Currently, there are several questions on the main site that ask about features not yet in Blender, either planned, broken or not documented. How should we handle these type of questions, most of them are valid but have no set answers yet. I don't think answering these questions do the site any good at the moment. Answers like:

Probably the first release with Volumetrics will be 2.69 or 2.70.


This is in the roadmap and hasn't been addressed yet.

Answers like these do not pass on any useful information and detracts from what this site should be about, we are trying to create an archive of information here, not a list of feature requests or todos. It is also worth noting that most of these are questions since it is still under development..

How should we handle these type of questions?


2 Answers 2


Unless the feature is available in some form...

  • already written a branch or in blenders trunk.
  • available as a script / addon.

... I think we should consider it out of scope.

Someone can ask if a feature exists to perform a certain task, but unless its in a blender release, or already implemented to be included in the next release - I think the answer has to be NO.

Otherwise we get too much into speculation and discussing ideas of features don't yet exist.

We could answer: "No but this isn't hard to add", giving some hints on how to add - a script, C files... etc. but this should be kept very limited. Once we start trying to help them program something themselves the discussion should be taken off stack exchange, or they can format their questions into something that fits into a scripting question in the cases where a python script can solve the problem.


In general terms
B.SE shouldn't be a seen as a destination for feature requests. It's OK to ask if a feature is implemented or where to find appropriate documentation and road-maps for planned or existing features. Better these questions get asked and answered on a public forum than repeatedly in private or IRC.

Asking about missing features / functionality
Sometimes functionality is only perceived to be missing, it might exist as an addon or relatively obscure key combo. (like control-A for skin modifier)

Questions about planned features
What else is there to do but reference the roadmap, preferably link it. Perhaps close it as off topic or beyond the scope?

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ For the last one, yes, close as off topic. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 23, 2013 at 13:03
  • $\begingroup$ @zeffii, I don't think world_to_camera_view case is relevant. The question was valid, the answer happened to include a function which was useful to include in blenders utility module. But even if that wasn't the case the answer gave the user what they asked for. Said differently - just because some questions result in features being added, doesn't mean its OK to ask for features. $\endgroup$
    – ideasman42
    Commented Jun 24, 2013 at 1:33
  • $\begingroup$ @ideasman42 perhaps I phrased it in an unfortunate way. $\endgroup$
    – zeffii
    Commented Jun 24, 2013 at 4:38

You must log in to answer this question.

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