I have more general remark. IMO such project as ArduPilot should avoid promoting and sponsoring expensive commercial software like 3Ds Max, MATLAB, CAD, CFD or OpenAI etc. when there are equally good open source options available (like Blender). Not that there’s anything inherently wrong in commercial software. It’s just that typical user will never benefit from the development work done. I mean e.g. a tutorial how to design your vehicle in 3Ds MAX is useless for 99% of community, when even experienced 3D designers can’t afford the license fee.
The indy version is 290.00 that’s not much. DEVs also support the partners that needs a high quality 3D model and a firm pipeline of more than one program, As a primetime EMMY nominated 3D artist and co winner for Star Trek DS9, Voyager, Enterprise and a little of Picard, I understand what it takes. Regarding Blender no one program can do it all. Could be we could start a new topic that does not question choices of software or the validity of said.
If someone can suggest a good blog name I will open one about designing a quad or VTOL in Lightwave and FBX.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the models produced are often shared via open source channels. So the argument is a non-starter.
Yes the models are under open source with the same copyrights. The exception is NDA work. Autodesk made a universal translator we use call FBX. so most programs will load this format. like Lightwave,3d Max, fusion 360,
2 Likes
ArduPilot, being a non-profit organization, maintains a budget to specifically support this kind of work. Seems this is a prime example of community benefit from the use of that budget.
1 Like
That is a good remark, and we often discuss software choice in the team. But from a practical point of view, some paid software support are asked and more broadly used than the FOSS alternative. From the developer point of view, they want to work with the tools they are used to, enforcing another software when it doesn’t have the same capabilities would reduce the contribution IMHO.
On example, MATLAB could be said to be replaced by Octave, but that isn’t true from a control perspective. Simulink and Matlab code generation toolbox (expensive) are way better than what Octave can produce …
Here is a bit of niche case as we don’t do much 3D things, but it would have been a demand to get an Altium license (software for electronic routing) the outcome would have been the same as we got a motivated person to make some work with the software and that will have some return for the community.
Another things to keep in mine is that paying those license is very very very very cheap against the time people spend contributing to the project and supporting the community. So if we can get help the right tools without pain, well let’s try.
Doesn’t say that is all green, sometime we support and the return isn’t that worth it … 
Thanks for your feedback. That is always welcome. 
1 Like