Blender MCP is impressive but not that useable (yet)
一位用户测试了Blender MCP,认为它是一项令人印象深刻的工程壮举,但目前在3D建模方面尚不实用。尽管经过多次迭代并尝试了自我改进循环,该工具仅提供了80%的解决方案,类似于AI编码。生成的网格缺乏良好的边流所需的基本结构,使得拓扑清理毫无意义,需要完全重做。用户建议,需要更好的集成方法,类似于编码中的线束,才能使Blender MCP更具可行性,因为其当前状态不足以用于实际应用。
时间与来源
时间显示为 UTC
显示时区:UTC
本地时区尚不可用,暂时显示 UTC。
发布当时偏移:UTC+02026年9月12日 10:36 UTC
收录当时偏移:UTC+02026年9月12日 12:01 UTC
- 发布
- 2026年9月12日 10:36
- 收录
- 2026年9月12日 12:01
- 来源类型
- 开发者社区
- 档位
- 社区
- 信源状态
- 正常
档位是按信源手工设定的编辑判断,不是逐条打分。
So after all the hype i wanted to give the blender mcp a try. I know what sub this is and what people in that space are like, but i also believe that giving the AI-Hype train a small reality check from time to time will help to actually improve these things. I do find it an incredible engineering feat to build tools like this in the end, so here a my 2 cents:
I ran multiple iterations, tried to create a self improvment loop, but its like coding with ai. You only get a 80% solution. Unlike coding tho the results arent that easily modifiable. Like if i ask it to write a function for me i need to break it down so much that fits into the requirements of the codebase and maybe write a few lines here and there to simplify things and nudge it into the right direction. Whereas with the mcp i cant see something like this. It did a decent shilouette but cleaning that topology is pointless (this is what i got after i added a prompt that i want quads): Id need to rework the whole mesh anyway, as it simply lacks the fundamental structure to create a decent edge flow. I assume humans will need to find ways to integrate it better. Simmilar as coding got a whole lot better with harnesses, id really wanna see if a simmilar approach could work for blender, but for now its just not that good. Impressive, but not that feasible. Anyone else here that has a fair bit of expierence with 3D Modelling and tried the new astra Model?