 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> The interface is, in some ways, just as jarring as the documentation,
Bwa ha ha!
"""
This constraint assumes that the Y axis will be the axis that does the
stretching, and doesn't give you the option of using a different one because
it would require too many buttons to do so.
"""
As if adding buttons for X and Z would suddenly make Blender have "too many
buttons". :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> As if adding buttons for X and Z would suddenly make Blender have "too
> many buttons". :-)
And apparently "foo" is shorthand for "why am I documenting this without the
author's help?"
http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Manual/Constraints/IK_Solver
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Now that you got a feel for the program, you might appreciate this
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Blender
Best uncylopedia entry ever.
"Darren New" <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote in message
news:498cdae4$1@news.povray.org...
> You gotta love some of the open source documentation out there. I'm
> learning Blender right now, and some of the docs are kind of amusing.
> (They'd be downright annoying if it was commercial software, mind.)
> Makes you appreciate POV-Ray docs.
>
> """
> I don't know what this parameter does, but I've played around with it and
> gotten pictures like this...
> """
> I gotta wonder who would implement some change and not at least leave a
> note that says what the change is supposed to do.
>
>
> Another classic favorite:
> """
> The XYZ parameter replaces the old PDQ technique, making it faster and
> easier to get the same results."
> """
> ... which is great, if you've been using the software long enough to know
> what the PDQ technique was supposed to do. At least leave the
> documentation in for PDQ. :-)
>
>
> I know most programmers don't like to write documentation, but it's always
> a little jarring to me to run across something like that.
>
> --
> Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
> "Ouch ouch ouch!"
> "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
> "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> I know most programmers don't like to write documentation, but it's
> always a little jarring to me to run across something like that.
My favourit one is where you got to www.mycoolapplication.org and it
yells "Hey! It's free! It's open-source! And it rocks! It has features
A, B, C, J, K, M, V, X, Y and Z!"
Yes, but WHAT DOES IT DO??!? >_<
Sometimes people are just too close to a project to remember that
somebody else might not know this crucial information. Without that
context, the rest often makes little or no sense.
For what it's worth, I know most programmers don't like writing
documentation, but I see writing the manual as almost being like
programming. A good computer program consists of a set of abstractions,
and by writing a program you are "teaching" the computer to use your
abstractions. Writing the documentation simply means teaching
abstractions to a human instead. (Although the abstractions in question
will usually not be the same - depending on what the program is supposed
to be doing. Plus you don't have to explain how anything works, only how
to use it.)
That said, I have found - with programming and documenting - that
sometimes you just want to skip over the bit you're doing to get to the
interesting part where all the cool stuff happens...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> You gotta love some of the open source documentation out there. I'm
> learning Blender right now, and some of the docs are kind of amusing.
> (They'd be downright annoying if it was commercial software, mind.)
> Makes you appreciate POV-Ray docs.
I believe there's a Wikibook for it - try that?
--
I think animal testing is a terrible idea. They get all nervous and give
the wrong answers.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> I believe there's a Wikibook for it - try that?
Well, yes. The reference manual is there, and includes gems like
http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Manual/Constraints/IK_Solver
I was looking more at the "Blender Summer of Documentation", which tells me
right there you're doing it wrong. :-)
It's not that hard to learn to the point where you could go thru the
reference manual. Indeed, I'd pay good money to buy the tutorials and manual
in a bound format. I'm just amused at some of the details.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> The interface is, in some ways, just as jarring as the documentation,
>
> Bwa ha ha!
>
> """
> This constraint assumes that the Y axis will be the axis that does the
> stretching, and doesn't give you the option of using a different one
> because it would require too many buttons to do so.
> """
>
> As if adding buttons for X and Z would suddenly make Blender have "too
> many buttons". :-)
>
Snort.. Tried to follow a "simple" tutorial on using Blender to make
sculpties for Second Life and got lost half way through because the
bottom display "menu" I needed to do it was "not" the one already
displayed, but one you had to get to using some other convoluted method,
and.. the tutorial maker didn't think about the fact that it wasn't
"obvious" how to get to it. Maybe after a few tries, an some notes, I
could manage it, but since the "only" advantage Blender seemed to give
me was an "unwrap" thing for exporting a template, and using that the
"draw" the image I wanted, and "that" didn't really work quite right
with something with really complete geometry, I went back to Wings 3D
and making the textures the hard way. What is really needed is something
more like the Deep Paint, or what ever it was called, which let you draw
on the "template" or even on the object itself, and "see" what the
result was, without having to import the texture to Blender, or some
other application. For my purposes, I need a tool "designed" for
sculpties, but without the absurd limitations of the current tools.
Everything else either, like Blender, can introduce folds/gap in the
geometry that are dysfunctional when exported to SL format, or
add/remove geometry, which causes a failure to even "produce" such a
map. Just something as simple as the trick of making "gaps" in the mesh,
which other people manage, is problematic, since what kind you can do,
and how, depends on either exceptional skill, or special tools that
limit you to "specific" types of objects, like gears with holes in them.
Now, being moderately skilled, but hardly "expert" at this stuff, and
realizing that one "huge" issue with sculpt maps is the same as POVRay
when dealing with surface normals that get "twisted", and the issues of
fixing those (especially when its color that defines that in this case,
not raw numbers), the last thing I need is to be dealing with an
interface that makes things more complicated than they necessarily need
to be. :p
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Ah, well. The interface is, in some ways, just as jarring as the
>> documentation, so, its a good match. ;) lol
>
> I'm finding that the interface is, after a few days, merely annoying
> rather than difficult. Everything seems to be in the menus somewhere (at
> least to the level of expertise I have), the commands you use a lot you
> just learn, etc. It seems like the kind of interface that if you worked
> with it for a week or two you'd get pretty good at it.
>
> Not unlike vi or emacs, really.
Exactly. Blender feels to me closer to vi than anything else. You just
press regular keys and contextual commands are issued.
> I was just kind of bemused at someone implementing a feature for a
> program as big and complex and public as Blender, and getting it checked
> into the official version, with apparently no documentation at all about
> what the feature is actually supposed to accomplish. It seems very
> unprofessional for such a professional-level program.
Is it source code documentation for other programmers -- intending on
contributing with Blender? Blender's official user-level documentation
is a wiki so it may simply not have catched up with source modifications.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> The interface is, in some ways, just as jarring as the documentation,
>
> Bwa ha ha!
>
> """
> This constraint assumes that the Y axis will be the axis that does the
> stretching, and doesn't give you the option of using a different one
> because it would require too many buttons to do so.
> """
>
> As if adding buttons for X and Z would suddenly make Blender have "too
> many buttons". :-)
Y constrains to the Y axis, but shift+Y constrains to the xz plane and
so forth. ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Exactly. Blender feels to me closer to vi than anything else. You just
> press regular keys and contextual commands are issued.
Yeah. Some of the abbreviations are kind of unintuitive, along with the
linking between items and such. I need to link my ME: to my MA: or
something, and I spend an hour figuring out wtf that means. :-)
> Blender's official user-level documentation
> is a wiki so it may simply not have catched up with source modifications.
Yes. That's what boggles my mind - that you'd start coding some changes
without first writing down anywhere what the changes are supposed to
accomplish. If you add a new button to the interface, is it hard to write
three sentences describing what the button does? It doesn't have to be
complete professional-grade documentation, but at least tell people what the
abbreviations on the buttons stand for so someone else can write the
documentation. :-)
If users have to read the code to figure out what it does, you're doing it
wrong. But of course, this is pretty much SOP with free code - why would
you document it if you wrote the code yourself to be used by yourself? It's
a strange world, popular complex software developed for free by the whim of
volunteers.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
