Blender is a common starting point for creating real-time assets, but exporting those assets into a game or visualization engine often raises an immediate question: should the file be exported as FBX or glTF?
Both formats are widely supported by engines such as Unity , Godot and Unigine. Cryengine though supports FBX import via their Mesh Importer. The confusion usually comes from assuming one format is inherently better than the other.
Why Export Format Choice Causes Confusion
Many export issues are blamed on file formats when they are actually caused by inconsistent scale, not applied transforms or poorly defined materials in Blender.
FBX and glTF both carry geometry, transforms and materials. If an asset is not prepared cleanly, changing formats rarely fixes the underlying problem.
What FBX and glTF Are Designed For
FBX has been a long-standing interchange format in game development. It integrates well with established pipelines and is commonly used in engines like Unity and Cryengine .
glTF was designed later with real-time use in mind. It emphasises predictable PBR materials and compact data representation, which often results in faster and cleaner imports in modern engines such as Godot and Unigine.
Where the Differences Matter in Practice
In production workflows, the main differences appear in:
- Material consistency across engines
- Import behaviour and default settings
- How much manual cleanup is required
glTF imports often behave closer to “what you see is what you get” while FBX imports may vary depending on engine-specific importers.
Blender Workflows and Asset Preparation
In Blender-based workflows, asset preparation matters more than format choice. Applied transforms, clean UVs and consistent PBR materials significantly reduce import issues.
A well-prepared asset will usually survive a format change. A poorly prepared asset will cause problems regardless of whether it is exported as FBX or glTF.
How Engines Handle Imported Formats
Engines process imported assets differently. Some internally convert FBX data into representations similar to glTF, while others treat glTF as a preferred or native format.
This affects import speed and setup time, not whether the asset is usable in real-time engines such as Unity or Godot.
What Matters More Than File Format
Across engines and pipelines, the same fundamentals apply:
- Clean geometry without unnecessary density
- Consistent scale and orientation
- UVs designed for real-time textures
- PBR materials that follow expected conventions
When these are in place, both FBX and glTF perform reliably.
What to Expect When Buying Assets
When purchasing real-time assets, file format should be treated as a delivery detail rather than a quality guarantee.
A game-ready asset delivered as FBX or glTF should import cleanly, behave predictably and require minimal cleanup. This is especially true for assets built for reuse across engines like Unigine and CryEngine.
For guidance on evaluating asset quality before purchase, see Game-Ready 3D Assets for Real-Time Projects.
A Practical Way to Choose Between FBX and glTF
If your workflow prioritizes strict PBR consistency and fast iteration, glTF is often a comfortable choice. If you rely on established or legacy pipelines, FBX may fit more naturally.
In both cases, the deciding factor is rarely the format itself. It is whether the asset was designed for real-time use from the start.