My question to GDSE Meta has been greatly simplified per Ryan's input:
Do we want 3D people to be part of our GDSE community?
3D is a very specialized branch and requires much more skill and knowledge than many people assume. Personally i would prefer not to include 3D unless the question clearly concerns graphic design. Anyway that of my oppinion lets look at the situation analytically:
3D does not have a defacto standards setting player. It is a very fractured market. To reflect this there are lots of 3D software out there.
You might wonder why this would matter. The basics must surely be the same? But unfortunately this is not true. There are atleast six separate if not more paradigms that differ from each other by as much as photoshop differs from excel! Even individual applications differ inter paradigm more than most 2D applications combined.
Many of these 3D applications are incredibly complex. For example Maya has more menuitems than Illustrator, Photoshop, Indesign and After Effects combined! These are not minor things, most of those items has a settings window for all the minor variations. So many in fact are the menuitems that the software needs a mechanism for cycling beteween 6 different menubars. And even then theres atleast 2 times as much functionality hidden in the special use areas that are not exposed by default. Just dealing with maya prefs is a artform in itself.
Most of the apps are also very expensive although the range varies quite much. And some are highly specialized and subindustry/job title specific applications.
So now this causes purely practical questions:
How do we scope this. 3D as a moniker is not a good limiting factor. Do we include software meant for engineering, embroidery, sculpting, stress analysis, industrial design, architecture, light design, shading etc.
How do we ensure that a task that is 100% equivalent in app 1 is allowed why app2 is not because it happens to be out of scope?
How do we explain that certain uses of application is not within scope? And how do we write that policy down so that it does not become a seemingly random policy?
How to we deal with the skill gap? We dont have nearly enough regulars that can answer these questions. Even if I personally can Im not sure i can extend my knowledge for all apps, but i am also only mildly disinterested in most questions. For example while i can use mudbox im not much use for zbrush questions even though they span same skills, due to zbrushes highly unique take on things.
Also i havent used or can't acess many of the main applications, while i have about 45 of the most common professional 3D apps on my work computer!
How do we ensure that we dont devolve into really really basic questions? While that can be fun for somebody wanting to expand scope. Its not so fun for answerers.
How do we ensure that unanswered 3D questions dont fill the front page?! This has happened before.
How do we reconcile the fact that Graphic Design is not 3D? And generally one would not hire a graphic designer to get 3D done.
So because of these issues im leaning towards the current policy of no support questions on how to operate 3D applications, or deep technology issues unless it deals directly with graphic design.
Even though I advocate for going elsewhere until the answer rots or is slowly closed or gets a really low quality answer. Anybody can simply change the policy by starting to give stellar answers consistently! I would retract my votes if you would!
One can propose a generic 3D application tutorial site but be aware that the last 2 efforts didnt get enough supoort even with quite well coordinated effort.
I would like to see more 3D experts join the community.
If you want to kickstart a 3D initiative you could ask various questions to cover the basics, and ask in the metas of related SEs for experts to come here and answer them.
It is possible for you to singlehandedly get the ball rolling if you can figure out the right questions to ask. Google's keyword analysis tools can help identify the most googled 3D questions. Asking them will naturally attract more 3D content.
Also, add all the relevant, on-topic 3D tags you can think of and fill in their description and snippet (try to follow the existing word pattern/formula).
My argument has always been that Blender is the best place to ask generic 3D questions because it fits their nitch area and that is the place these questions can be answered (the fundamental goal of SE right? questions that get answers). While design does incorporate some 3D I do not think it helps the end user when asking these questions because we've never had the user base. 3D model users do not normally come to a graphic design page. Also, there was a beta site for 3D modeling that can be read in the linked questions but it was shut down for not being active enough.
I think after looking at a full site scale I do not think it's good for the site to have unanswered questions and if you look at true 3D modeling tags like 3dsmax you can see how long the age is for some that went unanswered before closure.
To step back and answer your question. Basic foundational 3D modeling questions should really go to Blender but to verify I'd ask on their meta. Do we need a dedicated site, well it was nice but the last one we had didn't make it and was shut down. If you'd like to try again then by all means try to on Area51.