 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> 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.
I didn't mean to imply I thought that. I have heard from professionals that
while lots of cheaper programs can do 95% of what they need, none of them
have the interface that makes the workflow easy.
Also, as programs get more complex and computers get more powerful, you
sometimes have to break from the tried-and-true to support more stuff, like
in that Office Ribbon design video I posted recently.
It's not really clear that the Blender coders did the kind of research
outside their own little shop that would make for a better interface. It
also means it can be a PITA for people who aren't doing production-level
animation stuff. I dreaded even trying to do something big, knowing that if
I needed to adjust something early in the flow to deal with a problem I
encountered late in the flow, there was a whole bunch of manual stuff I'd
have to redo from scratch.
--
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 6-8-2009 22:59, Darren New wrote:
> 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?
none
> Did you go thru a
> blender tutorial before trying to use it?
some
> Did you go thru a Word
> tutorial before trying to use it?
some
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:4a7b44f3$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:
> > 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.
> I didn't mean to imply I thought that.
I didn't mean to imply you did - that's why I said "some die hard Blender
fans".
> I have heard from professionals that
> while lots of cheaper programs can do 95% of what they need, none of them
> have the interface that makes the workflow easy.
Well, when the programmers actually get money for their work, they listen
(or are made to listen, by their bosses) to their users' wants and needs.
> Also, as programs get more complex and computers get more powerful, you
> sometimes have to break from the tried-and-true to support more stuff,
like
> in that Office Ribbon design video I posted recently.
I didn't get to watch it, but if I may make a blind statement, it's one
thing for a companies with large R&D and testing departments like MS and
Apple to invent and innovate UIs (although even they screw up badly from
time to time), it's another for a lone programmer to presume he can
singlehandedly build the ideal interface by going against all conventions
and standards. UI design is much more difficult than many programmers
believe and should seldom, if ever, be attempted from scratch.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> UI design is much more difficult than many programmers
> believe and should seldom, if ever, be attempted from scratch.
I certainly agree. I was just pointing out that "tried and true" is not
always best either, just like newtonian physics doesn't work for extreme
speeds. One of the things the Ribbon video covers is that there were like 5
menus with 18 total options in Word 1.0, and 30 menus with hundreds of
options in Word 2003 (numbers approximate) at which point you need something
new.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I think it depends on the application. If you spend 8 hours a day in
> blender
Imagine the horror! :-)
> (or photoshop, say), having an interface optimized for that work is
> probably better.
Sorry, but I fail to see how a cludgy text-based 80's file open interface
that doesn't even allow you to select network locations or change view
settings is "more optimised" than the standard Windows file open dialog.
It's surprising the number of times I use the "New Folder" and copy, paste,
rename options within standard file open and save dialogs. Why did they
think it was necessary to stop the user doing this in Blender?
Or how pressing space instead of right button to open the menu (which then
follows some weird non-standard behaviour, like the items changing order) is
more optimised. It's funny, I have used several pieces of professional 3D
CAD software (which are used by tens of thousands of people for 8 hours a
day) and yet none of them felt it necessary to reassign the standard Windows
operations like left click to select, right click for menu, F1 for help,
ctrl-left-click to multi-select or use their own file dialog boxes or menu
systems in order to make their program "more optimised".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> Sorry, but I fail to see how a cludgy text-based 80's file open
> interface that doesn't even allow you to select network locations or
> change view settings is "more optimised" than the standard Windows file
> open dialog.
I'm not defending Blender's UI. I'm simply saying that neither "each program
has its best interface regardless of platform" nor "platform absolutely
dictates form of the interface" is a good position to take. You have to look
at the usage of the software.
I agree blender's UI sucks. I disagree that it sucks *because* it doesn't
match the platform.
--
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:4a7c43f1$1@news.povray.org...
> scott wrote:
>> Sorry, but I fail to see how a cludgy text-based 80's file open interface
>> that doesn't even allow you to select network locations or change view
>> settings is "more optimised" than the standard Windows file open dialog.
>
> I'm not defending Blender's UI. I'm simply saying that neither "each
> program has its best interface regardless of platform" nor "platform
> absolutely dictates form of the interface" is a good position to take. You
> have to look at the usage of the software.
>
> I agree blender's UI sucks. I disagree that it sucks *because* it doesn't
> match the platform.
It sucks because it doesn't match *anything*, platform being the most
obvious. Is there a usability argument to not using the platform file
open/save dialog, for instance, like scott mentions? I doubt it. There are
only laziness and arrogance arguments for such decisions.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
