"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message 
news:489b2c47$1@news.povray.org...
> On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 18:03:25 +0100, St. wrote:
>
>>      What? Even Wings3D? As far as I know, it's 'the' most easily used
>> modeller out there. And very powerful.
>
> Well, even Wings3D has a slight learning curve.  Blender is easy to
> operate as well, once you have learned the interface - but for some, that
> takes years to master.
>
> Today's society is full of people who don't want to take the time to
> *learn*, they just expect to be able to understand everything instantly,
> and get frustrated when they don't "get it" within the first 30 seconds
> of using a new tool.

     Ha, yeah, I didn't think of it like that, but I do know what you mean. 
I think it was Gilles that first posted here about Wings a couple of years 
ago, (three?) and up until that point, I was using sPatch and Hamapatch, 
(which are good, nothing wrong with them imo), but then things became easier 
when following the tuts he posted. I love Blender, I've played around with 
it a lot, (and I know it's so much more powerful than Wings), but yes, it's 
the interface that does it for me. I want to get on with the job, and 
Blender restricts that just for trying to find something. Ah, I dunno, maybe 
I'll give it a *serious* try someday...  :)

    ~Steve~


>
> Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 18:34:57 +0100, St. wrote:

> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:489b2c47$1@news.povray.org...
>> On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 18:03:25 +0100, St. wrote:
>>
>>>      What? Even Wings3D? As far as I know, it's 'the' most easily used
>>> modeller out there. And very powerful.
>>
>> Well, even Wings3D has a slight learning curve.  Blender is easy to
>> operate as well, once you have learned the interface - but for some,
>> that takes years to master.
>>
>> Today's society is full of people who don't want to take the time to
>> *learn*, they just expect to be able to understand everything
>> instantly, and get frustrated when they don't "get it" within the first
>> 30 seconds of using a new tool.
> 
>      Ha, yeah, I didn't think of it like that, but I do know what you
>      mean.

:-)  My stepson is like that - or used to be, at least.  He's gotten 
older now and has matured in this regard (and others).  Always expected 
to be able to do anything instantly; he tried to learn to play the flute 
and got frustrated within a week because he was "no good at it".  Even 
knowing someone who has practiced for *years* (friend of my wife's who 
went to New York to play professionally).

> I think it was Gilles that first posted here about Wings a couple of
> years ago, (three?) and up until that point, I was using sPatch and
> Hamapatch, (which are good, nothing wrong with them imo), but then
> things became easier when following the tuts he posted. I love Blender,
> I've played around with it a lot, (and I know it's so much more powerful
> than Wings), but yes, it's the interface that does it for me. I want to
> get on with the job, and Blender restricts that just for trying to find
> something. Ah, I dunno, maybe I'll give it a *serious* try someday... 
> :)

Yeah, I like Wings3D myself, usually the first tool I pick up if I want 
to model something just for fun.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

St. wrote:
>      What? Even Wings3D? As far as I know, it's 'the' most easily used 
> modeller out there. And very powerful.

Actually, I found Hash Animation Master to be pretty easy to use. I'm 
kind of annoyed that I paid for a professional program and got an 
amateur quality result overall, but it *is* pretty easy.  The videos 
give a pretty good idea.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Ever notice how people in a zombie movie never already know how to
  kill zombies? Ask 100 random people in America how to kill someone
  who has reanimated from the dead in a secret viral weapons lab,
  and how many do you think already know you need a head-shot?

Post a reply to this message

St. wrote:
>       True, but it can be done. I mean, I'm pretty sure that Crytek do this, 
> and of course some of the mod teams do this too.

I'm sure everyone serious does it. I'm just not sure I can visualize the 
process. I've sat in design meetings of software, web sites, documents, 
etc. I haven't sat in design meetings for interactive games. It seems to 
me it might be noticably different. I'm wondering how autonomous the 
decisions made by the people sitting in front of the level editor are, 
for example. How much of the level is pre-planned, how much is easier to 
lay out and then fix later if it plays poorly.

>      If you're not making a mod, (where you introduce new elements, models, 
> whatever), then it's basically all there for you in the editor, 

I'm kind of talking about how much goes on before you even sit down in 
front of the editor.

>    I'd love somebody from here to test my map, but I don't think anyone here 
> plays Crysis.  :o/

I might if I had the video card for it.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Ever notice how people in a zombie movie never already know how to
  kill zombies? Ask 100 random people in America how to kill someone
  who has reanimated from the dead in a secret viral weapons lab,
  and how many do you think already know you need a head-shot?

Post a reply to this message

>> What *I* wonder about game design is how the hell you model 3D objects. 
>> Every 3D modeller I've ever used has been excruciatingly difficult to 
>> operate...
> 
>      What? Even Wings3D? As far as I know, it's 'the' most easily used 
> modeller out there. And very powerful.

I did once try either Wings or Blender. Unfortunately I can't remember 
which of those it was! I do remember being utterly unable to make it do 
anything at all though...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:

> Today's society is full of people who don't want to take the time to 
> *learn*, they just expect to be able to understand everything instantly, 
> and get frustrated when they don't "get it" within the first 30 seconds 
> of using a new tool.

Today's OSS is full of products which come with no manual at all. :-P

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

St. wrote:

>    I'd love somebody from here to test my map, but I don't think anyone here 
> plays Crysis.  :o/

Isn't "Crysis" named after the effect it has on your GPU?

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:50:42 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>> Today's society is full of people who don't want to take the time to
>> *learn*, they just expect to be able to understand everything
>> instantly, and get frustrated when they don't "get it" within the first
>> 30 seconds of using a new tool.
> 
> Today's OSS is full of products which come with no manual at all. :-P

Well, when it comes to 3D modelling, let's have a look, shall we?

http://www.wings3d.com/ - "User Manual 1.6.1 (PDF)", along with several 
tutorials.

http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Manual/Manual - Blender manual.  
Probably not as current as it could be, but there are also books on how 
to use it.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:49:43 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>>> What *I* wonder about game design is how the hell you model 3D
>>> objects. Every 3D modeller I've ever used has been excruciatingly
>>> difficult to operate...
>> 
>>      What? Even Wings3D? As far as I know, it's 'the' most easily used
>> modeller out there. And very powerful.
> 
> I did once try either Wings or Blender. Unfortunately I can't remember
> which of those it was! I do remember being utterly unable to make it do
> anything at all though...

Probably blender, it does take some patience to learn how to use it.  
Once you learn it, it makes sense, but there's a steep learning curve.

Wings3D, OTOH, right click, add object.  Select object, right click, 
select operation....pretty straightforward.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message 
news:489b3f31$1@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
>>       True, but it can be done. I mean, I'm pretty sure that Crytek do 
>> this, and of course some of the mod teams do this too.
>
> I'm sure everyone serious does it. I'm just not sure I can visualize the 
> process. I've sat in design meetings of software, web sites, documents, 
> etc. I haven't sat in design meetings for interactive games. It seems to 
> me it might be noticably different. I'm wondering how autonomous the 
> decisions made by the people sitting in front of the level editor are, for 
> example. How much of the level is pre-planned, how much is easier to lay 
> out and then fix later if it plays poorly.

 If you had Crysis installed and played the games in the recent ICMC comp: 
http://icmc.crymod.com/ then you would get an idea of what can be done by 
amateurs. There were 20+ maps submitted, and some of them were better than 
Crytek's maps, (according to a lot of the users).

   Autonomous? You can do basically what you want with this editor. 
Obviously, you need to learn it, but Darren, if I can, you most certainly 
can. I don't know. I don't know what you're actually looking for even though 
you said it in text. You can design a whole map, and if it doesn't "play 
properly" then MAKE it play properly. You can. Want a faster LTV? (No idea 
what that stands for, it's a large jeep/hummer type vehicle), you can do it.


>
>>      If you're not making a mod, (where you introduce new elements, 
>> models, whatever), then it's basically all there for you in the editor,
>
> I'm kind of talking about how much goes on before you even sit down in 
> front of the editor.

   Well, the storyline for a start, (which I've already explained), just to 
give you some idea of what you want for the game. Is it going to be a mod? 
If so, then you have to start thinking of different folder paths that you 
will probably have to make within the main folders. Yes, there's a lot of 
messing about with this game, (as with other programs), but as always, once 
you play with it and get used to it, it becomes easier.


>
>>    I'd love somebody from here to test my map, but I don't think anyone 
>> here plays Crysis.  :o/
>
> I might if I had the video card for it.

   nV6600GT here. And it, (the original vanilla game), plays well on mostly 
medium settings for me, with a couple of high prams in-between.

 I'd love it if you could play my map, to me, it's great game-play if you 
want to sneak and snipe around, (or even hammer it with a machine gun)and 
even though there is no story as such, (which I will probably still add), 
you would find it hard to get through to the end as I've found out many 
times. It's not impossible, and I've completed it many times, but it is hard 
on 'normal' settings as apposed to 'veteren' settings, (which I haven't even 
tried yet!)

    Anyway, just get the next Crysis:Warhead game, and you'll also get the 
next version of the editor, which is either going to be v2.5 or v3.0. As I 
said to Ben, it's supposed to be optimised for lower end PC's.

 Want to licence the game? $2mill.(ish)  Heh.

   Oooo, those Yerli brothers...  :)


       ~Steve~


>
> -- 
> Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
>  Ever notice how people in a zombie movie never already know how to
>  kill zombies? Ask 100 random people in America how to kill someone
>  who has reanimated from the dead in a secret viral weapons lab,
>  and how many do you think already know you need a head-shot?

Post a reply to this message

>>> Today's society is full of people who don't want to take the time to
>>> *learn*, they just expect to be able to understand everything
>>> instantly, and get frustrated when they don't "get it" within the first
>>> 30 seconds of using a new tool.
>> Today's OSS is full of products which come with no manual at all. :-P
> 
> Well, when it comes to 3D modelling, let's have a look, shall we?

I didn't mean these guys specifically. I just meant a lot of OSS 
projects sadly aren't as well-documented as they could be. (POV-Ray is a 
pleasent departure form this...)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

St. wrote:
>    Autonomous? You can do basically what you want with this editor. 
> Obviously, you need to learn it, but Darren, if I can, you most certainly 
> can. 

I think you're missing the question I'm asking.

I'm asking the equivalent of "how does a company design and manage the 
creation of a major software project", and you're telling me where to 
download the compiler from. I'm not asking "how do you get the ideas 
into the data structure that the map editor lets you manipulate." I'm 
asking "how does a company creating a large professional game that's 
going to take years to code go about working out responsibilities 
between team members."

>  Want to licence the game? $2mill.(ish)  Heh.

That's kind of what I'm saying, there.  How does one organize things 
such that $2Mill is a reasonable amount of money to pay?

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Ever notice how people in a zombie movie never already know how to
  kill zombies? Ask 100 random people in America how to kill someone
  who has reanimated from the dead in a secret viral weapons lab,
  and how many do you think already know you need a head-shot?

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 13:50:07 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:

>I think you're missing the question I'm asking.

I think that unless you've been involved in a similar process it would be hard
to imagine it.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 21:40:58 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>>>> Today's society is full of people who don't want to take the time to
>>>> *learn*, they just expect to be able to understand everything
>>>> instantly, and get frustrated when they don't "get it" within the
>>>> first 30 seconds of using a new tool.
>>> Today's OSS is full of products which come with no manual at all. :-P
>> 
>> Well, when it comes to 3D modelling, let's have a look, shall we?
> 
> I didn't mean these guys specifically. I just meant a lot of OSS
> projects sadly aren't as well-documented as they could be. (POV-Ray is a
> pleasent departure form this...)

Oh, sure, lots of OSS projects don't have good documentation.  Lots of 
OSS projects do.  Lots of commercial software has crap documentation, 
too, but there is some that does as well.

For example, if Word had reasonable documentation, you'd be able to 
figure out how to use templates, wouldn't you? ;-) <scnr>

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message 
news:489b5fff$1@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
>>    Autonomous? You can do basically what you want with this editor. 
>> Obviously, you need to learn it, but Darren, if I can, you most certainly 
>> can.
>
> I think you're missing the question I'm asking.
>
> I'm asking the equivalent of "how does a company design and manage the 
> creation of a major software project", and you're telling me where to 
> download the compiler from. I'm not asking "how do you get the ideas into 
> the data structure that the map editor lets you manipulate." I'm asking 
> "how does a company creating a large professional game that's going to 
> take years to code go about working out responsibilities between team 
> members."

   Heh, well you didn't say that afaik. ;)

    What do you mean by "years to code"? Once the program has been sorted 
out to be used in the best possible way, the world is your oyster, yes? The 
original program, CE1, (SandBox1) was to do with FarCry, then the next 
program, CE2, (SandBox2) was the editor for Crysis (and they LOOK 
identical). I don't know what happened between these two programs and their 
respective developers, but I think someone probably bought someone out, and 
changed a few things. (Probably the Yerli brothers, and then they allowed 
the new Farcry people to use the 'old' version which will soon be on the 
market as a new version in itself when the FarCry2 editor comes out under a 
different name). Ha! Even though I'm no programmer, imagine receiving that 
program that you can then work on a professional game without any legal 
responsibilities.


>
>>  Want to licence the game? $2mill.(ish)  Heh.
>
> That's kind of what I'm saying, there.  How does one organize things such 
> that $2Mill is a reasonable amount of money to pay?

   I'm not a professional game maker, (and never will be, although I would 
like that challenge for sure), but if it was me, I would do as I've already 
described - hire people that are good at what they do best and just get on 
with it, and *hope* for the best. It's a tough world in the games industry, 
and to be honest, Crysis didn't do as well as it should have. Mistakes were 
made about high-end computers and performance. People bought and made their 
own high end comps just to play Crysis only to find that they couldn't as 
expected, (which is weird, because I can on my low end machine). Go figure. 
;)

   ~Steve~


>
> -- 
> Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
>  Ever notice how people in a zombie movie never already know how to
>  kill zombies? Ask 100 random people in America how to kill someone
>  who has reanimated from the dead in a secret viral weapons lab,
>  and how many do you think already know you need a head-shot?

Post a reply to this message

St. wrote:
>    Heh, well you didn't say that afaik. ;)

I'm not sure how to more clearly express the question than "How does the 
planning and design go?" ;-)

>     What do you mean by "years to code"? Once the program has been sorted 
> out to be used in the best possible way, the world is your oyster, yes?

I don't have any idea what that sentence is supposed to mean.

> hire people that are good at what they do best and just get on 
> with it, and *hope* for the best. 

It would seem there's a bit of process between "hire" and "release" that 
we're missing in between there. ;-)  But since, as you say, you don't 
actually know the answer to the question, I'll let that slide.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Ever notice how people in a zombie movie never already know how to
  kill zombies? Ask 100 random people in America how to kill someone
  who has reanimated from the dead in a secret viral weapons lab,
  and how many do you think already know you need a head-shot?

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>> Even more impressively, they've been able to colour films that were 
>> originally shot in B&W.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_colorization
> 
> Yeah, but only with human intervention. You don't just press a button 
> and out pops an image with colours that correctly match the original.
> 

IIRC, many B&W films aren't actually B&W the way digital media is, but 
rather *appear* to be B&W.  It's as if the hue values get compressed 
into an extremely narrow range.  With a good scanner and some good 
software, automatic colorization should be perfectly feasible these days.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> I meant you can't just give a machine a BW picture of a tree and have it
>>> automatically know to turn it green. That's impossible. 
>>
>> I don't know that to be the case.  Again, a case of one's ability to 
>> fathom how something like that is done doesn't translate to "there's 
>> no way it could possibly be done".
> 
> It's a basic premise of signal processing that you cannot recover data 
> that isn't there any more. Shannon's theorum and all that.

You have to understand, data on analog film isn't really lost, it's 
merely distorted.  If you can correct for the distortion, you can get 
the original back.

Analog media isn't like digital; it's not changed instantly and 
irrevocably.  Rather, entire regions are distorted in predictable ways.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> After all, two thousand years ago, the earth was flat because nobody 
> could comprehend the idea that it wasn't.  Well, I say nobody - there 
> were some who did, and they were branded as heretics and in many cases 
> they were killed for it.  Turns out they were right.

Two thousand years ago, the Greeks knew the earth was round, and they 
even knew the radius.

Even 500 years ago, people knew the Earth was round.  They didn't laugh 
at Columbus because he thought he could sail west to get to India; they 
laughed at him because he thought the world was smaller than it was. 
Turns out, they were right.  If he hadn't landed in the Americas, he and 
his crew would have died in the middle of the ocean.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> The real point is more that on a PC, just switching from one window to 
>> another always seemed to take forever, whereas on an Amiga it was 
>> instantaneous unless the machine was under heavy load.
> 
> Yeh, I remember my friend had a 33 MHz PC, and just closing a window it 
> took several seconds for his desktop wallpaper to repaint itself,

I was surprised by how fast my computer was when I upgraded to a 33 MHz 
processor.  Windows ran like a dream on it :)

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> Even 500 years ago, people knew the Earth was round.

"""
In fact, people have known since at least the 4th century BC that the 
earth is round, and the pseudo-scientific conviction that we actually 
live on a disc didn't emerge until Victorian times.
"""

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7540427.stm

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Ever notice how people in a zombie movie never already know how to
  kill zombies? Ask 100 random people in America how to kill someone
  who has reanimated from the dead in a secret viral weapons lab,
  and how many do you think already know you need a head-shot?

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
> > Even 500 years ago, people knew the Earth was round.

> """
> In fact, people have known since at least the 4th century BC that the 
> earth is round, and the pseudo-scientific conviction that we actually 
> live on a disc didn't emerge until Victorian times.
> """

  A disc is "round". A torus is "round". A ring is "round". A cylinder is
"round".

  Why do they always use "round" to mean "spherical" in this context,
given that the meaning of the word is not very exact?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 13:26:16 -0400, Warp wrote:

>   Why do they always use "round" to mean "spherical" in this context,
> given that the meaning of the word is not very exact?

Because it reinforces the idea that we've always thought of the Earth as 
spherical.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> I don't know about you, but every time *I* look at either the GIMP or 
> PhotoShop, I can never figure out what magical trick I'm missing that 
> lets you do the impressive stuff everybody else does. To me, it just 
> seems to be a small set of pretty simple tools that don't appear to give 
> you much power to do anything.

There are many, many tutorials available on the Web for the GIMP, and 
probably for PS as well.

Whenever I need to do a new trick, I usually play around for about two 
hours, then go look up a tutorial on what I'm doing, then finish it in 
15 minutes.

Seriously, watching someone else do something well can give you a huge 
boost in productivity.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Chambers wrote:
>>> Even 500 years ago, people knew the Earth was round.
> 
>> """
>> In fact, people have known since at least the 4th century BC that the 
>> earth is round, and the pseudo-scientific conviction that we actually 
>> live on a disc didn't emerge until Victorian times.
>> """
> 
>   A disc is "round". A torus is "round". A ring is "round". A cylinder is
> "round".
> 
>   Why do they always use "round" to mean "spherical" in this context,
> given that the meaning of the word is not very exact?
> 

But the earth isn't spherical, it's ellipsoidal or do I mean oblate 
spheroid. ;-)

John

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   A disc is "round". A torus is "round". A ring is "round". A cylinder is
> "round".
> 
>   Why do they always use "round" to mean "spherical" in this context,
> given that the meaning of the word is not very exact?

Because nobody really believes the earth is a torus or a ring or a 
cylinder? They're trying to distinguish "round" from "flat", not "round" 
from "every other possible shape". :-)

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Ever notice how people in a zombie movie never already know how to
  kill zombies? Ask 100 random people in America how to kill someone
  who has reanimated from the dead in a secret viral weapons lab,
  and how many do you think already know you need a head-shot?

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Because nobody really believes the earth is a torus or a ring or a 
> cylinder? They're trying to distinguish "round" from "flat", not "round" 
> from "every other possible shape". :-)

  Is Captain America's shield round? I think anyone would answer "yes".
Yet it's not spherical.

  The "earth is flat" belief stated, actually that the Earth is like a
disk not too dissimilar to a round shield. *Round* shield.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Is Captain America's shield round? I think anyone would answer "yes".
> Yet it's not spherical.

Yes. And therein lies the problem: who would assume that if you said 
"Captain America's Shield is Round" that you mean it's spherical? I 
understand that you're saying both spheres and disks are "round", but 
given that one position on the topic is "flat", then "round" is 
obviously the other position on the topic.

People talk to people. Maybe you're talking to computers too much lately 
or something. Seriously, I mean, did you actually not know what they 
were saying? :-)

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Ever notice how people in a zombie movie never already know how to
  kill zombies? Ask 100 random people in America how to kill someone
  who has reanimated from the dead in a secret viral weapons lab,
  and how many do you think already know you need a head-shot?

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> People talk to people. Maybe you're talking to computers too much lately 
> or something. Seriously, I mean, did you actually not know what they 
> were saying? :-)

  It's not a question about understanding or not understanding what they
mean with their words, but about desiring a bit more of unambiguousity.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 9 Aug 2008 04:37:38 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

>Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> People talk to people. Maybe you're talking to computers too much lately 
>> or something. Seriously, I mean, did you actually not know what they 
>> were saying? :-)
>
>  It's not a question about understanding or not understanding what they
>mean with their words, but about desiring a bit more of unambiguousity.

But the word "round" *is* ambiguous, its meaning is dependant on context. 
That's the English language for you. 
For instance no one really expected the roundheads to have spherical,
cylindrical or disc like heads. Nor do the "flat Earthers" say that the Earth is
perfectly flat. Take these things with a pinch of salt, old bean. (Not that I
think that you are actually an ancient seed) ;)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:

> For example, if Word had reasonable documentation, you'd be able to 
> figure out how to use templates, wouldn't you? ;-) <scnr>

That's like saying "If IE's braindead layout algorithm was well 
documented, people would be able to understand it." It doesn't follow. :-P

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 09:19:42 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>> For example, if Word had reasonable documentation, you'd be able to
>> figure out how to use templates, wouldn't you? ;-) <scnr>
> 
> That's like saying "If IE's braindead layout algorithm was well
> documented, people would be able to understand it." It doesn't follow.
> :-P

LOL, but you know I'm right. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> That's like saying "If IE's braindead layout algorithm was well
>> documented, people would be able to understand it." It doesn't follow.
>> :-P
> 
> LOL, but you know I'm right. ;-)

Nah. You can design a feature so badly that nobody can comprehend it, no 
matter how good the manual is. ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 21:01:56 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>>> That's like saying "If IE's braindead layout algorithm was well
>>> documented, people would be able to understand it." It doesn't follow.
>>> :-P
>> 
>> LOL, but you know I'm right. ;-)
> 
> Nah. You can design a feature so badly that nobody can comprehend it, no
> matter how good the manual is. ;-)

True, but as we've already discussed, there are people using templates in 
Word without issue, so it's not poor documentation, but rather a lack of 
understanding of the documentation that's the issue.  ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message