 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"i_need_a_unique_name" <ine### [at] gmail com> schreef in bericht
news:web.45c70514a34c4ac0ac77a5930@news.povray.org...
> Anyway I haven't heard a bad thing about Blender (other than the learning
> curve) so its worth persevering with I guess...
>
It's an excellent program indeed!
Perseverance is what I lack.... :-)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 14:23:47 +0100, "Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlDOTnet> wrote:
>It's an excellent program indeed!
>
>Perseverance is what I lack.... :-)
Me too. I tried using it for a few days, but just couldn't get the workflow down. I
fell back on
Wings3d again. Wings3d lacks allot of the functionality of Blender, but because it
has a simple,
coherent workflow, I can use it to knock out a subdiv model really quickly. I may
have to try
Blender again sometime...
Kyle
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Kyle" <hob### [at] gatenet> schreef in bericht
news:hgfis2h31antd8t15bb65gi465ge583kqe@4ax.com...
>>
>>Perseverance is what I lack.... :-)
>
> Me too. I tried using it for a few days, but just couldn't get the
> workflow down. I fell back on
> Wings3d again. Wings3d lacks allot of the functionality of Blender, but
> because it has a simple,
> coherent workflow, I can use it to knock out a subdiv model really
> quickly. I may have to try
> Blender again sometime...
>
Yes indeed, and I have so many things I want to do (at the same time, of
course) that Blender stays more or less permanently in the background.
At this moment, Poser is very much in the foreground of my activities...
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot wrote:
> Perseverance is what I lack.... :-)
I've got plenty of perseverance; I just lack time!
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 16:05:41 +0100, "Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlDOTnet> wrote:
>Yes indeed, and I have so many things I want to do (at the same time, of
>course) that Blender stays more or less permanently in the background.
After reading the news of Blender releasing version 2.43, I have decided to give it
another go. I'm working through some tutorials each evening, spending only about an
hour at it each time to try and
avoid frustration. So far, so good.
I'm really compelled by the power that I may soon yield. Mua-ha-ha
Kyle
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ok, several nights of tutorials, doing some basic modeling, trying to figure out the
materials and
textures interface, trying to rotate some vertices around an axis, etc., and I am once
again
extremely frustrated. I'm still going to continue for awhile, but I've come to the
conclusion that
the Blender interface just plain sucks out loud. It is completely non-intuitive.
Does anyone have
any valid reason to disagree with this statement? If so, please explain why...
Kyle
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Kyle" <hob### [at] gatenet> schreef in bericht
news:74t9u21no4tp13avq8fjqq1d1p3ile2t7t@4ax.com...
> Ok, several nights of tutorials, doing some basic modeling, trying to
> figure out the materials and
> textures interface, trying to rotate some vertices around an axis, etc.,
> and I am once again
> extremely frustrated. I'm still going to continue for awhile, but I've
> come to the conclusion that
> the Blender interface just plain sucks out loud. It is completely
> non-intuitive. Does anyone have
> any valid reason to disagree with this statement? If so, please explain
> why...
>
Hmm, Hmmm...
That sounds bad indeed :-(
I am not entirely surprised.
Janet seems to be a knowledgeable person about Blender on these ng's.
Perhaps she will come up with a useful hint...?
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 22:26:03 -0500, Kyle wrote:
> It is completely
> non-intuitive. Does anyone have any valid reason to disagree with this
> statement? If so, please explain why...
Yes, I can disagree with that statement. Once I learned it, I found it to
be very intuitive. But to disagree with specificity with that statement,
I'd need a concrete example of what you find to be non-intuitive.
Some things still are a little counterintuitive to me - for example, I've
been playing recently with something that is shown in the new 2.43 feature
videos - building a chain of links, starting with an extruded circle,
rotating the extrusion 90 degrees.
I can get it to do everything in the demo video - follow a bezier curve,
dynamically adjust the number of links based on the length - all of that
works just fine.
But if I try to rescale the link, things go crazy. Links in one direction
get proportionally smaller, while links in the other direction get
proportionally larger.
For what I'm doing, I want to scale things down to a relatively small
scale and then manipulate the object within the context of the scene, but
I can't seem to do that. I have to freeze the construct by converting it
to a mesh (I think that's ultimately what I ended up doing) and then
scaling the new mesh - but I lose the ability to change the curve and
number of links.
But for basic modelling, I find it to be very intuitive -
space->add->mesh->sphere, and a sphere is added where the cursor is. If I
don't like where the cursor is, alt+g to clear the position, alt+r to
clear the rotation, alt+s to clear the scale.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 10:40:03 -0700, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>be very intuitive. But to disagree with specificity with that statement,
>I'd need a concrete example of what you find to be non-intuitive.
Uuugh, where to start? Sorry to rant, but...
Let me start off by saying that better context-sensitive menus would go a long way to
help this
application. When you only have vertices selected, why show face functions, edge
functions, etc.
I learned to model efficiently in Wings3d after a few tutorials and a few hours of
playing around.
I realize it is not as powerful of an application as Blender, but it is definitely
intuitive and
easy to figure out for basic modeling and UV mapping.
What's up with not prompting to save on close? I realize you should close with
caution, but
accidents do happen. I have autosave on, but losing five minutes of work can still be
damaging and
frustrating.
The materials and texture interface is somewhat confusing. I'm sure this may be from
my
inexperience, but just trying to find something simple, like which value to set under
which sub
window under which context to scale a material is kind of difficult. Also, I've seen
something to
do with using empties and materials to set the material on an object, but I haven't
figured out what
the heck is up with that yet.
The material nodes interface could be a nice feature, if it controlled all aspects of
the material
and texture, but it doesn't.
The viewport does not display textures properly if you have the textured view selected
in the
viewport shading control. If you have shaded selected, it only displays the material
properly if it
is a detailed mesh or if the mesh is subsurfed for higher detail. I know I can use
render preview,
but that doesn't seem to always update properly when changing material or texture
settings.
Why not have common function on single keystrokes, instead of multiple keystrokes?
For something
like edge loop select, why not just use something like "L", instead of "CTRL + E, 7"?
Also, the
menu says that edge loop select is "CTRL + E, 6", but it is really "CTRL + E, 7" in
2.43.
That's enough ranting for now...
>Some things still are a little counterintuitive to me - for example, I've
>been playing recently with something that is shown in the new 2.43 feature
>videos - building a chain of links, starting with an extruded circle,
>rotating the extrusion 90 degrees.
>
>I can get it to do everything in the demo video - follow a bezier curve,
>dynamically adjust the number of links based on the length - all of that
>works just fine.
>
>But if I try to rescale the link, things go crazy. Links in one direction
>get proportionally smaller, while links in the other direction get
>proportionally larger.
>
>For what I'm doing, I want to scale things down to a relatively small
>scale and then manipulate the object within the context of the scene, but
>I can't seem to do that. I have to freeze the construct by converting it
>to a mesh (I think that's ultimately what I ended up doing) and then
>scaling the new mesh - but I lose the ability to change the curve and
>number of links.
I really like some of the features that I've seen in the demos, such as what you've
just described.
The rigging, skinning and animation features seem very promising.
>But for basic modelling, I find it to be very intuitive -
>space->add->mesh->sphere, and a sphere is added where the cursor is. If I
>don't like where the cursor is, alt+g to clear the position, alt+r to
>clear the rotation, alt+s to clear the scale.
Some of the basics are not too bad, but they could be better with better context
menus. Maybe I'll
feel different after further use...
Kyle
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
74t9u21no4tp13avq8fjqq1d1p3ile2t7t@4ax.com...
> Ok, several nights of tutorials, doing some basic modeling, trying to
> figure out the materials and
> textures interface, trying to rotate some vertices around an axis, etc.,
> and I am once again
> extremely frustrated. I'm still going to continue for awhile, but I've
> come to the conclusion that
> the Blender interface just plain sucks out loud. It is completely
> non-intuitive. Does anyone have
> any valid reason to disagree with this statement? If so, please explain
> why...
It seems a-love-it-or-hate it thing. I have tried to use Blender several
times before and once spent a week going through the tutorials. After that I
was able to model simple things but still found the interface painful and
frustrating (and sometimes downright infuriating). I ended up buying a
commercial application because even in the demo mode and without reading
tutorials I was able to do moderately complex stuff and obtain nice renders
in a matter of minutes, not days.
Now lots of people are proficient with Blender and love it, and it's
obviously a very comprehensive piece of software, but I guess that some of
us prefer software with a gentler learning curve.
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
