 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
What would I google for to find out if any actual commercial movies have
ever used blender in their production?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> What would I google for to find out if any actual commercial movies have
> ever used blender in their production?
I don't think there have been any, at least not animated.
Though there might be some Dutch movie that used some
early version to roll their credits.
Pixar and DreamWorks have mostly been with Maya,
or some in-house variants I think.
On the other hand, the interface in Blender is so
bad it's driven two companies bankrupt.
http://www.blender.org/blenderorg/blender-foundation/history/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tim Attwood" <tim### [at] anti-spam comcastnet> wrote in message
news:4a7904b6@news.povray.org...
> On the other hand, the interface in Blender is so
> bad it's driven two companies bankrupt.
> http://www.blender.org/blenderorg/blender-foundation/history/
I don't know if it's that was the (only) reason, but Blender's interface
truly provides a scary lesson for all programmers about the hazards of
development for in-house consumption as well as open source software.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Attwood wrote:
> On the other hand, the interface in Blender is so
> bad it's driven two companies bankrupt.
Interestingly enough, that was the bit I was most curious about. Thanks!
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> On the other hand, the interface in Blender is so
>> bad it's driven two companies bankrupt.
>
> Interestingly enough, that was the bit I was most curious about. Thanks!
Hmm, last time I complained about Blender's GUI here I was told it was
better to have a common interface per application rather than per OS. I
still don't agree with that though, people typically only use 1 or 2 OS's
but tens or hundreds of applications. As much as is realistic, applications
should follow the OS style that they are running on (so yes, that means
possibly a different front end for different OS's, or using a library that
does it automatically), not try to invent their own and expect everyone to
learn it. Saying that though, I guess Blender is/was not developed with
"getting lots of customers" in mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> Hmm, last time I complained about Blender's GUI here I was told it was
> better to have a common interface per application rather than per OS.
I think it depends on the application. If you spend 8 hours a day in blender
(or photoshop, say), having an interface optimized for that work is probably
better. If you're a manager using excel, word, powerpoint, email, phone call
management software, etc, chances are you want all those programs to be similar.
> Saying that though, I guess Blender
> is/was not developed with "getting lots of customers" in mind.
Yep. My readings indicate it was an in-house project which went open when
the company using it failed.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:4a7af253$1@news.povray.org...
> scott wrote:
> > Hmm, last time I complained about Blender's GUI here I was told it was
> > better to have a common interface per application rather than per OS.
> I think it depends on the application. If you spend 8 hours a day in
blender
> (or photoshop, say), having an interface optimized for that work is
probably
> better.
I partially buy that, but not the suggestion (often voiced by die hard
Blender fans) that Blender's interface is optimized for 3D workflow and,
say, that 3DSMax's is not. It certainly is possible to write efficient
domain specific interfaces while staying very close to the general tried and
true interface guidelines, which many smart people have converged on over
countless man-hours of research and testing. I find it hard to believe that
professionals manage to do all this real work day in and day out with Max,
Maya and the like which supposedly have sub-par, compromised, sell-out
interfaces while Blender with its highly optimized and efficient interface
remains a mere curiosity on the sidelines with not much to show even though
it's free.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> scott wrote:
> > Hmm, last time I complained about Blender's GUI here I was told it was
> > better to have a common interface per application rather than per OS.
> I think it depends on the application.
It really does. For example, I use emacs in Linux, Windows and MacOS X,
and I really appreciate that it works identically in all of them so I don't
have to learn three different ways of using it depending on the OS.
(Especially MacOS X has such braindead editing conventions, especially for
the Finnish keyboard, that it would be a real pain.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5-8-2009 8:40, somebody wrote:
> "Tim Attwood" <tim### [at] anti-spamcomcastnet> wrote in message
> news:4a7904b6@news.povray.org...
>
>> On the other hand, the interface in Blender is so
>> bad it's driven two companies bankrupt.
>> http://www.blender.org/blenderorg/blender-foundation/history/
>
> I don't know if it's that was the (only) reason, but Blender's interface
> truly provides a scary lesson for all programmers about the hazards of
> development for in-house consumption as well as open source software.
Am I the only one that is percentage wise more often cursing Word than
Blender that I can not find how to accomplish simple things?
On the subject of in-house. I am doing an in-house development of an ECG
package, the users in-house are mainly doctors and researchers from non
CS or physics background. I have to provide an as easy as possible
interface for them that still allows the more experienced ones to add
their own specific functionality. I am not completely objective but I
think I am not doing too bad. I know another in-house project in
academia that is much worse than Blender or Word.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> Am I the only one that is percentage wise more often cursing Word than
> Blender that I can not find how to accomplish simple things?
How much help and training did you get on each one? Did you go thru a
blender tutorial before trying to use it? Did you go thru a Word tutorial
before trying to use it?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
