"Thomas de Groot" <tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> wrote:
> "nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> schreef in bericht
> news:web.4c54623df4e69ab4463d985e0@news.povray.org...
> > "rebeltaz" <mrm### [at] bellsouthnet> wrote:
> >> jim mentioned Blender for Linux. I tried Blender a couple of months ago
> >> when I
> >> needed a CAD program for the new CNC machine I built and I could not make
> >> heads
> >> or tails out of it.
> >
> > it's always amusing how geeks able to build their own CNC machines and
> > hand-code
> > povray scenes find it gobsmackingly difficult to use Blender.  It's kinda
> > like
> > being able to calculate the results of complex integrals by hand, but
> > being
> > completely lost when given a powerful pocket calculator... LOL
>
> <grin>
> Still, if Blender were less arcane, I would have been using it ages ago.

Perhaps you should try it now.  2.5 Beta has just been released last week and
comes with hopefully is a much more intuitive and sane interface relying mostly
on mouse-first-keymaps-later philosophy.

In any case, it's a 3D package beast coming shock full with video editor,
animation tools, texture painting, sculpting, nodes editor, a game engine,
physics simulations etc.  A 3D modeller is only a tiny fraction of what Blender
is, which certainly accounts for its complexity:  so many buttons and screen
layouts that might intimidate, but the trick is to just use what you need for
the current task.

> just lost interest in it as other modellers were easier and faster to
> understand (for the same results in my case, and that is what counts).

but you do use modelers, which is better than plotting integrals by hand.  :)

Post a reply to this message

On 8/1/2010 11:21 AM, nemesis wrote:
> "Thomas de Groot"<tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet>  wrote:
>> "nemesis"<nam### [at] gmailcom>  schreef in bericht
>> news:web.4c54623df4e69ab4463d985e0@news.povray.org...
>>> "rebeltaz"<mrm### [at] bellsouthnet>  wrote:
>>>> jim mentioned Blender for Linux. I tried Blender a couple of months ago
>>>> when I
>>>> needed a CAD program for the new CNC machine I built and I could not make
>>>> heads
>>>> or tails out of it.
>>>
>>> it's always amusing how geeks able to build their own CNC machines and
>>> hand-code
>>> povray scenes find it gobsmackingly difficult to use Blender.  It's kinda
>>> like
>>> being able to calculate the results of complex integrals by hand, but
>>> being
>>> completely lost when given a powerful pocket calculator... LOL
>>
>> <grin>
>> Still, if Blender were less arcane, I would have been using it ages ago.
>
> Perhaps you should try it now.  2.5 Beta has just been released last week and
> comes with hopefully is a much more intuitive and sane interface relying mostly
> on mouse-first-keymaps-later philosophy.
>
Nice!

> In any case, it's a 3D package beast coming shock full with video editor,
> animation tools, texture painting, sculpting, nodes editor, a game engine,
> physics simulations etc.  A 3D modeller is only a tiny fraction of what Blender
> is, which certainly accounts for its complexity:  so many buttons and screen
> layouts that might intimidate, but the trick is to just use what you need for
> the current task.
>
Which is all well and good, as long as the stuff you don't need isn't 
glaring menacingly at you, at the same time as the ones you "do" need. 
Tried to follow a tutorial a while back, which included some UV export 
and stuff, so you could draw to the mesh pattern, etc. (which, imho, 
doesn't work worth shit. We need a full editor, including clipping, 
etc., where you can edit face by face, or groups of faces, or something 
sane, not the "export a wireframe and how you know which parts apply to 
the original"). As far as I know, no one has ever made such a thing. :( 
In any case, I tried it three times. I only got it right *once*, and 
then the next time I wanted to do the same thing, I screwed something up 
again. lol

>> just lost interest in it as other modellers were easier and faster to
>> understand (for the same results in my case, and that is what counts).
>
> but you do use modelers, which is better than plotting integrals by hand.  :)
>
Funny.. But, since my current projects are all blender/wings/whatever -> 
displacement mapping (i.e. Second Life sculpty), I have the combined 
frustration that its pretty hard to, say, render in POVRay, with the 
intent to use as a texture on an object that "also" isn't flat, any more 
than the model in POVRay was... Still thinking about how to manage that 
one in a way that will actually work, since a linked set in SL doesn't 
apply texture consistently, as though wrapped over the whole build, but 
to individual parts, with entirely different alignments, or even 
warping... Man I am going to love it when they finally add mesh support, 
and I can stop screwing with this goofy mess.

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

"nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> schreef in bericht 
news:web.4c55baf8f4e69ab4add1b7d70@news.povray.org...
> Perhaps you should try it now.  2.5 Beta has just been released last week 
> and
> comes with hopefully is a much more intuitive and sane interface relying 
> mostly
> on mouse-first-keymaps-later philosophy.

Being curious, I certainly shall... :-)

>
> In any case, it's a 3D package beast coming shock full with video editor,
> animation tools, texture painting, sculpting, nodes editor, a game engine,
> physics simulations etc.  A 3D modeller is only a tiny fraction of what 
> Blender
> is, which certainly accounts for its complexity:  so many buttons and 
> screen
> layouts that might intimidate, but the trick is to just use what you need 
> for
> the current task.

Indeed. Blender is more than a 3D modeller but I very rarely need to go 
beyond the 3D modeller. Of course, if I were to use Blender, I would 
discover additional uses :-)

>
> but you do use modelers, which is better than plotting integrals by hand. 
> :)

LOL I wouldn't even know how to do that! :-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Am 01.08.2010 21:02, schrieb Patrick Elliott:

> Tried to follow a tutorial a while back, which included some UV export
> and stuff, so you could draw to the mesh pattern, etc. (which, imho,
> doesn't work worth shit. We need a full editor, including clipping,
> etc., where you can edit face by face, or groups of faces, or something
> sane, not the "export a wireframe and how you know which parts apply to
> the original"). As far as I know, no one has ever made such a thing. :(

Sculptris is a freeware tool that (besides being fun to use as a 
modeller) allows you to paint directly on your mesh in 3D space 
(unfortunately it seems to have problems loading too large pre-existing 
meshes). There also seems to be commercial software around that has been 
doing this for years (ZBrush for instance, AFAIK).

Post a reply to this message

Am 31.07.2010 19:51, schrieb nemesis:
> "rebeltaz"<mrm### [at] bellsouthnet>  wrote:
>> jim mentioned Blender for Linux. I tried Blender a couple of months ago when I
>> needed a CAD program for the new CNC machine I built and I could not make heads
>> or tails out of it.
>
> it's always amusing how geeks able to build their own CNC machines and hand-code
> povray scenes find it gobsmackingly difficult to use Blender.  It's kinda like
> being able to calculate the results of complex integrals by hand, but being
> completely lost when given a powerful pocket calculator... LOL

The problem with that calculator is that while it may be powerful as 
hell, it's a PITA to unleash that power when it happens to use reverse 
polish notation and has plenty of buttons besides which are labeled with 
terms you've never heard before. So you end up deciding that you'd be 
faster (and have a better chance of retaining your sanity besides) using 
some other, less powerful brand of calculator, than wrapping your head 
around that one which /would/ spit out the result at the press of a 
single button if you only knew which of the gazillions. (Ever seen 
Pixar's "Lifted" short?)

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 01.08.2010 21:02, schrieb Patrick Elliott:
>
> > Tried to follow a tutorial a while back, which included some UV export
> > and stuff, so you could draw to the mesh pattern, etc. (which, imho,
> > doesn't work worth shit. We need a full editor, including clipping,
> > etc., where you can edit face by face, or groups of faces, or something
> > sane, not the "export a wireframe and how you know which parts apply to
> > the original"). As far as I know, no one has ever made such a thing. :(
>
> Sculptris is a freeware tool

was.  ZBrush makers bought the developer. :)

come on, it was one of the most commented news last week among CG forums...

> that (besides being fun to use as a
> modeller) allows you to paint directly on your mesh in 3D space

yeah, just like in Blender.  But truth be told, Sculptris had far better
sculpting capability, thanks for the dynamic tesselation thing.  You can
literally draw your whole sculpt out of a single ball.  Blender sculpt needs at
least a rough base mesh containing right proportions, otherwise you may get some
hyperdense detailless areas among far less dense areas in need of much detail.
It's more useful for detailing rather than creating.

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 31.07.2010 19:51, schrieb nemesis:
> > "rebeltaz"<mrm### [at] bellsouthnet>  wrote:
> >> jim mentioned Blender for Linux. I tried Blender a couple of months ago when I
> >> needed a CAD program for the new CNC machine I built and I could not make heads
> >> or tails out of it.
> >
> > it's always amusing how geeks able to build their own CNC machines and hand-code
> > povray scenes find it gobsmackingly difficult to use Blender.  It's kinda like
> > being able to calculate the results of complex integrals by hand, but being
> > completely lost when given a powerful pocket calculator... LOL
>
> The problem with that calculator is that while it may be powerful as
> hell, it's a PITA to unleash that power when it happens to use reverse
> polish notation and has plenty of buttons besides which are labeled with
> terms you've never heard before. So you end up deciding that you'd be
> faster (and have a better chance of retaining your sanity besides) using
> some other, less powerful brand of calculator, than wrapping your head
> around that one which /would/ spit out the result at the press of a
> single button if you only knew which of the gazillions. (Ever seen
> Pixar's "Lifted" short?)

are you talking about Blender or emacs/vim? ;)

We've had this conversation a million times and the conclusion is always the
same:  while it may seem faster to do certain task in notepad rather than learn
emacs/vim, when you finally learn it you be willing to die having lost all those
years doing the task in x time when you could do it in x/100 had you learned
emacs/vim.

Same for Blender, sure, my beloved vim-like 3D package (it's actually quite
VSish this time around)... :)

> (Ever seen
> Pixar's "Lifted" short?)

yes, pretty awesome.  The little alien would do best by studying first... ;)

Post a reply to this message

Am 03.08.2010 19:19, schrieb nemesis:

>> The problem with that calculator is that while it may be powerful as
>> hell, it's a PITA to unleash that power when it happens to use reverse
>> polish notation and has plenty of buttons besides which are labeled with
>> terms you've never heard before. So you end up deciding that you'd be
>> faster (and have a better chance of retaining your sanity besides) using
>> some other, less powerful brand of calculator, than wrapping your head
>> around that one which /would/ spit out the result at the press of a
>> single button if you only knew which of the gazillions. (Ever seen
>> Pixar's "Lifted" short?)
>
> are you talking about Blender or emacs/vim? ;)

Now that you mention it, I guess it applies to vi, too - yes. (Emacs was 
not so much of a problem actually, because its basic mode of operation 
seemed to make some sense to me. Or the admin had been so kind as to 
configure it that way, dunno.)

> We've had this conversation a million times and the conclusion is always the
> same:  while it may seem faster to do certain task in notepad rather than learn
> emacs/vim, when you finally learn it you be willing to die having lost all those
> years doing the task in x time when you could do it in x/100 had you learned
> emacs/vim.

You spelt "if" wrong: It's "/if/ you finally learn it", not "when" :-P

As far as vi is concerned, that's a learning curve I'll most likely 
never ever choose to take. Maybe if I was a Unix admin - but I'm not.

As for Blender, maybe I'll give it another try some day. Or maybe not. I 
dunno yet.

In any case I'm always surprised how people can be surprised that some 
people find Blender's UI (at least the old one) utterly 
incomprehensible. Insofar it's different from vi, where its fans are 
pretty much aware why the UI might scare away some people.

Post a reply to this message

On 8/3/2010 7:30 AM, clipka wrote:
> Am 01.08.2010 21:02, schrieb Patrick Elliott:
>
>> Tried to follow a tutorial a while back, which included some UV export
>> and stuff, so you could draw to the mesh pattern, etc. (which, imho,
>> doesn't work worth shit. We need a full editor, including clipping,
>> etc., where you can edit face by face, or groups of faces, or something
>> sane, not the "export a wireframe and how you know which parts apply to
>> the original"). As far as I know, no one has ever made such a thing. :(
>
> Sculptris is a freeware tool that (besides being fun to use as a
> modeller) allows you to paint directly on your mesh in 3D space
> (unfortunately it seems to have problems loading too large pre-existing
> meshes). There also seems to be commercial software around that has been
> doing this for years (ZBrush for instance, AFAIK).
Think I actually have that one. Biggest gripe I have with most of them 
though, including blender's support to do the same, is.. Usually I clip 
bits of metal from free textures, wires, etc., as needed, then tweak 
them into a final image, which I then "hope" fits the shape. "Paint on 
3D" applications tend to treat what you are doing as though you want to 
actually paint all the details yourself, often don't have tools to cut 
and paste, clip out parts of images, or otherwise align "existing" bits 
of texture to your object.

Basically, you have to either be good at knowing how your mesh needs to 
be layed out, using a UV map grid, or you have to be good at the art of 
painting it directly yourself. If you suck at both, you are generally 
SOL with these things. But, project I have committed myself to now, I am 
going to have to figure this out, somehow. lol

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

clipka escreveu:
> You spelt "if" wrong: It's "/if/ you finally learn it", not "when" :-P

oh, come on, anyone used to C++ intricacies can handle vi/blender in a 
breeze... ;)

But it's obviously difficult to learn when you positively don't want to.

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message