I don't have any problem with the Blender Stack Exchange site. It's going to be very useful to me while learning Blender. But why is there a Stack Exchange site specific to Blender? I mean, there is much other 3D software too. Where would one ask Cinema 4D modelling questions or some other 3D software?

In other words, why isn't there a 3D modeling/graphics Stack Exchange site instead?

  • 1
    If you have 3D questions related to 3D Printing they might fit on 3D Printing.se but they have an extensive what's on topic page for what they accept and foremost not accept, so be sure to read all of that before consider posting. – rene Jun 30 at 7:55
  • 2
    @rene yeah but that's a bit different type of topic – Vikas Jun 30 at 7:56
  • Perhaps the question could be asked as: "Now that Blender SE already exists, how could we arrive at having a generic 3D SE? (whose existence would be demonstrably beneficial)" – Levente Jun 30 at 11:32
  • @Levente sure, but I couldn't think about it that way. – Vikas Jun 30 at 12:08
  • Can someone please explain why downvotes? I don't see where else I could ask this question. There was no intention to criticize Blender or target Blender SE, if that's the reason for downvotes. I'm already involved in Blender SE because I'm learning it and will continue it. There's no reason I would target it negatively. – Vikas Jun 30 at 14:40
  • 1
    Honestly, I was just expecting that there could be some specific reason (which was given in the answer). – Vikas Jun 30 at 14:41
  • 1
    Why something isn't there is hardly an interesting as proven by the answer. With a bit of research you would have found that sites are created by a process on Area 51. And even if that didn't click just searching for "blender" or "3d" returns posts like 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Lack of research still is a downvote reason as is not useful. – rene Jun 30 at 16:49
  • If you have an actual Cinema 4D modelling question that isn't on-topic on blender, you could have turned your question into a site-recommendation. Those questions are not easier but when phrased correctly often better received as their usefulness is a lot greater for future visitors. – rene Jun 30 at 16:49
  • @rene well I was aware of the fact that sites can be opened using area51. But still . . . – Vikas Jun 30 at 16:54
  • 1
    Then you didn't search there: area51.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8935/… – rene Jun 30 at 17:02
  • @rene that seems like a good response to my question 😉 and not rude too. – Vikas Jun 30 at 17:09
  • So, it would have been better if the downvoters would mark it as duplicate or migrate it. – Vikas Jun 30 at 17:10
  • 3
    Everyone is free to vote as they see fit. You still seem to think the voters are at fault but the content of your question isn't up to par either. So please stop blaming the voters. Migrating duplicates isn't doing the receiving site a favor. We can't cross site dupe vote but I'm sure there is a feature request for that somewhere. Was specially a hot topic after the MSO - MSE split. – rene Jun 30 at 17:24

why isn't there 3D modeling/graphics SE instead?

Because nobody started the process of creating new Stack Exchange site for 3D modeling/graphics (via Area 51), or started, but it never took off due to not enough followers, commitment, activity, etc.

  • 1
    Oh. Never thought it that way. – Vikas Jun 30 at 7:51
  • 2
    @Vikas yeah sometimes things are more simple than we can imagine. :) – Shadow Wizard Wearing Mask V2 Jun 30 at 8:00
  • No, it's not simple, it's now more complicated. If there was yet neither a Blender SE, nor a general 3D one, it would be more simple: one could be created; probably — to start on the luckier foot this time — it could be the generic 3D one. But now that Blender SE exists, it's tricky for a generic 3D SE to come into existence, as it is partially already out-competed. Is there a recipe to overcome this situation? Either start a new, competing, partially redundant SE (difficult), or update the scope of the existing Blender SE (in theory, could it be easier)? – Levente Jun 30 at 11:36
  • 1
    @Levente updating the scope needs their community's approval. They may or may not agree with the proposal. – Meta Andrew T. Jun 30 at 11:50
  • @MetaAndrewT. that already sounds interesting; however, if the community would agree, the site would need to be renamed; would SE be supportive of the name change of an SE? That would involve a domain-name change, link redirects, and would even involve the custom theme (maybe they could just get away with designing a new logo?) – Levente Jun 30 at 11:55
  • @Levente it has happened before: Programmers -> Software Engineering, Health -> Medical Sciences, LEGO® Answers -> Bricks (granted, the last two are beta sites with no site design, and the last one was due to a request from an external party) – Meta Andrew T. Jun 30 at 12:08
  • Another point worth tossing in is that generalist sites seem like they may be more difficult to maintain than more specifically-scoped ones. Take the 7 currently active cryptocurrency and blockchain technology-related Stacks; we've splintered off a new site for each new technology that wants one. The first, Bitcoin.SE, actually launched with a generalist approach, but narrowed their scope after losing steam on everything except Bitcoin specifically (there was other context, but that's the gist). – zcoop98 Jun 30 at 15:26

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .