Version 2.93 is the last version in the Blender 2.x series, and it's a Long Term Support version.

Now that they're working steadily on version 3.0, I for one, will need to get into version 2.9 before I venture into 3.0. I really have to tackle the new UI, as I'm still mostly playing in 2.79, and the difference between the 2 UIs is major. Hopefully it won't be too hard to switch to the new software setup. ~fingers crossed~

Personally I feel the 3.9x versions have an amazingly effective UI, much better than before in my experience any way.

Miss B, yes. I highly recommend going with the latest LTS (2.93) version before any other at this point. There's no sense in learning the 2.8x series now if you haven't tried it yet. Just go for the 2.93 version. The LTS also means you will have the most stable selection of plugins and addons compared to the alpha or experimental versions, and the most up-to-date tools aside from the experimental stuff. I stuck with 2.83 LTS for the last year for that very reason, but now I'll make the permanent move to 2.93 LTS and migrate all my add-ons there.

I play around with the experimental stuff, but when I create products, I always do it with the LTS versions.

I fully agree with what LuxXeon says I had continued to stick with 2.83LTS version and have played with 2.92 but now that it has reach LTS status I would highly recommend it most tutorials for 2.81 and above will still be able to be done in 2.93 except for some of the new stuff related to geometry node which has been in fast track development and most commercial and non-commercial add-ons have been rapidly releasing updates to be completely compatible with this new release. There have been some note worthy release info on this new release on CG Cookie, Blender Nation and thus far all the reviews I have heard have been very positive.

LuxXeon posted at 12:47PM Sat, 05 June 2021 - #4420582

Miss B, yes. I highly recommend going with the latest LTS (2.93) version before any other at this point. There's no sense in learning the 2.8x series now if you haven't tried it yet. Just go for the 2.93 version. The LTS also means you will have the most stable selection of plugins and addons compared to the alpha or experimental versions, and the most up-to-date tools aside from the experimental stuff. I stuck with 2.83 LTS for the last year for that very reason, but now I'll make the permanent move to 2.93 LTS and migrate all my add-ons there.

I play around with the experimental stuff, but when I create products, I always do it with the LTS versions.

Thanks Lux and Lobo for your recommendations about going with 2.93 LTS. I know it makes sense to go with the LTS version, it's just my resistance to going with the new UI setup that's been holding me off of updating. I'll have to install it and play around in it to get used to the new interface. I did that once before years ago when Blender went from 2.4x to 2.5x. That was a huge change in interface as well, but was much needed. I keep feeling the 2.8/2.9 interface is more for making it easier for n00bs to get around in the software than 2.7x did.

I'll let you guys know when I finally get around to playing in it, as I may have questions, especially about what I can't easily find.

Miss B You do know you can run Blender by itself off a USB drive or from direct Zip with out installing it at all so you can keep the version your using and run the new version directly from the zip file and it will make any changes to your current set up if you need any help with setting up such an environment let me know by sitemail

I knew I could run it off a USB drive, but didn't know you could run it off the zip itself. That's unusual.

So what you're telling me is . . . I shouldn't have more than one version of Blender installed on my laptop?

On my Mac as well as on Windows and Linux I've always had multiple versions "installed", Miss B. By "installed", I mean: I had a folder named, say, 'blender279' and one named 'blender283' and so forth, each with all of the files for that version within it.

If you launch Blender using the executable in its respective folder, that version will launch. However, if you go through the actual install process (.msi ??) then that would be the default version that will launch if you double-click on a .blend file.

Hope that wasn't too convoluted an attempt at clarifying this.

Miss B posted at 7:24PM Sat, 05 June 2021 - #4420636

I knew I could run it off a USB drive, but didn't know you could run it off the zip itself. That's unusual.

So what you're telling me is . . . I shouldn't have more than one version of Blender installed on my laptop?

I think Lobo is referring to the exe version vs. the portable zip version. If you download the portable zip version, there's no need to "install" anything. Just unzip the software to a folder and you can run it from anywhere. If you download the exe version, it will "install" the components to different areas of your system, which could impact running multiple versions of the software. You can run infinite instances of the zip version on the same system if you want to.

LuxXeon posted at 7:38PM Sat, 05 June 2021 - #4420640

Miss B posted at 7:24PM Sat, 05 June 2021 - #4420636

I knew I could run it off a USB drive, but didn't know you could run it off the zip itself. That's unusual.

So what you're telling me is . . . I shouldn't have more than one version of Blender installed on my laptop?

I think Lobo is referring to the exe version vs. the portable zip version. If you download the portable zip version, there's no need to "install" anything. Just unzip the software to a folder and you can run it from anywhere. If you download the exe version, it will "install" the components to different areas of your system, which could impact running multiple versions of the software. You can run infinite instances of the zip version on the same system if you want to.

Ohhh, of course! I wasn't thinking of it that way. Good idea. Thanks for the update, as I'm used to having more than one version of some software "installed" on my computer, such as Poser, or DAZ|Studio (back in the day when I was using it). I just didn't consider that Blender was one software that shouldn't be "installed" more than once on the same system, even if they're different versions.

You "can" actually have more than one exe version installed on the same system too, but you would need to customize certain things to be sure each instance didn't interrupt the config of the other. It's just a lot easier and cleaner to use the portable zip version if you plan to run more than one instance. As Lobo suggests, the portable version can be easily run from anywhere, even a flash drive if you have a fast 3.1 USB port.

I currently have about 5 versions of Blender on the same system. 2.83LTS, 2.93LTS, and a few experimental versions like 3.0 alpha. All portable versions.

Edit to say: I believe Blender Foundation has fixed certain things about the exe that will allow you to install multiple versions, just as long as they are different versions. Problems can occur when you try to install something like 2.83.1, then 2.83.3 or whatever on the same system.

Well, I just checked, and that's exactly what I downloaded, because of all the computer related things I hate, the Microsoft (msi) installer is near the top of the list, so I avoid it as often as I can.

I just didn't realize the "zip" version was a non-installation zip. I assumed there was an .exe file inside the zip. Hmmmm, now I wonder if that's how I installed 2.79 when I got this new-ish laptop 1 1/2 yrs. ago. Hmmmmm . . . Well it must be because the zip file on this computer was downloaded in 2018,so must be the one I used to set up 2.79 on this laptop. Don't recall what I used on my old laptop, though most likely the same because it's the zip, or it's the MSI version which, as I stated, I stay away from if at all possible.

OK, so I'm good to go.

There is an exe file - That's the executable required to run the program. While an installer can be an exe file, not all exe files are installers.

I'm running 2.79b, 2.83, and 2.92. I'm about ready to let 2.79b go. I much prefer the newer interface and haven't touched 2.79b in forever. I should probably get 2.93LTS and run in place of 2.92.

Miss B posted at 10:49PM Sat, 05 June 2021 - #4420636

I knew I could run it off a USB drive, but didn't know you could run it off the zip itself. That's unusual.

So what you're telling me is . . . I shouldn't have more than one version of Blender installed on my laptop?

I might have not been very clear you can run the zip version of Blender you un=zip them and you can run as many versions as you like. You should have received something that I had sent to you as a gift and once you read it you will understand what I meant. My apologies for not being clearer when I mentioned it. Sometimes my brain moves a bit faster than I type and this one of those times and did not explain myself well enough

This how many version of Blender I run but I built my system to be able to answer or recreate issues for just about any version I do not suggest you should do the same and I only use major releases

Lobo3433 posted at 11:55PM Sat, 05 June 2021 - #4420655

You should have received something that I had sent to you as a gift and once you read it you will understand what I meant.

You sent me a sitemail? I just checked, and I haven't received anything from you in quite a while.

Lobo3433 posted at 11:58PM Sat, 05 June 2021 - #4420655

I might have not been very clear you can run the zip version of Blender you un=zip them and you can run as many versions as you like. My apologies for not being clearer when I mentioned it. Sometimes my brain moves a bit faster than I type and this one of those times and did not explain myself well enough

This how many version of Blender I run but I built my system to be able to answer or recreate issues for just about any version I do not suggest you should do the same and I only use major releases

Oh I know the name of that game. I have to re-read every thing I type at least 3 times, as I type at around 110wpm, and I often miss whole words in each sentence. What surprises me is when I miss them when reading what I typed the first time, so have gotten used to reading everything I type at least 3 times, and trust me when I say . . . sometimes I STILL miss something I left out or misspelled.

I started with Blender 2.45, and then 2.47, and finally 2.49 before the newer UI, and started with that with version 2.52 IIRC. I probably have all the versions backed up on my external hard drive, but rarely use more than 1 at a time. Now, however, I won't give up on 2.79b until I'm feeling very comfortable with 2.93's new interface.

RobynsVeil posted at 12:21AM Sun, 06 June 2021 - #4420639

On my Mac as well as on Windows and Linux I've always had multiple versions "installed", Miss B. By "installed", I mean: I had a folder named, say, 'blender279' and one named 'blender283' and so forth, each with all of the files for that version within it.

If you launch Blender using the executable in its respective folder, that version will launch. However, if you go through the actual install process (.msi ??) then that would be the default version that will launch if you double-click on a .blend file.

Hope that wasn't too convoluted an attempt at clarifying this.

Oooops, I missed your post earlier Robyn. Sorry about that, and yes it clarified things. I think I've always downloaded the ZIP versions, because I hate MSI installers of anything, not just Blender.

Cool getting 2.93.
Miss B the interface on 2.8+ is rather user friendly and even better on 2.92 than it was on 2.8.
I don't bother learning the shortcuts because you always find what you are looking for in the top or contextual menu.
Of course this is not efficient but I am a hobbyist and you end up knowing those shortcuts in the end.

Just installed the 2.93 LTS update. It transferred all of my third party addons no problem.

I always use the .exe/msi installers

never had any issues leaving previous versions but I always cease using older builds when upgrade and never install experimental builds but wait for the stable releases.

YMMV.

Miss B posted at 6:34PM Sun, 06 June 2021 - #4420665

Lobo3433 posted at 11:55PM Sat, 05 June 2021 - #4420655

You should have received something that I had sent to you as a gift and once you read it you will understand what I meant.

You sent me a sitemail? I just checked, and I haven't received anything from you in quite a while.

GOT IT!!! Thanks muchly!!!

My bad. I said EXE instead of MSI when referring to the installer. I never download the installer version, so for some reason I thought it was a EXE installer, but it's MSI. Sorry for the confusion there, Miss B.

LuxXeon posted at 11:24PM Sun, 06 June 2021 - #4420711

My bad. I said EXE instead of MSI when referring to the installer. I never download the installer version, so for some reason I thought it was a EXE installer, but it's MSI. Sorry for the confusion there, Miss B.

No problem Lux, as I knew what you were referring to. I guess because it's been a long time since I've installed a new version of Blender, I didn't realize the ZIP file didn't contain an EXE file in it, as that's how it's usually done. I think it's hard to just upload an EXE file by itself for downloading purposes, so they're usually zipped up.

I finally downloaded it and it seems to work on my computer. But I'm never going to learn it all. They keep adding more and more cool things faster than I can learn the older stuff.

My approach is to learn what I need specifically for the project I am working on.

Yeah, that's what I've been doing. Then I later I learn I've been doing something the hard way right along.

Oh I know the name of that game. I've been doing that for years, no matter the software.

Boni posted at 6:13PM Tue, 08 June 2021 - #4420803

My approach is to learn what I need specifically for the project I am working on.

Exactly!!!

IMHO too many people approach Blender like some general all encompassing university course.

I think you learn best with an actual project that is requiring you to learn what you need to meet specific objectives for that project. which makes learning that aspect of blender immediately relevant.

wolf359 posted at 1:09PM Wed, 09 June 2021 - #4420900

Boni posted at 6:13PM Tue, 08 June 2021 - #4420803

My approach is to learn what I need specifically for the project I am working on.

Exactly!!!

IMHO too many people approach Blender like some general all encompassing university course.

I think you learn best with an actual project that is requiring you to learn what you need to meet specific objectives for that project. which makes learning that aspect of blender immediately relevant.

I would agree with this only if the user has a general knowledge of the software to begin with. All too often I see absolute newbies try to use Blender, or any software for that matter, to attack a very complex project and end up getting so frustrated that the project is eventually set aside, sometimes for years. I've seen many people try this approach only to either fail to complete a project or produce something "good enough" rather than fulfilling their true vision. Most of the time, people will decide to go back years later, after they've actually achieved more working knowledge of the software, and redo it again with proper technique.

In my opinion, it can save a lot of time and frustration to just learn a software properly before engaging in a complex passion project. You will be more likely to actually complete the project and be proud of the result the first time around.

Of course, there are always exceptions to this. Obviously it has worked out well for you, Wolf, but more times than not I've seen this "learning as you go" process fail the user in the long run and they end up wasting more time because they have to actually learn things in a more traditional way in order to complete objectives properly anyway.

I should point out that I'm referring to "complex" projects, not tutorial projects. I think tutorial projects are a fantastic way to learn software if the project has been formulated first and foremost as a teaching aid. I think sometimes people just have a passion project in mind, like a full animated movie, that they want to immediately jump into and learn as they go in particular software, and this is potentially disastrous to the learning process as well as the success of that project. I think people need to establish a solid fundamental understanding of the tools they're using before engaging in any serious work with those tools.

Then again, as I mentioned, some people do have success using the "trial by fire" learning process. It seems rare, but it's definitely possible for some people. Usually these are folks with at least some experience in other similar software or a foundation in CG though.

I agree with not getting too complex until you have a handle on the software. I have a complex scene I want to do. I've used most of the techniques I need in other images, but I'm not familiar enough to do them all in one scene so it's going to wait.

Here is the current scene I'm working on. It's pushing my skill level. It's not done. I need to figure out the special effects. And it was done in 2.93

I agree that trying to start a feature length film project when you are new to blender is way pre mature.

However I have noticed that in my Facebook Blender user groups you see total newbies Posting their(very primitive) renders/models every day and asking for project specific help which they get in abundance from the many skilled users in my groups

Yet in certain other "3D character" communities I see people who appear to be only collecting tutorials and engaging in endless theoretical discussion & criticism of Blender year after year, yet they never actually show any examples of any attempts to actually use the program.

Not even the ubiquitous "Doughnut "tutorial

When I ask them directly what are are their objectives in using Blender (modeling,Character animation, VFX etc)

Too often I hear very vague answers such as: "well I heard that blender was suppose to be this great program but all of the gurus in the tutorials use too many keyboard short cuts etc".

IMHO learning any Full 3DCC without a clear creative objective (Immediate or long term) is sort of like attending a university without ever majoring in anything.

@RedPhantom - Lots going on there. What sort of special effects did you want to incorporate into it? I assume perhaps some fire or something?

@wolf359 - yeah, I think I understand what you are saying. There seems to be a contingency of people who are just looking at Blender as perhaps an alternative "free" render engine and may only be interested in the software for that purpose alone. There appears to be a very high demand for plugins and bridge addons that will port geometry and scenes created in other commercial software to Blender, then Blender would just be used to light and render those scenes. That's perfectly fine to do, of course, but I think people underestimate the rendering aspect of Blender and they may not realize that the render engines in Blender depend heavily on the overall workflow of the software itself. In other words, both Eevee and Cycles are just small parts of a much larger ecosystem within Blender that depend on other areas of the software to work efficiently. Especially in the case of Eevee, the render engine results will depend very deeply on the way the scene is lit and the shaders that are used. Settings in the Eevee setup depend largely on PBR maps and shaders, as well as lighting and volumetrics in order to get the most out of the render engine quality. So there is a rather large learning curve involved with Eevee that I think many people don't seem to recognize immediately. I'm sure some people do not wish to invest the time for that, in which case I could think of other render solutions that might be better. Although, those other solutions are not free so there will be a tradeoff of time vs monetary investments that must be considered.

Something like Marmoset Toolbag is very similar to Eevee in that it can be used to render some extremely impressive animations that rival path tracing in some cases, in near real-time. It's also extremely simple to use and contains some features that Eevee doesn't even have yet, like the option to raytrace AO or reflections and screenspace global illumination (although there is a build of Blender that does have that). Certain camera effects like lens flares, lens distortion, chromatic aberration, etc. are all built into Marmoset cameras as render features. People who are looking for real-time rendering solutions for their pre-built scenes or animations would love those types of realistic render features, but Marmoset will never be as popular as Eevee because it's not free to use. Unreal Engine 5 is perhaps the best real-time rendering solution in existence today, but from a hobbyist perspective, it suffers from the same monetary issue as Marmoset with the addition of a steeper learning curve.

" yeah, I think I understand what you are saying. There seems to be a contingency of people who are just looking at Blender as perhaps an alternative "free" render engine and may only be interested in the software for that purpose alone. There appears to be a very high demand for plugins and bridge addons that will port geometry and scenes created in other commercial software to Blender, then Blender would just be used to light and render those scenes. That's perfectly fine to do, of course, but I think people underestimate the rendering aspect of Blender and they may not realize that the render engines in Blender depend heavily on the overall workflow of the software itself. In other words, both Eevee and Cycles are just small parts of a much larger ecosystem within Blender that depend on other areas of the software to work efficiently. Especially in the case of Eevee, the render engine results will depend very deeply on the way the scene is lit and the shaders that are used. Settings in the Eevee setup depend largely on PBR maps and shaders, as well as lighting and volumetrics in order to get the most out of the render engine quality. So there is a rather large learning curve involved with Eevee that I think many >people don't seem to recognize immediately. "

@LUX you have described exactly what I am talking about.

And there is nothing wrong with only wanting to use one or two aspect of the program more than others but as you said ,all of the features of Blender are interconected and there is really no way of slipping one or two fingers outside of your comfort bubble and discreetly accessing one feature of the program while being completely insulated from ever touching the other features.

That said I am a big beleiver in "objective based" learning and the famous Doughtnut scene is a great example of making newbie learn several aspects of the program with the clear objective of creating a specifc scene.

I consider myself primarily a Blender user,(formerly a maxon C4D user

I am all for plugins to import animated figures from other programs Like Iclone/CC3 or even Daz studio. particularly those that auto set up material and shader nodes like the CC3 addon we have for Blender or Diffeomorphic for Daz studio

However I am also fine with standard native exchange formats like FBX,Alembic as well and sorting it all out myself once everything is in Blender.

LuxXeon posted at 8:43PM Thu, 10 June 2021 - #4421004

@RedPhantom - Lots going on there. What sort of special effects did you want to incorporate into it? I assume perhaps some fire or something?

yes, fire, and magic effects. It's dragons vs mages here. I got the fire added today. I'm checking tutorials for magic effects to see what's available.

I think that while some aspects of Blender are interconnected, they aren't all. If you want to import things from other software, you're still going to need to know the camera system, shading, rendering, lighting. But you won't need to know sculpting, modeling (unless you want to create more for your scene), scripting, animation (unless you're doing a video), etc. Granted, once you start doing that, you may start looking at other things to add. Wait, I can make a tornado?

How much you need to learn depends on what you want to accomplish. My first use for blender was a uv mapper. That's all. Nothing else. I modeled in wings and had been doing uv mapping in roadkill, but I didn't like it. I got tired of bouncing between wings and blender, so I decided to learn to model in it.

RedPhantom posted at 10:56AM Fri, 11 June 2021 - #4421015

I think that while some aspects of Blender are interconnected, they aren't all. If you want to import things from other software, you're still going to need to know the camera system, shading, rendering, lighting. But you won't need to know sculpting, modeling (unless you want to create more for your scene), scripting, animation (unless you're doing a video), etc. Granted, once you start doing that, you may start looking at other things to add. Wait, I can make a tornado?

How much you need to learn depends on what you want to accomplish. My first use for blender was a uv mapper. That's all. Nothing else. I modeled in wings and had been doing uv mapping in roadkill, but I didn't like it. I got tired of bouncing between wings and blender, so I decided to learn to model in it.

You are correct. You won't need to learn sculpting or modeling just to render a scene properly. However, it helps to have some basic understanding of these concepts to get the BEST possible renders. More specifically, a basic understanding of topology will ensure that the models you are using do not have surface or geometry errors that will cause certain defects or artifacts in your render. I know this isn't the biggest concern to most people, but you might be surprised to learn how often this happens among people who just have no idea about modeling or sculpting at all.

For example, perhaps an individual has downloaded certain stock models from a free resource like "3d Archive" or something of that nature. The models there are typically very old and have been created using techniques that are mostly obsolete by today's standards. All of those models are .3ds format, which is a very old 3dsmax file format from back in DOS era 3d modeling. It will only support 64k polygons per model, etc. These types of models will often contain many frustrating issues if used with a modern render engine like Cycles that some people who have zero knowledge about geometry or modeling may not know how to fix. Issues like overlapping faces (Z-fighting), flipped normals, light leaking, overlapping vertices, unwelded edges, and the list goes on. These are common problems often found in "free" models out there on the internet which could make or break an otherwise perfect render, and cost the user a few wasted hours or days trying to figure out how to fix this issue. Someone with basic knowledge about modeling could use Blender's tools to quickly repair these anomalies and save a ton of time and effort.

Topology problems in rendering is something not exclusive to just cheap or free models either. Some high-end models that you pay good money for may cause problems in Eevee render engine too. Some content creators may not design their models to work with real-time render engines like Eevee. Some models may not have the proper normal map configuration, some may not use PBR maps with their models, and still there can be geometry issues that will cause render artifacts in both Eevee and Cycles, even in high end models. Most of these issues are super simple to correct directly in Blender, if you just take some time to at least learn the basic tools. It may not be necessary, but it can go a long way in saving you some time in the end.

The only thing I can see where you might need to learn other parts of the software in Blender to render things is the compositor and working with nodes. Especially now in later releases nodes are becoming a bigger part of the overall thing. If you render with Cycles, you'll need to learn some node setup in the compositor if you really wanna speed up the renders. Especially if you don't have a optix gpu. You'll have to use the Intel openAI denoiser in compositor as well as some effects that can be done there. Create lens flairs, lens effects and everything can be done with nodes there.

The model corrections can be done any modeling software, so people don't really need to know how to model in Blender to get those problems solved. The shader system is the only other sticking point for rendering in Blender. If I export something form Daz, even with the best plugin there might be shader stuff that need to be manually adjusted for the best renders. That is double true if you wanna render with eevee it seems. Most of the plugins can optimize the shaders or convert them from one shader tree to another, but eevee isn't always compatible and requires special shaders and settings to do certain effects like glass or whatever.

HMorton posted at 9:23PM Sun, 13 June 2021 - #4421212

The model corrections can be done any modeling software, so people don't really need to know how to model in Blender to get those problems solved. The shader system is the only other sticking point for rendering in Blender. If I export something form Daz, even with the best plugin there might be shader stuff that need to be manually adjusted for the best renders. That is double true if you wanna render with eevee it seems. Most of the plugins can optimize the shaders or convert them from one shader tree to another, but eevee isn't always compatible and requires special shaders and settings to do certain effects like glass or whatever.

You are very much correct in all your points as well. Geometry errors in a model or object that affect rendering can be corrected in just about any capable modeling software, that is true. As I mentioned, it is not necessary to learn these areas of Blender, but it is fundamentally efficient to have some basic understanding of them at least. It's also much more efficient to do as much as you can from within a single software rather than the antiquated "round-tripping" between multiple software packages when it isn't really necessary.

If a geometry error is the cause of some rendering issue, many people may not even recognize it as such. I've seen people spend days or even weeks trying to figure out unwanted rendering behavior only to find, in the end, it was caused by something as fundamental and simple as coincident faces somewhere on the object. The same with animation. If you don't have an understanding of how geometry should flow on a surface, you may not even realize that it's the geometry of a particular object at the root of the rendering issue.

The way geometry is set up or created has not always been a concern for rendering. Older render engines were very good at either completely ignoring or just simply eliminating geometry abnormalities at render time because things like lighting and shadow behavior in most render engines years ago were not very accurate, to begin with. Nowadays everything is based on path tracing, PBR, and physically correct lighting models. This kind of "physical correctness" has many, many benefits, but there are also new problems that can be frustrating to deal with if you are someone who is using models that weren't specifically created with physical correctness in mind.

Again, it's not necessary to learn modeling or sculpting, but I'm undeniably convinced that it would help to understand certain aspects of those skills if you really want to be as efficient as possible with rendering your scenes.

To the point of geometry setup and renders, I think that's always a concern when transferring geometry from program to program. Nonplanar quads can be troublesome, as can unbeveled sharp edges. Mark Sharp is a nice way around it, but you can't rely on that to transfer or work as expected in the target program. Ideally, I suppose we want the beautiful mesh made of evenly-spaced planar quads. But I've seen plenty of models that are kind of crap when you look at the wireframe. Yet, they render well enough. For giggles, I've applied a subdivide modifier to some of them. That broke them. Building models for subdivision has its own challenges.

Blender gets even weirder with its ability to handle n-gons all day long. Blender sort of invites people to make ugly meshes that look great when rendered. Reminds me of people who draw poorly but render beautifully. Since you don't usually see their line drawings, no one cares.

I just don't think geometry is a big problem when rendering in Blender. There are very few mesh errors that will affect the render in modern versions of Blender. More important are knowing the shader and lighting systems of the software. That's where 99% of render problems begin and end. Not with the models. Yeah, if the models are extremely outdated like Lux mentioned in archive 3d, then I can see where you might have some problems. But most of those problems will also come from the way the thing is textured and uv mapped.

Blender isn't the only software that handles ngons flawlessly now. I think just about all software do it. 3dmax, Maya, C4d all seem to handle them great. The only time ngons are a issue these days is when you subdivide for sculpting or whatever. Zbrush doesn't like them, but that's for good reason. Otherwise, there isn't a software today that doesn't handle ngons with great results. There's no reason to avoid them anymore, unless you intend to subdivide the models for sculpting or whatever reason.

HMorton posted at 6:44PM Mon, 14 June 2021 - #4421340

I just don't think geometry is a big problem when rendering in Blender. There are very few mesh errors that will affect the render in modern versions of Blender. More important are knowing the shader and lighting systems of the software. That's where 99% of render problems begin and end. Not with the models. Yeah, if the models are extremely outdated like Lux mentioned in archive 3d, then I can see where you might have some problems. But most of those problems will also come from the way the thing is textured and uv mapped.

I disagree with this part. I think Shading and UV mapping errors can be traced back to bad geometry at least half the time. It's very difficult to properly unwrap a model when the geometry and edge flow are poorly constructed. Have you ever tried to make UV seams on a model that has many star points, poles, and triangles? Extremely frustrating. In the end, you may be forced to retopologize the model just to get a good UV unwrap. It really doesn't matter if the model is mostly quads either. If the topology is too dense, it could be a real hassle to unwrap or texture. This could be solved in one of two ways. Either use procedural, tileable materials with overlapping UVs or retopologize the model with more sensible edge flow. Sometimes retopology is the only answer, especially if you plan to rig, animate, or even just use it as a static prop in a real-time render scenario.

Blender isn't the only software that handles ngons flawlessly now. I think just about all software do it. 3dmax, Maya, C4d all seem to handle them great. The only time ngons are a issue these days is when you subdivide for sculpting or whatever. Zbrush doesn't like them, but that's for good reason. Otherwise, there isn't a software today that doesn't handle ngons with great results. There's no reason to avoid them anymore, unless you intend to subdivide the models for sculpting or whatever reason.

I tend to agree with this, but not in the case of asset exchange between software packages. In other words, if the models are intended for use ONLY in the native software, then feel free to save time and use Ngons to speed up workflow by all means. However, if you plan to ever redistribute the models or use them in other software, then I highly recommend avoiding Ngons whenever possible. Triangles are OK in some areas, but they could also cause pinching and render artifacts when used improperly. Since Ngons require triangulation of the surface at render time in every single render engine on earth, there is no guarantee how it could affect the model outside of the native software.

OK folks, I finally installed (set up) Blender 2.93 on my laptop. I will only have 2.79 and 2.93 to play with as I don't think I'll be playing in 3.0 until it's first stable version, and I have to learn the new UI first before that's going to happen.

Anyway, I picked a nice easy tutorial, one I would know how to do in 2.79 without much effort, and getting things done was a bit daunting, mostly because I had the 2.7x Keymap set up in User Preferences, so I could be more familiar with working in 2.93. Unfortunately some things don't work that way, so had to switch back to the Blender Keymap (for the newer versions) in order to follow along with the tutorial. I may have to leave it that way for now.

Soooo, my first question, and this one's important to me . . . in the 2.79 UI, at the bottom there's a way to choose what "layer" you want to work on, and I always place all lights and cameras on the last layer (#20), and work with my project on the first layer (#1). I do that so if I do a large Box selection, I don't have to worry about grabbing something I shouldn't be grabbing. Well 2.93 doesn't seem to have that, and I can't find it in any menus, so does this still exist, or is it gone for good?????

Hi MissB, yes it has gone for good.
You may use Collections for this. Create a new collection and move your camera and lights to it. Hiding the collection will hide all its child objects.

Geeze, I was already not liking the new UI for some reasons, but this . . . sheesh!

Thanks for the suggestion yarp, as I was wondering if I put them in a separate collection would help. Then I could just unhide it when I'm ready to render, which is just what I did with the separate layers in 2.79.

It is sure a major difference from 2.79.
As for the UI I like the fact I don't have to learn the shortcuts. When I need to do something I just look for it in the menus. And since the shortcut is displayed with the tooltip hint I learn progressively. Like that.

Ahhhh, well I'm a shortcut person, as I always felt I was wasting time looking for something in a menu. I guess it all depends on how you're used to working.

The old layer system was one of the many things that kept me away from blender.

Good riddance ?

At first, I didn't like trading layers for collections, but now, I find I prefer it. When I have to go back to 2.79, I don't like the layers. Here's a shortcut list if you want to learn the new ones.

Thanks for the link RedPhantom, but I had found it the other day, so I'm good to go in that respect.

As for the trading of layers for collections, you've been playing in 2.93 or a while, so you're used to it. I'm sure I'll get used to it too, it's just I've been using layers for so many years, it's going to take me a while to get used to doing it a new way.