Why use 2.92?

[Endorphins Plox]

Why are so many modern addons still built on 2.92 when the software is up to 3.6 now? It seems like the vast majority of users are still on 2.92 but I don't see any benefit to it. Any insight as to what I'm missing?

[The Renderer]

2.92 was the last version that ran in Win7, maybe a couple of addons didn't feel like updating but if you seriously want to claim that "many modern addons" and "the vast majority of users" still use 2.92, I'd like to see your sources.

[Endorphins Plox]

Originally posted by The Renderer:

2.92 was the last version that ran in Win7, maybe a couple of addons didn't feel like updating but if you seriously want to claim that "many modern addons" and "the vast majority of users" still use 2.92, I'd like to see your sources.

I only said that's how it seems. I'm not claiming to have abject proof and merely held a curiosity as to why it seemed that way. Dunno why that seems to have gotten a rise out of you. Its just a simple question wherein I admit that I may just be missing some insight. Chill out

[The Renderer]

I answered your question (as well as I could) and showed scepticism towards your claim, that's all, not sure why that made you feel attacked, wasn't my intention.

[Endorphins Plox]

You worded it in a hostile way. I'm sorry if that wasn't your intention but the accusatory phrasing of "if you seriously want to claim" is pretty much bound to come off pretty inflammatory.

[87]

it was a fair response to a ridiculous statement. you have zero proof of how many people use 2.92 or any other version yet your question suggests some truth in your observation.

i worked for hanson robotics (sophia - ai robot fame) they used some old version of blender (i forget it exactly, was around 2.6) because it's stable and their big project wont get screwed by a software updates. its quite a common practice and possibly why old versions still require addons.

[Endorphins Plox]

So from your perspective as a person who worked with a company who used this software professionally (presumably because they couldn't afford an industry-standard software), this statement might seem ridiculous.

[87]

the company could easily afford a paid software but why bother when a perfectly good free alternative is available?

[Mark3]

I can assure the self proclaimed "experts" and forum police here that it is certainly the case that even large multi-national corporations often use *very* old software, especially when they have very strict acceptance procedures.
It is not a matter of cost but what works with often quite old proprietary solutions. The last firm worked for was one of these. It dealt mainly with defence contracts, and had strict software vetting & security. On their books, Blender was available - but only version 2.79b. I was at that time stuck on windows 7, Win10 upgrades were slowly rolling out, using Maya 2011, and Modo 10.2x, plus some key software that was much older. None of which could be updated. I put in a request for Blender to be updated, and after just 6 months of vetting and persuasion, got them to update to 2.8x (not the latest version at all at that time).
So yes, it is possible that teams, that have been working on older software might not feel the need to upgrade to the latest versions, especially if what they have works, and they are mid-way through a long project. The last project I was on lasted 5 years.
Not everyone out there is an armchair expert, with the latest hottest hardware, and bleeding edge software. This is why anyone who is doing production work will more likely be using an LTS version, introduced in v2.83 - and not necessarily the latest one.
The op said "SEEMS", so maybe LAY OFF the attack mode - it was just an opinion!. I also note that many low end devices can run Blender 2.8 or 2.9 and that appears in recommendations online. Windows 7 is also a factor if you insist on using that. Also remember that not all users or creators are living in wealthy western countries.

[Velp]

I believe the answer is more mundane than that. If I remember right, 2.92 was the last time the addon api had a large change. Anything that works on 2.92 should work on 4.0 as well.

[Kaykay]

It has the old interface / hotkeys and some people have work to do and no time for relearning on the job. Doing so in their own time can be confusing and slow down production later at work. No time for that either.

Also some features worked in older versions that do not in 3.X versions. Including some plugins. Certainly not a majority though.

[The Renderer]

Originally posted by Kaykay:

It has the old interface / hotkeys and some people have work to do and no time for relearning on the job. Doing so in their own time can be confusing and slow down production later at work. No time for that either.

2.92 does not have the old interface (that was 2.79 and older). But yes, updating can be a hassle if you have a production line that works and maybe relies on certain addons or workflows that may not work in a newer version.

[Navigator_ITA]

They are too lazy for update.

[Mark3]

Do you know that, or perhaps, you believe everyone should support previous work they did for free forever? Maybe you can write a replacement for all the plugins that need updating, for free of course.