Rig UI simplifies rig management of bone collections with an easy-to-use interface, ideal for any armature, including Rigify. It features a one-button setup for Rigify layouts and customizable icons for bone collections. Importer from bone collections directly into the UI.
All this and many more features make it a go-to tool for efficient rig control.
This extension is not approved because I am not allowed to add links to Blender market and Gumroad. It is the exact same version of Rig UI you can find there.
Latest version of Rig UI basic for Blender 4.20 LTS
To get the latest pro version visit Blender Market or Gumroad: Link
This extension requests the following permission:
Access to filesystem to import and export UIs
The issue is that I have my preferences file in a subfolder and to access the name I pull it dynamically like this:
ADDON_NAME = __package__.split(".")[0]
In order to get the package name from the top folder, as it does not work otherwise because it takes the __package__
from the folder it is in otherwise.
Am I obliged as well to get the preferences file on the root of the addon? Or can I keep this structure for organization and keep using my workaround?
__package__.split(".")[0]
isn't correct.
The ID needs to be the module name and the add-on name, see: https://docs.blender.org/manual/en/dev/extensions/addons.html#extensions-and-namespace sub-packages section
Sub-modules can use: from .. import __package__ as base_package
Updated as requested. read all the docus there. missed the subpackages. Just to be clear this is only mandatory to follow that format for the preferences, correct? Let me know if it works or it needs additional changes.
One piece of feedback is that I was not able to upload the same version again, is there a way to delete an old version if I have to replace it?
This applies to any part of your add-on that refers to the package name. I didn't check your code specifically to know if this is required elsewhere besides the preferences.
Thanks for the feedback. In theory it would have been possible if this hasn't been published/approved yet. But since I did an early approval of the extension it got blocked on the system already.
I just realized I mixed the extensions and approved this one thinking this was a different one. At the moment there is no way of undoing this. I will set it again for review
.
By the way, in theory you could've "Convert to Draft" an unpublished extension version and deleted it.
Now to the remaining issue(s)?
When trying to enable I get this error:
Error: No module named 'bl_ext.blender_org.amp_rig_ui.Rig_UI_pro_modules'
On this part of the code: from .Rig_UI_pro_modules import pro_transfer_setup
After you address this, please Install from Disk to test if everything is working well.
Converted to Draft
Fixed, tested and uploaded a new version 1.0.331 (can't delete the other version even if I transform it to draft). Is there a way to delete one of the versions or the files once they are uploaded?
We've added new mandatory fields: Featured Image and Icon. Featured Image is shown at the home page instead of the first preview image, and icon is shown in the extension's title (and later will be shown in Blender as well).
Could you please update your extension with an icon and a featured image?
Apologies for the late heads up.
Ready for review
Thanks for the info. Updated.
Hello!
In 4.2 new "Online Access" property was added in preferences. It's a read-only property that Blender and add-ons should refer to. Add-ons that access the internet are now expected to check for bpy.app.online_access
and not connect if user turns it off.
Could you please update your add-on to adapt to that requirement? You can read more here https://developer.blender.org/docs/release_notes/4.2/python_api/#additions
Converting to awaiting changes until last requirement is met.
Converted to Draft
Ready for review
Not yet ready for review, figuring out an error and uploading a new version.
Converted to Draft
Ready for review
Converted to Draft
Ready for review
Hey NDA,
Extensions platform only allows fully self-contained and free add-ons. Your add-on includes A LOT of references to Pro version, which we cannot allow, since it's at best the advertisement and at worst makes the add-on incomplete without purchasing something.
In order for this add-on to be completely compliant with our policy and self-sufficient all references to Pro version should be removed, including pro icons, checks for Pro version, UI polls for version, as well as links to websites where you can purchase it that are in preferences and UI.
Preview screenshots should also only show what is available in this version of add-on. Users shouldn't get the add-on and find that UI looks different.
Looking forward to seeing this one inside Blender!
It is fully self contained and fully functional.
It has a pro version that has more features and expands on the functionality of this addon.
All the pro version features are simply not enabled if the directory is not present. This is done just for siplicity of maintaing the two version but everything that is a pro feature is ignored in the basic version. I am a solo dev and can only maintain so much code for the addons. If this is not allowed I will not be able to maintain and publish the addon on the platform. I hope this can be fixed somehow to help addon devs. This is a honest free basic and fully functional version of the addon (the pro version has other buttons as optional upgrades, as well as visibility bookmarks and custom properties) but the whole UI config and usability of the bone collections is absolutely free and functional as is.
For the screenshots I agree it makes sense to address that, but for the internal files it would be too costly for me to maintain and I hope it can be allowed.
For the links I could change it to my discord or linktree, but again why would liking to my other work would not be allowed? Feels too restrictive and not very supportive of the addon developers that have some form of their income to be able to continue doing addons through these means.
There are lot of issues with allowing add-ons to advertise paid services on extensions platform and I can discuss that personally if you wish, but to keep review short I asked again about this, and answer is unfortunately no to both allowing weblinks and using code that checks for paid versions.
Goal of the official extensions platform is to provide users with fully finished products they can just grab from Blender much like how they could use bundled add-ons before, so there are number of policies and requirements add-ons must meet, one of them being that they should just get the functionality that is shown and described and nothing more or less: no downgraded features, no demos, no adverts, etc.
I'm sure you understand that this is not about restricting add-on developers, but it's about what Blender, a fully open-source and free project supports on its official platform and what that might entail for users.
I would understand if we were talking about "any paid service" but this is about the two main platforms for addons to be sold for blender to support the addon developers. I would find it very hipocritical of the Blender foundation to accept sponsorship money from Blender Market for the Blender Conference or have them host one almost entirely on their own and then forbid that the small developers benefit from that same platform when it is money that is not going directly to the Blender foundation. I support it in my addons as well with my sales and feels awfully awkward that at least Blender Market would not be allowed to be linked back to.
This is terribly frustrating and makes me not want to work with Blender anymore tbh.
I will stick to non official channels until someone aligns the small developers advertising their addons in the same platforms that sponsor Blender events...
@nickberckley Hmm, If I undertand it correct, it seem that its okay to link to external websites, marketplaces and services and products according to Ton Rosendal: https://x.com/tonroosendaal/status/1813234759117467721
Then would it be fine to remove the thumbnails from the page and mark it live?
The code for the pro part literally does nothing, only checks if the pro directory exists, and sets certain properties on the preferences. The only reason I am making this check is to prevent the basic version to clutter the file or the memory with unused properties. I could literally remove the pro version check and make the basic version less efficient, but I am sure this should be allowed. Otherwise I will need to maintain two separate code branches and duplicate a lot of things manually prone to errors, I would really prefer to avoid that.
We discussed this more and (almost) final decision is to allow promotional links to pro versions inside the description on the website, but never inside the Blender. We want to keep Blender entirely free of ads and promotions.
We'll probably also allow checks for pro versions. If you're comfortable with those terms you can update your add-ons and resubmit for review.
In my addon there is no promotion of the pro version nor mention of it to the user in Blender. There are links to the support for the addon (twitter and discord), a patreon that is not used, and blender market and gumroad, but without mention of what is there. Both basic and pro versions are available there, but it is not told nor entised for any upgrade. No mention anywhere inside of my addon public facing that there is even a pro version outside of the mention I put here in the extensions description, which according to the guidelines you outline seems to be in line with them.
As I expressed this is a completely honest attempt to provide the blender community with a genuine out of the box complete solution without limitations. The pro version expands on other functionalities (adds visibility bookmarks, an alternative to the bone collection buttons and custom properties management and UI) but the basic addon gives uses complete control to create a fully fledged UI for bone collections for any armature, similar to what rigify does.
The code checks are, in my case, only to avoid registering things that are not needed for the basic version of the addon to run that still need to be registered from, for example, the preferences file, and I want to avoid having to maintain two separate versions. As far as I am aware there is no other way to register preferences properties from a separate file, so this check is the only way I can fix. This makes the basic version more efficient as it doesn't bloat Blender with properties or things that the addon does not use.
I just want a good solution for the extension to work and provide a service to the blender community while allowing me to use the same code base with some checks (and some different scripts, in my case the presence or not of the "pro" folder) while at the same time allowing me to have a single code base that I can easily maintain, especially as I am planning to release more addons with the same philosophy.
If that is fine the only thing I need to do then is to update the screenshots to only display the basic version features, otherwise the addon should be good to go as is if the above is within the guidelines.
Thanks for the effort and discussions around this topic, it makes a big difference and helps me trying to add my piece of value to Blender.
Converted to Draft
Ready for review
Links inside preferences inside Blender, are still considered as advertisment, even if not specifically labeled as "Buy" or etc. as they imply that to user.
On website, there are two things. First, "Website" link that you put in blender_manifest. What you have there might be fine, but to tell you as user it's quite confusing. I think users will mostly want to go to link and learn more about add-on, see documentation, see its community, etc. And It leading to 6 links out of which only 1 is relevant to the product I'm using is putting me off. I would advise you to have Discord server link there, and promote other links on landing page that users will go to, but put emphasis on this add-on, where users can learn more, where to ask questions, and etc.
Second link can go inside the description on the website (but we only allow one funding/upgrade link per extension). There you're free to promote your add-on, explain that Pro version exists and point people in the right location.
In sum, goal is to keep Blender fully "clean", and allow promotion on the website. It's also important to note that if users install your add-on locally "Visit Website" link in add-on preferences will take them to whatever you have written in blender_manifest, and also why I think its important to have add-on relevant information there.
Checks we will allow in most cases.
When you've made modifications and are ready for review mark this as "Awaiting Review"
I think this is rather confusing. I think adding links to the places where the addon (free and or paid) can be found is a perfectly honest approach, it gives users the option to get the addon in the platform of their choice. I can't understand why adding a link to blender market, gumroad, and if I finially manage to publish my addon here, to the blender extensions, is a perfectly honest and fine approach giving users the agency to choose from where they want to download or upgrade their addons.
I cant understand that policy about "one link per extension". And I am unsure with the links you describe there if you are talking anymore about the extensions website, my own website or inside of the addon.
This tweet seems to suggest we are all fine to link to the other stores: https://x.com/tonroosendaal/status/1813234759117467721
Why do you want to limit how I link to my other work and add so many restrictions? I understand you may want to limit a direct "buy here" or "upgrade to pro" or anything like that, but simple links to the stores seems restrictive and weird not adding any real value to anyone and micromanaging how I want to work with my own extensions and what I consider the best for the user.
Working with you guys is the most frustrating experience by far and the most amount of work I had to put into any of the platforms I publish my addons in. You can check the history of me trying to publish the addon where there have been new things comming up every 2 weeks preventing it from being approved. And now all these new shenannigans with things that were there from day one.
I am really trying to do the right thing and use your platform to give users choice and agency, which is one of my main design phylosophies with the addon, but you are really trying to micromanage things that seem arbitrarily limiting my creative and user centric decisions.
I think I will simply wait until your platform is mature enough to understand the users it is catering to and suppor my extension without the approval here, and add it to the links within the addon. I will explain in the description why it is not an approved extensions and we will cal it a day.
I can't spend all this time and resources trying to fix an every growing and changing list of requirements on your end where half of them seem arbitrary and limiting even when I am not trying to get sales just give users choice.
Thanks for your time and trying to discuss this with me and internally, I hope this evolves to a good place, I will try to share my thoughts during the Blender Conference in person where it may be much easier to discuss with you guys directly and with other addon developers to hear everyone's take.
Converted to Draft
Ready for review
It really is not that much to have it approved:
Website
link to the add-on page here.You can add if pro
statements in the code to only show up in the pro version, not on this one.
It's not much to ask really. Imagine if every add-on would display such ads. You don't want Blender to become that.
Blender provides this platform for free, the software free of advertisements (besides a tiny Donate link in the splash), add-ons should follow this principle as well.
Hi Pablo,
I still fail to understand how a link to Blender Market or Gumroad where this version of the addon, and the pro version can be downloaded for free, or purchased (in the case of the pro) is advertisement but I can make a compromise there. You need to keep in mind as well that most of the support, for the free and the paid version of the addon today comes through Blender market no matter how much I try to diver the traffic for that to twitter or discord, and that is a reality that is there, not an oppinion.
Addon development is a hobby that I am trying to turn into a profession but right now is a ridiculous fraction of my income and a huge undertaking on my time. I hope you guys understand the approach and that this is re-evaluated.
I provide this fully functional addon for free as well, and the only thing I add is a link to where people can get the version of their choice, and is the place where I host the pro version as well. I still fail to understand how that can be called "advertisement" especially with no mention or call to upgrade, or anything. Especially because the free version in my case provides FULL functionality to manage bone collections:
basic:
pro:
To be fair the "basic" version is a fully fledged solution for creating UIs for rigs for bone collections without touching a single line of code for the users and is provided as free as Blender is. So the arguments about free platform and free Blender work for the free part of the addon as well. And over time I have shifted more and more functionalities to the free part because I want to help and contribute while I am transitioning to trying to make a living out of this because I feel I can add a lot of value, but I will not be able to do it if I can't find a way to finance the effort, and there we, the addon developers, need the support and understanding of this platform.
Hey everyone,
Just a heads-up about a recent change regarding the licensing of add-ons on the Blender extension platform. Moving forward, all add-ons will need to be released under the GNU/GPL 3.0 license (SPDX:GPL-3.0-or-later). This is mainly to keep things simple and consistent across the board.
Previously, we accepted various licenses as long as they were compatible with Blender’s distribution. However, to avoid any confusion and streamline the process, all add-ons using the bpy API should now be presented as GPL 3 (the same license the Blender bundle is distributed). Regardless of whether the original code was under GPL 2, or something else like MIT or ZLIB.
Existing add-ons versions won't be affected. However, new updates will need to comply to the revised requirements.
Thanks for understanding, and feel free to reach out if you have any questions.
All my addons are and have been GPL 3 since the start. The pro and free versions.
You are correct, it does on the new toml file, probably because I used the provided template and did not check it, it is v3 on the init though. Will change it moving forward. Thanks for the heads up.
Sign in to comment.
Please test the extension works on when installed on blender running with factory settings.
Attempting to enable the add-on fails with an error:
KeyError: 'bpy_prop_collection[key]: key "AMP_Rig_UI" not found'
See the section on using
__package__
https://docs.blender.org/manual/en/4.2/extensions/addons.html#user-preferences-and-package