|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 12/17/09 10:22, Darren New wrote:
>> But yeah, you have to use it, and when you stop it goes away again,
>> because there's no mnemonic way of using it. (Unlike wordstar, whose
>> keyboard commands I still remember 30 years after I stopped using it.)
>
> Really? In 1979?
Yeah. I used it from 79 to about 84 or so.
> You used it for at most 1-2 years? What was its replacement?
Ummm... Oh, I think PMate was the next editor I did lots of work with. It
was TECO-like only for PCs.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Sure. But it's still one of the most complex mesh objects I have ever
> constructed in all the years I've been playing with mesh editors.
Try Wings. Or try going thru a tutorial on Blender, just following the
steps without trying to memorize anything, and then try Wings. It's
basically the same ideas. Each takes a bit of time (like, maybe, 6 hours)
of playing with it to get to the point you're not breaking the model every 5
minutes.
> I haven't come across this in the documentation yet, but what does
> Blender mean by "grab"?
Translate. Except they already used the T key, so they called it grab.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Sure. But it's still one of the most complex mesh objects I have ever
>> constructed in all the years I've been playing with mesh editors.
>
> Try Wings. Or try going thru a tutorial on Blender, just following the
> steps without trying to memorize anything, and then try Wings. It's
> basically the same ideas. Each takes a bit of time (like, maybe, 6
> hours) of playing with it to get to the point you're not breaking the
> model every 5 minutes.
Isn't Wings the one written in Erlang?
I believed I tried it also, and it was similarly non-intuitive to
operate. (But I don't recall it having any documentation, whereas
Blender clearly does.) I managed to get a cube and move the verticies
around a bit, but I'm not sure how you'd do anything useful with it.
>> I haven't come across this in the documentation yet, but what does
>> Blender mean by "grab"?
>
> Translate. Except they already used the T key, so they called it grab.
Fail.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Isn't Wings the one written in Erlang?
Yes.
> I believed I tried it also, and it was similarly non-intuitive to
> operate.
You know, I thought they were all unintuitive until I played with it a bit
and figured out the operations. Really, go thru (say) the gingerbread man
tutorial, or the "create a blue alien guy" tutorial, and then suddenly it
seems to make sense.
> (But I don't recall it having any documentation, whereas
> Blender clearly does.)
It has an entire 130-page textbook it comes with.
> I managed to get a cube and move the verticies
> around a bit, but I'm not sure how you'd do anything useful with it.
Uh, read the docs? :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New escreveu:
> nemesis wrote:
>> That's been precisely tackled in Blender 2.5 complete interface overhaul.
>
> Because, you know, the UI was so well done in earlier versions, and
> nobody ever complained about it. :-)
No need for sarcasm, they are obviously tackling common complaints.
I'm glad though that vim doesn't get too many whinning users about its
quirks that just work right once you use them.
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> No need for sarcasm, they are obviously tackling common complaints.
Only because earlier it sounded like some Blender aficionados were arguing
that anyone complaining is just a whiner and it's really not a problem after
all. I might have been reading into it. :-)
> I'm glad though that vim doesn't get too many whinning users about its
> quirks that just work right once you use them.
Oh, they do. The difference, I think, is that the quirks in VI aren't
arbitrary and unnecessary. :-) I think if you hung out on an elisp
programming group, you'd hear lots of flamage of vi.
There are several things VI does (and always has) that bug me, but if anyone
changed it, I'd be completely screwed, because I've trained myself to avoid
the problem. (Sort of like what would happen if you put the control key back
where it belongs at this point.)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/18/09 13:20, Darren New wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> who remembers the time when this was not the default behavior of apps.
>
> Dude, the guys who invented menus did it this way. It has never *not*
> been the way to do it. :-)
So tell me: How do you right click on a Mac?
>> From my perspective, the question isn't "Does this conform to the
>> Windows interface standard (which may not be that great)?" but "Is it
>> really hard to learn?" and "Is their choice of deviating from the
>> standard efficient?"
>
> Those are subjective. Following the Windows standard makes it easier to
> learn for windows users.
Look, I agree Blender's interface is horrible. No arguments there. But
I don't feel deviating from a standard is bad in and of itself. Learning
a slightly different interface is not a major deficit.
--
Row, row, row your bits, gently down the stream...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/18/09 14:45, Darren New wrote:
> Oh, they do. The difference, I think, is that the quirks in VI aren't
> arbitrary and unnecessary. :-) I think if you hung out on an elisp
Hence the two questions in my other post. ;-)
--
Row, row, row your bits, gently down the stream...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/18/09 13:22, Darren New wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> On 12/17/09 10:22, Darren New wrote:
>>> But yeah, you have to use it, and when you stop it goes away again,
>>> because there's no mnemonic way of using it. (Unlike wordstar, whose
>>> keyboard commands I still remember 30 years after I stopped using it.)
>>
>> Really? In 1979?
>
> Yeah. I used it from 79 to about 84 or so.
Fair enough ;-)
What did you use before Wordstar, though. If WS was your first major
word processor, that may be why you remember the keybindings.
--
Row, row, row your bits, gently down the stream...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> Dude, the guys who invented menus did it this way. It has never *not*
>> been the way to do it. :-)
>
> So tell me: How do you right click on a Mac?
What has that to do with what we're talking about?
> Look, I agree Blender's interface is horrible. No arguments there.
> But I don't feel deviating from a standard is bad in and of itself.
> Learning a slightly different interface is not a major deficit.
Agreed on all three points. If it's designed for professionals and hard to
use without practice, sure. I can't think of any programmer that uses
something like Notepad to write code.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|