Blender 2.82 release
Feb 17, 2020 by CGPress Staff
49
|
The Blender Foundation has announced the release of Blender 2.82.
New features include improvements to physical effects including fabrics and cloth and new liquid and gas sim systems based on Mantaflow. Other significant improvements include support for UDIM texturing; the ability to export to USD format; NVIDIA OptiX denoising in Cycles; the ability to see an overview of passes in the viewport when using EEVEE, plus the ability to render volumetric effects combined with transparent materials; new sculpting tools; a revised interface, Dopesheet and new drawing tools and materials in Grease Pencil; and much more. See the announcement on Blender.org.
no significant poly modeling improvement, no proper retopo tools (not even planned!), no texturing tools that could rival those of SP. Heck, they didn’t even bother to bring displacement baking back. Underwhelming. Blender has turned into an open source Autodesk. It used to be my V for Vendetta, last hope in this dark and unjust world ruled by Adobe and Autodesk (:
lol, you can not expect they improve everything in one point release, right? Its quite a big improvement alone with the revamped flip fluids and smoke, if you add the USD, and then all the rest… Dont know what you can complain about. For me I hope they take performance more serious and we see it soon the undo fixed and working with big data sets/edit poly tools, but will not complain about number of improvements.
Agreed Eloi
For me the undo issue is the most important. The path have been positive.
I take IkyaK as a joke (?).
One just needs to look at the release note and be joking to make a comment like that:
– Added Mantaflow (fluid and smoke)
– Improved Cloth
– UDIM
– USD
– Cycles new nodes
– Custom AOVs
– AI Denoiser
– Eevee improvements
– New sculpting tools
– More Grease pencil goodies
– Custom Bevel Profile
– UI Tweaks
What the release page doesn’t mention is some of the add-on they added.
The Physical sky alone is pure gold. You can now pick the sun position in the HDRI and link the sun object to it.
Wasn’t aware of that (Physical sky) Marco thanks.
While the 2.82 improvements are generally great, the sun positioner addon is probably the weakest example. Sun positioning in Blender is still completely useless without a proper physical sun sky system to go with it, which Blender doesn’t have (it has only incomplete, broken sky implementation that’s been sitting untouched for years).
Take me as a joke?! You can treat my comment however you like, I don’t care, but refrain from personal attacks and watch your manners and take the time to spell my nickname correctly to begin with. As far as your list goes, should I mention the ones that didn’t make it into the release but had been highly anticipated? Then read my comment above again.
A little stressed, are we? No need to get so mad about it.
I didn’t take you as a joke, I don’t know you personally, so how could I attack you directly?
I said, for what I know, it could be a joke considered the release notes. I was just honestly not sure if you were being serious or not. It’s a legitimate doubt since we’re not actually speaking in person here but only typing words on a keyboard and words sometimes can be interpreted in different ways.
Dude chill, I thought it was a Joke too.
lmao
Totally agree with the undo thing, it’s in the works, I’m not sure what would be the outcome of that project, but I also think it’s one of the most important improvements needed in Blender
hi juang, any idea what the progress on the eevee physical depth of field is?
i´ve seen the ticket and the UE paper but i am not clear on the status…
Oh, no idea! I’m not following the Eevee evolution lately, I’m too bussy with work and other things so I mainly focus in what affects the studio, but I’ll ask.
I know some eevee improvements will be done soon.
cheers, anything you find is helpful. and dont feed the trolls man, not worth your time.
Thanks
This release is solid again. Bravo. However, I must follow your requests. Big data sets from cad files, cad file imports and conversion, are impossible to work with: slow reads, crashes, co freeze. There 3ds Max, keyshot and lastly and best I checked c4d. In my opinion an interesting point to have handled. Sun sky system done properly would be great. I like all the bells and whistles but prefer raw performance above all. Cheers!
Agree in some of your comments, check this article:
https://code.blender.org/2020/01/2020-blender-big-projects/
Also you may find interesting this addon:
https://www.blendernation.com/2020/02/11/blender-add-on-review-step-import/#comment-877582
This is what I was waiting for! Cheap enough that I can experiment with it at home, still a ways to go for at work though. But a damn good start. 30 seconds isn’t bad either for importing that car. That’s way better than Cinema4D’s new importer last I saw it. The developer seems to know what he’s doing vs the other guy that was making a STEP importer with frequent updates. He got instances working, and is looking into proper hierarchy support, which will make it more useful for large assemblies.
Hopefully he expands to more formats. As many as he can include without getting into licensing issues that is, which would drive the cost up into the $100’s for those fees.
When you see the Chamfer tool being the main feature update for 2-3 releases in a row, THEN it’s going to be like Autodesk..
Joking aside, this is a fantastic release, doesnt mean because it didnt touch your list that the release is not solid.. They dont develop with just *You* in mind you know.
WOW THIS IS GOING TO REPLACE ZBRUSH AND MARVELOUS DESIGNER AND HOUDINI AND EVEN WINDOWS!!!!!
That’s planned for 2.83, your PC will boot straight into Blender and you’re going to run MS Office in one of the 3D view ports.. Crazy stuff!
Ah! True! I forgot that! thanks for the reminder
imagine starting to support UDIM in 2020, when every major DCC’s out there supports it since forever. Free isnt better
Imagine that not everyone cares about UDIM… I know I know a much anticipated feature… but it all depends on your needs
BTW UDIM was already available in custom builds since quite a long time, and could be used in production since quite a long time, it’s just that if you don’t know the Blender ecosystem or the good part of the open source, then you will behave as with Adesk software, but with Blender is better to be a bit pro-active
Miss me with buggy custom builds.
Sick of you Blender fanbois.
Because of the uninformed trolling comments?….
yeah….
they are the worse…
Sick of you Blender fanbois fanbois.
.
.
.
.
XD
Imagine having Undo Problems, must be a free software ahahhah
Imagine having to wait 10 minutes until the software allows you to work… and then it trolls you showing the UI but not allowing you to work… and then 10 minutes more when you get a crash 10 minutes after it was open… not funny ¬.¬
.
.
.
LOL
If that is how you setup your non-blender software, you are probably doing something wrong.
Oh, no, don’t worry… I was just playing a bit, just giving him the same comments he put
Yes, Blender has Undo problems, and max has startup and crash problems, as any software, they both have their own set of problems
Because Blender doesnt crash ok.
Dude you are better off in the Blender Forum.
Nobody wants you here with your Blender Bullshit and how great everything is. Undo is pretty essential. Anyways Since when are Blender Scrubs allowed to post stuff on this site, fucking joke. This Site is getting more and more a Blender Fanboi place.
Because Max doesn’t crash ok.
Dude you are better off in the 3dsMax Forum.
Nobody wants you here with your Autodesk BUllshit and how great everything is. Not crashing for nothing is pretty essnetial. Anyways since when are Autodesk Scrubs allowed to post stuff on this site, fucking joke.
This Site is getting more and more Autodesk Fanboi place.
See… it works both directions LOL.
Never said that Undo is not essential, and I’ve been here since this site was called with a different name, maybe before you, maybe not, but I have the same right as you of being here, quit being so intransigent and quite insulting people you don’t even know, it seems the only fanboy here is you, but not of a software or a company, but of insulting and trolling
Constructive criticism to Blender (or any other software/company) is always great and welcome, saying things like ” must be a free software” is absurd, because all packages has their own problems, Blender is not free of them, and Max or Maya either, and those two are paid, but you don’t say “max crashes A LOT… it must be paid software” because it’s a non-sense.
Personally I have nothing against Max or Maya, both are great packages, we decided to stop using them 4 years ago and we are happy with the change, if you want to keep using them, awesome
The only thing I have a problem with is Autodesk, and even people from Autodesk have been here, but they still have no explanation to the AutodeskOnline.com website, in fact when it was asked they said it was from a third party, but in the end the owners of the domain and therefor the responsibles of the contents are Autodesk.
So really, I will keep repeating your own words against you, and people here knows how stubborn can I be hahaha, my recommendation is start talking as a person to a person, but the other option is to keep trolling, it could be fun
@Juang3d
This seems a rather optimistic assessment of your own intentions. I might be wrong, but based on the time and effort you invest in writing negative comments, you surely sound like someone who hate 3ds max and everyone using it.
And bad thing about that is, every-time you enter a comment section on this site, the whole discussion derails and it gets annoying after a while.
Maybe you should spend more time stating your nuanced position (that you claim to have), if you like other people to better understand you.
Oh no! not at all!
I profoundly dislike Autodesk behaviour, and if you look for the posts you will see that my criticism is against Autodesk behaviour, and lack of proper new features for Max in every update, but I don’t think Max is crap.
The problem I’ve been seeing is that people links disliking autodesk behaviour with disliking max, there are things I don’t like about max, many of them, also about maya, many of them, and also about blender, many of them, but check my old comments, you may see criticism about the development pace of max, that has been greatly affected by the new licensing scheme, you may see criticism to weird Autodesk behaviours, like AutodeskOnline.com thing, and you may see criticism about the Subscription only licensing system, the rental system that they don’t like to call “rental” when it’s a rental, but you won’t see a message saying “max is crap… it must be paid software” hahaha.
I have nothing against 3dsmax or against Maya.
My recommendation of going to a different package is not because of max, it’s because of Autodesk behaviour and it’s licensing scheme, I’ve been working with max since year 2000, and I’m very proficient in both, max and maya, we just abandoned them 4 years ago (I think) because of the abusive licensing and the path they are taking, not respecting customers, trying to milk the user-cow as much as they can with as few investment as they can, and it’s where my criticism is focused, not into the software itself.
Regarding the discussion, well, I just can say that I don’t have control over what others say, but as I always said, I won’t shut up because someone dislikes my comments, that’s what freedoms means, and I don’t want anyone to shut up because I don’t like what they say, I just want to avoid insults and try to talk with respect to each other, and there is an understanding that some times things may heat up a bit, but they go cold later, you can see many of my most heated discussions with Eloi and we are friends now
No need to agree on what we are talking about
“…even people from Autodesk have been here, but they still have no explanation to the AutodeskOnline.com website, in fact when it was asked they said it was from a third party, but in the end the owners of the domain and therefor the responsibles of the contents are Autodesk.”
Juan3D, multiple people have explained this here, several times.
The site was originally registered by Autodesk literally 20 years ago, and is used (and its content created) by an Autodesk reseller, which is quite clear if you read the site.
An Autodesk reseller is a 3rd-party company that is licensed by Autodesk to provide direct support for customers. A big computer store, 3rd-party plugin developer, systems integrator or consulting firm can be an Autodesk reseller. These companies are not owned by Autodesk. They’re the equivalent of independent computer stores selling Macintosh hardware. Those stores are licensed by Apple, but not owned by Apple (unlike the branded Apple stores themselves.)
As long as the reseller doesn’t post anything that violates company policy, they can post what they want if they think it will help their business. And if they choose to write and post their own comparison between Max/Maya and Blender, that’s their prerogative.
Once again, there’s nothing sinister or conspiratorial about any of this. It’s a domain name that Autodesk registered 20 years ago (probably one of many back then). It’s currently used by a big Autodesk reseller, and the reseller is responsible for its content. It’s that simple.
Yes, multiple people said the same thing, first people that are Autodesk followers that thought that Autodesk could have nothing to do with that, and after that you that said that it’s just a licensed domain, as if that removes responsibility from Autodesk on the domain contents, and that’s not the case, so no, not proper answer has been given, because responsibility is there and nothing has been done about it.
See, if lying to potential customers breaks the Autodesk Company Policy then I don’t understand why Autodesk has not reviewed what is said in such comparisons published on that site and removed, or forced to remove, the parts that are not accurate or that are misleading IMO, like this one:
This should go against company policy because it’s misleading potential users/customers, it’s basically a lie told in that website.
There are other “gold pips” on that website, but I’m not responsible of that site, Autodesk is, since it’s the owner of the domain.
And that’s what I meant, I don’t see anything sinister, I see that Autodesk is responsible to that website information, this misleading information can benefit Autodesk, and Autodesk is doing nothing to fix the misleading information there, that’s what I meant.
That it is a domain from 20 years ago don’t remove any of the responsibility Autodesk has over the information shown in that domain, it’s still and Autodesk domain.
If it were a totally third party website, where Autodesk has nothing to do with it, I could understand that Autodesk can do nothing, but that’s not the case
BTW this part:
is in conflict with this part, at least IMO:
And in this case:
Yes, and they can’t use misleading information about Apple products, the can’t either make use of the Apple brand in their own branding without specific consent, and they will not get that consent if they use misleading information, for example they can’t use the name “AppleOnline.com”.
This domain is not only owned by Autodesk, but it’s also using Autodesk brand in it’s own name, therefore there must be an specific consent for it, and there is misleading information there, so while I understand this:
And I find it perfectly fine and logical, I don’t understand that misleading information is allowed in those comparisons under the used brand of Autodesk (AUTODESKonline.com), inside a domain owned by Autodesk.
I think it’s clear and simple, and that’s why I said things has not been explained, because nothing has been done about that information, the only explanation has been “it’s a licensed domain”, yes, ok, perfectly understandable, the rest is what I don’t understand.
Juan3D, you claim that the opinions expressed in that reseller comparison between Maya and Blender are “lies” or “misleading.”
If you have evidence to back up this claim, then you could email the reseller itself and see what their response is.
You know, I was going to answer something bigger, but this leaves things pretty settled, there is no actual interest by your part to clarify if that site is actually publishing misleading information or not, and you try to make me responsible, I already gave you the information to clarify it, I hope Autodesk does something at least to audit that website, no one pays me to write an Autodesk reseller for anything
Just in case you find this information useful:
Blender Sculpt toolset documentation:
https://docs.blender.org/manual/en/dev/sculpt_paint/sculpting/introduction.html
Maya Sculpt toolset documentation:
https://knowledge.autodesk.com/support/maya/learn-explore/caas/CloudHelp/cloudhelp/2019/ENU/Maya-Modeling/files/GUID-246B90C9-914F-4EC6-8317-349AF2DE90F7-htm.html
And an interesting new feature already available in some blender builds:
https://twitter.com/pablodp606/status/1222622166149140482
If you still think the information there is not misleading… I really don’t understand you, but hey, it’s your opinion as mine is mine
No Jon, there’s no need to back it up, this is not a blender site, we can say our opinions (informed or else) and they should not be accountable.
In fact I’m pretty sure that HoudiniFX.com should start comparing Houdini’s toolset directly to Byfrost, using thir own standards of course, obviously they should say that they are not SideFX (at the bottom of the page with the font color matching the background). and SideFX should not be called out on this, after all is not unethical at all, is not their site.
Seriously man if you can’t see how misleading the very fact that the site is for 99.9% of users an official Autodesk site I honestly don’t know what would be misleading to you.
A guy dressed as a police officer holding up the traffic may not be a police officer, but you can’t really blame me if I stop, can you?
In an open discussion it would be very nice if you *would* backup your claims with evidence. It is not mandatory, of course, but clearly preferred. Even on a non-blender site, Animatect.
Oh, the evidence is waiting for aproval in moderation because it included 3 different links, so I have no trouble about giving the proper information about the sculpt modes in Blender/Maya so they can properly audit the information there.
What is ridiculous is that an Autodesk employee tells me that I have to contact the reseller about this, I’m already informing Jon (the autodesk employee) and everyone else about the problem I think is in that site.
If I inform him about a piracy situation I bet Autodesk would move as fast as a lightning, I assume they should move equally fast with this situation, at the very least audit the site and make a public statement about it’s validity or not, because it should worry them, if I am right that site is misleading to customers, and I would asume as I already said that this goes against Autodesk Company Policy.
I hope the other comment gets aproved fast and Jon can access the information.
end of maintenance plan…that was fast!
https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/subscription-changes/transition-to-named-user-faq-read-before-you-post/td-p/9334704
@David
Yeah, of course, precisely my point, I was being a bit sarcastic
Allow me to posit the possibility, rather likelihood, that this website posted that comparison of blender and Maya long before blender 2.8 dropped which, therefore, would probably make that comparison accurate and not intentionally misleading! Maybe you could email them and let them know that blender has gotten better since they posted that comparison? Autodesk isn’t policing every site like you police these comments for any and all anti-blender talk.
Besides, who even knew about that website before you brought it up here as some conspiratorial and devious plan by Autodesk to steer people away from using free software? Doesn’t make any sense! You seem to try incredibly hard to discredit Autodesk at every turn but come up chasing your own tail
The website has been explained but you refuse to believe the explanation. Sounds like a personal problem
That’s not the case.
You are, on purpose or not, ignoring that the domain AutodeskOnline.com is OWNED by Autodesk, and that whatever is published there, as Jon A. Bell said, must comply with Autodesk Company Policy.
I would not say a thing IF an independent company, with absolutely no relation with Autodesk, publish a comparison, in fact there are tons of weird and wrong comparisons out there on youtube, but they are independent, the misleading information may benefit or not Autodesk, but Autodesk can do nothing to correct those misleading informations.
A good example would be Flipped Normals, I think they are wrong in some of their statements, and I can argue with them, the validity or not of those statements, but it’s not responsibility of Autodesk what is being said there.
In this case, the site is Autodesk’s responsibility, and that has been recognised by Jon A. Bell, again, when he said that the company using that domain must comply with Autodesk Company Policies.
The sculpt toolset of Blender is way better and bigger than the one from Maya since EVER, Blender 2.78 was way better than Maya for Sculpt, it always has been, in fact any sculpt artist will tell you that Maya sculpt tools are ridiculously useless since the moment they were included, if I’m right that’s Maya 2017 or 18, no matter if they know Blender or not, but any artist that know both, knows that Blender sculpt toolset is way better than Maya one, but as I said, it’s not the only misleading information there IMO.
The example used by Animatec is perfect.
It seems that only Jon and you refer to it as delusional and conspiracy, it’s like you are desperate to catalogue that website on that way, I have not said that, I never said there is a conspiracy, I said that IMHO information there is misleading potential customers, and I would asume that misleading customers is against Autodesk Company Policy, don’t you agree? Since that is an Autodesk Authorized Reseller using the Autodesk branding, and using an Autodesk owned domain, Autodesk is responsible of all that content, and they should audit that website, I could understand that they may had no information about it in the past, but this was brought to attention several months ago, and it has been ignored, or it seems so, now I repeated the same information, and Jon A. Bell came here to say the same thing, and I refuted his explanation, simply because he tried to make me responsible of contacting that reseller.
No, I’m not responsible of contacting that reseller, I already gave the information to an Autodesk employee, and they are repsonsibles of the information published there, so they should audit that website and if they think everything said there is in order and it’s not misleading they can say it publicly.
This is not new, and I’m not trying to discredit Autodesk, I’m trying to put in public view how Autodesk behaves, and in this case, as I said many times, IMHO it’s Autodesk responsibility to audit that website, that IMHO is misleading customers, I don’t think saying this things publicly is “chasing my own tail” LOL
BTW Is Jon A. Bell the one who came here to repeate the same explanation he gave in the past, and like in the past I refute to accept that as a valid explanation, because he basically is denying Autodesk responsibility on this while at the same time he is recognizing it, because the reseller hast o comply with Autodesk Company Policies.
Should I accept the explanation as true with all the things that are not being taken into consideration?
Again, Animatect gave a good example.
BTW the first valid cache of that website dates from the 8th of August, 2018, or 14th november 2018.
https://web.archive.org/web/20180501000000*/autodeskonline.com
Blender Sculpt toolset was way more complete than Maya’s one, it has always been that way, at least until today.
So what is said there is still wrong, and as I said, this is not the first time that this is brought to the attention of Jon A. Bell, and Autodesk did nothing regarding that, and they had plenty of time to audit and fix what I think it’s misleading information, if they think the contrary they could make an statement, maybe Jon A. Bell can tell us his opinion about that information now that I gave him all the information in a previous post.
But I’m not going to be the one that contact them, not my responsibility.
@Blendurrrr
I’m sure a lot of people like myself started using this site when we were avid Max users and this was still Maxunderground, for me it was really hard to make the switch away from Max and XSI, I was very proficient in Maxscript and had a pipeline in place (and some licenses), so Autodesk behavior did cost me actual money.
It is important to sound the alarm about these kind of practices, we are not a big industry, the profit margins are not big either and bad willed actions can impact small businesses in a big way, if we let these kind of corporations be disingenuous and buy good will right and left, what good does that do?, how can that benefit us as a community?, being aware is the only thing that can give us a fighting chance as a community, at the end of the day I prefer 10 of Juan diatribes than to give Autodesk the benefit of the doubt for a 100th time or for that matter to any company that has proven once and again that their business model is somehow not aligned with their user base interests.
To be proactive and aware is the only way we can prevent another XSI situation, or let’s say a bait and switch with the indie licenses, or the unceremonious removal of rendering technology included in the price tag, among a thousand things they will do if we let them.