Why are you ignoring Blender CHAOS Group?

[ioioiofilip]

Why are you ignoring Blender CHAOS Group?

[andybot_cg]

The silence says a lot.

[ioioiofilip]

The silence says a lot.

All I got from customer support was "The decision to develop this product, however, relies on a complex set of periodically reevaluated conditions that have not yet allowed us to move forward with it", whatever that means, and the "we always strive to deliver the best experience" shtick.

[flat]

Please read this page and the discussion.
There are all the answers.
https://code.blender.org/2019/06/ble...free-software/

[ioioiofilip]

Please read this page and the discussion.
There are all the answers.
https://code.blender.org/2019/06/ble...free-software/

I'm aware of the GPL, however, we're talking about an update to an existing product here. It's not like they have to figure legal things out all over again in order to comply. I feel like this whole public license thing is a way for them to delay things or completely avoid them. Why doesn't Arnold's implementation (Barnold) suffer from the same development drawbacks?

[flat]

It's been quite a while since Arnold for Blender (Barnold) was announced, but the development doesn't seem to be going well. I think they have the same problem.

[ioioiofilip]

flat You're right about Barnold, I haven't checked its progress for some time. Too bad...

Before I bought Chaos's service I asked about future plans of 2.8+ and I received a positive response. Surely they knew about the GPL restrictions after all these years and could have warned potential customers of the issues they were facing with.

Another thing that points to the fact that there is no more incentive to support Blender is there are unaddressed 2.7x (by a representative) inconsistencies/bugs right here on the forum. All this while the other sections are active.

[enrique.monzo]

Please read this page and the discussion.
There are all the answers.
https://code.blender.org/2019/06/ble...free-software/

Thanks for the link, flat. Indeed, we can find there the "answers". And yes, it seems that all main render engines are facing with the same problems, because all of them clearly lack of support for Blender 2.8x/2.9x.
But, despite that, it hurts to have to find such a kind of answers somewhere else, instead of in the place where we paid for a license and where we were told that there would be a new version soon. It was even surprising to discover an update in Facebook (!!)...
Even assuming that Chaos Group does not want to (or does not plan to, or does have problems to...) create any VRay for Blender 2.9x, I can't understand the following items:

• There is no sign of life from Chaos Group in the Blender section of the forum.
• They don't even seem to answer to questions regarding bugs or issues regarding VRay for Blender 2.79 (are they contacting the people via private messages?)
• VRay for Blender is still offered as an official product in Chaos Group website. But they don't specify at all what version of Blender is supported, which is very confusing. That is not serious at all, because some people could decide to buy a standalone license and, later on, discover that they only can use a very old version of Blender, with many bugs, and they will not get any support.

I can understand that the customers can complain a lot and they could be annoying some times. But that is not reason to disappear completely from the Blender forum and fully ignoring them.

I would have felt satisfied just having a real and honest feedback from Chaos Group. I could even understand that they decide not to release any VRay for Blender 2.9x because of any license issues. It is fine! Having that feedback would have meant to me that they are serious, and I would have been back as soon as they have released something in the future, because I could trust them. But that is not the case anymore.

I feel disappointed.

[andybot_cg]

I am quite aware of the GPL concerns - they've been around for ever, like back when Andrey was trying to develop interactive rendering. (Which was pulled very quickly, as it appeared he crossed that magic GPL line.) This article was 2 years ago. We have silence from Chaos.

Please read this page and the discussion.
There are all the answers.
https://code.blender.org/2019/06/ble...free-software/

[ioioiofilip]

At some point there was talk about making a network bridge to avoid GPL restrictions. But as with everything else it quickly turned into smoke.

Curious how the official Pixar Renderman Implementation will handle this.

[Mokiki]

As a long time fan of Chaos Group I am pretty annoyed by the situation to be honest. The silence is definitely not helping. If they just come out and say "Sorry guys it's not viable for us to do a vray version for blender 2.8+" Then that would be fine. It would at least be an answer.

[ioioiofilip]

I discussed with our developers and V-Ray for Blender is still on our way but unfortunately a date or period cannot be guaranteed as of now.

Pretty much the same answer given two years ago.

I tried contacting them about a resale of the license node to someone who would make better use of it but the question got avoided.

At this rate there is no chance I can implement Vray for Blender in my work because predicting shaders, procedural textures and lighting is a very tedious process. Top that with numerous inconsistencies/bugs and the fact that 2.8+ and 2.79 basically have different UI and workflow so switching from one to another is a huge waste of time.

I really don't understand how they thought this would cater to professionals on the long run. Before committing to a product, and in this case deeming it a professional tool, you need to take obstacles into account such as GPL restrictions and implementation methods. I refuse to believe they didn't make their homework on the matter beforehand. Seems like they're using licensing as a scapegoat at this point.

From what I've seen on previous posts, GPL restrictions never came up when asked why 2.8 was stalling, it was just an issue with real-time connection with Blender. Exporting a .vrscene for the standalone Vray to use doesn't break the public license terms.