photoshop
My animation program teaches mostly blender :) But it’s in Europe
And it’s animation, not architecture and engineering.
Confusingly, this post is about (animation) movie creation software. Namely : Maya (from Autodesk) v.s. blender
It’s indeed confusing. The Wikipedia title says one thing, but the sidebar says another?
i got confused myself … first I thought it was about CAD software … then read many comments … then noticed something was wrong … then looked again carefully at this image of wiki and thought : okay, this is confusing … I can say more … do not know more.
Blender can be used for scripting though, via its BPY.
Recently integrated that in a Django project for checking and correction of uploaded 3D models.
Blender is without competitor in that regard, especially with these capabilities.
My high school STEM classes taught us how to use Autodesk Inventor and I can use it very well now but it’s hard to pick up another CAD software without it feeling weird.
That’s why your school got it for pennies.
That’s why Apple sells at near cost to schools.
Walk into the garden, don’t mind the walls, enjoy your stay, you won’t want to leave.
If you are under 16 you can buy my heroine for half price. First hit is free.
And ultimately this is why I want governments and international organizations funding foss cad software. The tools for innovation should be publicly accessible without such expensive costs. And it’s the sort of thing that society will benefit from every jackass having access to
Can’t agree more.
I’ll add, from a organisational risk perspective, a government should ensure its not locked into reliance on corporations. There’s certainly an assumption especially in the government’s I work in, Microsoft 365 has no viable alternative. Yet that itself should be warning for the ACSC or signals directorate invest in open code such that if the provider aligns with a country you change positions on, you can fork your code, tender off its continued support to new maintainers, and continue on.
Well, I know that ultimately nobody will get in trouble even if fears became reality. Everyone will put up their hands and say “we couldn’t see this coming and we had no alternative so there’s nothing that could have been done to prevent it.”. It’s just a disappointment that it becomes a missed opportunity for taxpayer investments to be invested, instead of lost to corporate fees straight overseas.