On 12/22/2011 2:21 PM, John VanSickle wrote:
> On 12/20/2011 7:54 AM, Mr wrote:
>> John VanSickle<evi### [at] KOSHERhotmailcom> wrote:
>>> On 12/16/2011 9:26 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>>
>>>> OK, let me be more specific: Clearly the likes of Pixar, ILM and so
>>>> forth must have tools that enable you to model organic shapes. It's
>>>> news
>>>> to me that normal humans can get their hands on such tools.
>>>
>>> The Big House apps are apparently developed in-house and with some
>>> exceptions are not available to the general public.
>>>
>>> I am working on a modeler which to exports POV-Ray .INC files of the
>>> model, which can be posed if the proper variable are set before calling
>>> the file. I intend to add scene-building in an upcoming version. I am
>>> giving up video gaming for a year, starting in January, so I should have
>>> a great deal more time for working on this.
>>>
>>> http://evilsnack.byethost22.com/lionsnake.htm
>>>
>>> It is presently at a level that some users would call "kinda sucky and
>>> frustrating," but it's better than trying to model a head with
>>> hand-edited SDL.
>>>
>>>> (And, as you know, normal humans do not have hundreds of thousands of
>>>> pounds.)
>>>
>>> Which is why I'm writing one of my own, because I don't have the $$$ for
>>> a high-class modeling app, either.
>>
>> There must be another reason why you're doing it because Blender is
>> free for any
>> use and welcomes contributions with various levels of expertise, from
>> core
>> modifications to Python scripting. (There's a lot of ressources around
>> to learn
>> the necessary bits of Python, such as Gerard Swinnen's books, etc.
>
> Yes, there is indeed another reason: Blender's UI is still as obtuse as
> a playground bully. I just downloaded, installed, and attempted to use
> v2.61, and it was only because I remembered what I learned the last time
> I tried Blender that I was able to do anything at all.
>
> I think the cause may be a desire to make every feature as quickly
> accessible as possible. But this is like having a few dozen people
> talking to you at once when you in turn are trying to find and then deal
> with just a few of them. When I'm editing a model's geometry, I neither
> need nor want to see buttons for material editing, lighting set-up, etc.
> I just want to edit the model's topology and quickly alter the view so
> that I can see the model from any angle and at any scale I need.
>
Yeah, don't even get me started on how its "texture paint" only does 
"vertex", "texture", and... I don't remember the other useless one, but 
you basically can't paint on the thing worth shit, since it doesn't 
treat the face as a canvas, just colors "parts of all adjoining", and 
other mostly half witted things (this also means you can't, for example, 
"color all faces that are on a single path, so I can do something with 
them in photoshop, without guessing what the hell they belong to". 
Texture may, sort of, all that, but it seems, as near as I could manage 
to attempt to use it (man the steps are confusing...) just pastes the 
texture "onto" the face, with no control over where, how, if it repeats, 
or anything else.

They finally suppose mesh in Second Life, and I still can't do shit with 
it, because, for me, the transition from modelling the damn thing, to 
actually coloring in the lines may as well be the Grand Canyon. The 
tools don't make any sense for the job, and if there is some way to 
layer things, I haven't found it (though, I am told by some guru, living 
in a server room, that this may be somehow possible, if I use to Force, 
or something...). lol

Post a reply to this message