Blender 4.0 release notes

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Blender 4.0’s impending release prompts both excitement and some confusion, as links to release notes and builds appeared before the official announcement pages were fully updated. Commenters highlight Blender as a standout example of open-source software that rivals or surpasses commercial 3D tools in polish, features, and community responsiveness, often contrasting it with projects like GIMP and commercial suites like Adobe’s. Much of the conversation centers on how Blender’s funding, development history, UI evolution, Python extensibility, and professional use cases have shaped its success, alongside wishes for improvements in areas like the video editor and accessibility.

Release status and communication

  • Thread starts amid confusion: release notes tagged, but main site and downloads lagged; some saw only 3.6 or daily “4.0 stable” builds.
  • Later, the official 4.0 release page goes live; some still criticize poor communication (no clear RC1 “ready for testing” blog post, milestones showing 92% complete).
  • Blender.org briefly struggles under traffic (“hug of death”).

Perceived quality, comparisons, and polish

  • Many are impressed that Blender feels “professional” and on par with commercial tools, especially compared to other FOSS GUIs like GIMP.
  • Adobe comparisons are mixed: some say Adobe tools are bloated and unstable; others argue current Creative Cloud apps are stable and powerful.
  • Blender is repeatedly cited as an exceptional FOSS project, compared to Postgres, Krita, KiCad, Audacity, Godot.

UI, UX, and accessibility

  • Strong praise for Blender’s custom OpenGL UI: fast, scalable, tiling layout, command search, small productivity touches (e.g., drag over checkbox columns).
  • Debate over “roll your own GUI in OpenGL” difficulty; some say it’s manageable with immediate-mode patterns; others point out text input, trees, menus, accessibility as hard problems.
  • Blender is acknowledged as effectively a custom OpenGL surface with poor screen-reader integration and weak keyboard navigation in some panels; accessibility is seen as limited but partly justified by its heavy visual nature.
  • Mouse behavior (right-click menus on press vs release) and keymaps spark debate; some see Blender as “pro” UX, others find it nonstandard or wish for more configurability.

History, funding, and why Blender “stands out”

  • Long argument over whether Blender’s polish mainly stems from:
    • Its commercial origins and ~€4.5M early investment (giving it a head start and community momentum), or
    • Two decades of open-source work, major UI overhauls (2.5, 2.8), responsiveness to user feedback, and large corporate sponsorships (e.g., EPIC grant, substantial monthly funding).
  • Some say the original proprietary product was mediocre and the real success came post–open source; others insist the early investment and codebase were crucial catalysts.

Non-3D features: video editor, compositing, scripting, APIs

  • Video editor: seen as “serviceable” for basic/shot-based work but UX-awkward for live-action editing; lacks quality-of-life features like persistent waveforms and better snapping; generally not competitive with Premiere/Resolve.
  • Compositing: Natron is suggested as current open-source leader; Blender is “catching up.”
  • Remote rendering: users want transparent use of remote GPUs; others point to existing solutions like Flamenco or render clusters.
  • Extensibility: Python is tightly integrated and widely praised; everything is scriptable, tooltips expose API calls. A C/C++ plugin API is explicitly rejected by Blender devs (per thread) on philosophical/GPL grounds.

Community, sponsorship, and comparison to other OSS

  • Blender is described as unusually artist-driven: many features shaped by production use, open movies, and studios.
  • Large corporate and community funding are seen as accelerants, but posters stress that Blender “earned” this by being responsive to users.
  • Some wish Godot and other projects could replicate Blender’s funding and community dynamic; note Godot’s own funding efforts.

Learning, culture, and media

  • The famous donut tutorial is acknowledged as a near-universal Blender “Hello, world.”
  • Multiple learning resources are cited: the donut series, paid crash courses, and Python-based learning via Blender’s API.
  • Blender Studio shorts and third-party series (e.g., Dynamo Dream) are highlighted as showcases; people marvel at their quality but emphasize they’re team efforts by seasoned professionals.

Industry and jobs tangent

  • Side discussion on animation/VFX jobs: some claim many roles have moved abroad (India, Canada, Europe); others argue the picture is more nuanced, with multiple factors (strikes, production cuts) and only partial outsourcing.
  • Disagreement remains: some insist offshoring is a major factor; others counter that specific outsourcing patterns and regions are being overstated.

Critiques of 4.0 and design changes

  • One user strongly dislikes changes to the subdivision modifier with creasing (producing spikes) and the revamped modifier tab UI (more clicks, nested menus), calling recent changes “horrible.”
  • Others note that, overall, Blender is evolving quickly and they “can’t keep up,” but view this pace as positive.

Miscellaneous

  • Users discuss WASD/right-mouse “fly” navigation and share addons / built-in modes enabling it.
  • Space-bar search/menu search (and a new space-to-search-menus feature) is praised as particularly helpful for new users.
  • People share personal stories of Blender inspiring careers in programming, particularly via Python integration.