separate download? That’s not what I have heard though
https://developer.blender.org/T55239
In this task it is said that the bundle would be built in assets included in 3.0
This document contains a list of the built-in assets we would like to include with Blender 3.0.
@JulienKaspar Do you think is good to split the planar skull in two pieces? I think a skull like that is useful to start building a head more than other thing, so having it separated in two pieces I feel is not very useful, but I can do it if you feel is necessary.
@JulienKaspar I have download the your base meshes from the svn, and they have some animation and drivers on to them, what is the purpose of that?
I have transfer the mesh, it was not so hard 
I just made a initial reshape of the head, but I have to work it more, but it can be nice to have the same character, one styled and one realistic, wile been as neutral as possible
sounds good 
It looks like the plans for the bundle will need to be further discussed and will most likely be delayed to Blender 3.1.
I’ll keep you updated and share any progress I’ll make in creating more assets.
Thanks for the update, I’ll keep improving the ones I want to make, in any case they may be useful to someone 
These are really awesome, but I haven’t really used the asset manager at all. How do these bundles work, and how can someone go about getting and using them?
I believe that the asset browser releases tomorrow with 3.0, and the bundles later on.
Until there are further plans on the Blender Asset Bundle I published the assets mentioned here on the Blender Studio website for free:
So whats the plan? If this is a call for content, it should be shared on the socials of blender.
This task is now getting more active again. Check out the updated description for more info.
Important info for the asset bundle:
@Tonatiuh Are you still able to donate your skull and human sculpts? It would be fantastic to include these.
Of course, for 3.5 or 3.6, I have to check the files and finish them.
Would some “topology educational” models be useful? I’d love to donate a couple models that I made, if you’d accept them (it’s okay if you don’t want them, just let me know either way).
@JulienKaspar where is the asset bundle now that Blender is on gitea?
Are there some stylistic guidelines or a list of assets needed? If it’s useful I can do some cleanup (downres teeth, relax some loops, make symmetric UVs, etc.) on some base models I’m using, not sure they’re in line with what you’re looking for though.
The hand is an average blend of 4 scans (2 male and 2 female) to get generic forms, and the teeth are based on dental casts.
Still in the same repository url. I linked it in the thread description too:
https://svn.blender.org/svnroot/bf-blender/trunk/lib/assets/working/base_meshes/
@AndyCuccaro @dan2
I’ve made a clearer list in the thread description on what assets are still needed and what qualities they should have.
The retopology references are great but I’m skeptical they make for good base meshes.
I like the hand and teeth base meshes. If they are a bit too high-res it’s best to unsubdivide them once more.
Symmetrical UVs would also be good
Once you’re happy with the meshes feel free to share them. I’ll make sure they are added and credited in the asset library.
@Tonatiuh Regarding your base meshes:
The Essential assets will no longer have a multires on them, so that’s a limitation to keep in mind.
So they should be subdividable low-res base meshes like the already included assets.
The realistic full body male sculpt is sadly no longer needed for the base meshes.
But reusing the feet for a base mesh would be great.
The skull will need a retopology to be included.
Same for the planar models. These could use sharp edges to make the subdivided result look correct.
If you like you could work on that yourself or share your current work and I could take care of the retopo 
For future downloadable asset bundles we can make sure the meshes come with multires subdivisions included.
---- Blender Asset Bundle info -
Possible issues:
─ Violates zero cost paradigm.
─ Can easily bloat the Blender download size.
─ Assets may already be installed from another Blender version.
All the issues described here, Will become actual unsolvable problem and i have no idea why you are moving forward as it is clear that you are going to face such issues.
what seems right now, like a “few lightweight resources”, will open the floodgate to massive bundles, Mark my words, screenshot this.
You are “putting the cart before the horse”, the issues you @ JulienKaspar mentioned above need to be solved BEFORE you launch an asset bundle project, not during and not after.
— Online repository
We could drop the requirement to be purely offline and just give the user an option to display default assets from an online library. Technically not supported yet, but might be an attractive, modern solution we could support soon (in a sense, best of both worlds). Of course the offline requirement has its merits.
With python, you can already download resources for blender but the question is, will an online repository be part of blender core which will open pandora’s box, as i can tell you folks right now, The day the OS’s firewall will notify me of blender’s request for an outgoing connection, will be the day i stop using blender and warn everyone against it as a security hazard.
My suggestion : When the bundle is finished, leave it as a simple HTTP download as a .blend file on blender’s website or cloud dot blender if you want registration.
— Should bundled assets be ‘read only’?
We might consider discouraging edits and put the library in a hidden directory. Otherwise updates to the bundle might be problematic.
Mistrust the user, OFCOURSE , create hidden directories on our operating system why not,
Are you guys working WITH your clients or AGAINST THEM?
I can’t BELIEVE this part of the proposal was put on the page and considered!
we download any piece of software to our personal machines / servers, YOU DO NOT GET to hide things from your clients (And if you dare telling me that its for the sake of functionality or safety or copyrights managements, it won’t end well as i plan to make a scene about it and warn people about blender’s devs intentions of storing hidden data from the client, it could be an asset bundle but it can be anything else, never trust those who don’t trust you).
so, Are we off this very SILLY IDEA of hiding data from users that i hope will NEVER get mentioned again?
First off:
Please calm down and respond in a respectful manner.
This is not any way to have a productive conversation, give feedback or ahve anyone listen to what you have to say.
Please don’t interpret malice or intentional ignorance into WIP tasks.
Otherwise further responses will flagged and removed.
About your concerns:
These issues are actually quite solvable. An argument that this will “open the floodgate to massive bundles” is a slippery slope fallacy. These are issues that are actively worked on. That’s why they are brought up in the first place.
As far as I’m aware Blender has a strict paradigm to not be able to connect to the internet by itself. If this feature would ever be realized, it would be an optional addon, just like any other community addon with the same purpose.
This is not about mistrust. Blender already creates hidden config folders.
Hiding files and making essential building blocks read-only in the UI is to prevent the user from irreversibly deleting any default brushes, geo node modifiers and meshes that ship with Blender.
