If you lost the knowledge and are substituting a library (vendor) for that knowledge, you have to rewrite that library to understand its gaps and how to update it.
For a digital content creation tool studio (dcc) which has one tool (maya) and they use a intermediate format called (fbx) and you want to interchange a 3d avatar in Godot Engine.
If you want to amend the process to swap out maya with blender, you would need to understand how the fbx format works and also how maya, blender and Godot Engine works.
Sure you can outsource the library to an external project like assimp, but the moment a particular fbx is broken you basically start rewriting assimp. If the errors are close to 80% of the imported cases, you'd need to rewrite assimp.
Also fbx in Godot Engine is a reimplementation of FBX as there's no specifcation of FBX file format. This is similar to your vendor locked in description.
This isn't a typical enterprise data exchange process but maybe my change of the theme of the process can help.
The vendor route feels great at the beginning with clean UX and fewer moving parts, until costs creep up or you suddenly need an engine or table format the platform doesn’t really support.
The open route gives you freedom, but then you’re managing multiple catalogs, inconsistent metadata models, and a bunch of glue code nobody planned for but still ends up living forever. Gravitino seems to be tackling the “one catalog vs many catalogs” issue.
Where do lineage and ACLs actually live in your setup? I’m genuinely curious how people are handling this today.
