 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> What did you use before Wordstar, though. If WS was your first major
> word processor, that may be why you remember the keybindings.
No, it's because they were actually intuitive. I used about three other
screen editors at the same time, but wordstar is what stuck.
Heh. Googling for it shows that KDE and EMacs and a number of others support
wordstar keyboard bindings still.
--
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 wrote:
> I can't think of any programmer that uses something like Notepad to write code.
{...Shuffles back into the corner...}
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> 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.)
Heh. Kind of like the Java code that's *designed* to work around the
bugs in the standard APIs, and actually breaks if Sun fixed them...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>> Darren New escreveu:
>>> just said the UI is hard to learn and to remember, which I think
>>> you'll find most people agree with. In part because it *does* do so
>>> much.
>>
>> Yeah, but I was just pointing out there's some easily remembered
>> mnemonics to go with each keycombo.
>
> Sure. But you have to remember the mnemonics. Unlike, say, arrow keys,
> which need no mnemonic to remember which is which. And they're not all
> mnemonics, either, which also makes it difficult.
Then buy an Optimus keyboard. I'm sure someone must have made a Blender
layout for it. :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> 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?
You press the right mouse button, if your mouse has one. Or you hold Ctrl
while clicking.
Or, on modern laptop Macs, you can click while another finger is on the
trackpad (if that mode is enabled). Or click on the bottom right corner of
the trackpad area (if that mode is enabled).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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.
Other modellers I've used seemed reasonably intuitive (once you grok the
basic way the abstractions work). It's only really Wings and [now]
Blender that seem baffling.
Then again, I don't think The GIMP is especially user-friendly...
> Really, go thru (say) the
> gingerbread man tutorial, or the "create a blue alien guy" tutorial, and
> then suddenly it seems to make sense.
I made a gingerbread man. (Not that it looked remotely like the example
picture, mind you.) It's nice that you can put 6 cubes together and get
something that vaguely approximates a recognisible object, but it still
doesn't really tell me how you're supposed to construct the ludicrously
complex shapes everybody claims you're supposed to be able to put
together in 30 seconds flat...
>> (But I don't recall it having any documentation, whereas Blender
>> clearly does.)
>
> It has an entire 130-page textbook it comes with.
Really? I had no idea. When I installed it, it didn't seem to provide
any documentation. (Unlike Blender, which has a big "help" button on it
even if you're too daft to notice the prominent links right there on the
website you just downloaded it from...)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Heh. Kind of like the Java code that's *designed* to work around the
> bugs in the standard APIs, and actually breaks if Sun fixed them...
Yep, that's exactly the why you can talk all you want about "upward
compatible changes" and how to write version numbers and all that, and it's
still not going to work. Hence MS's "side by side" stuff.
In particular, in vi, moving the cursor left after you insert something is
*wrong* but also the sort of thing that I've found breaks my fingers in the
version I found where they'd "fixed" that.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>
>> 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.)
>
> Heh. Kind of like the Java code that's *designed* to work around the
> bugs in the standard APIs, and actually breaks if Sun fixed them...
Two words: CSS hack.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> together in 30 seconds flat...
I don't think people say 30 seconds.
>> It has an entire 130-page textbook it comes with.
>
> Really? I had no idea.
That's because you never tried google. :-)
http://voxel.dl.sourceforge.net/project/wings/manual/1.6.1/wings3d_manual1.6.1.pdf
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Heh. Kind of like the Java code that's *designed* to work around the
>> bugs in the standard APIs, and actually breaks if Sun fixed them...
>
> Two words: CSS hack.
One word: hack.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>
>> I can't think of any programmer that uses something like Notepad to
>> write code.
>
> {...Shuffles back into the corner...}
I know of lots of other types like Andrew who enjoy being miserable
while editing code.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Neeum Zawan" <m.n### [at] ieee org> wrote in message
news:4b2ba981@news.povray.org...
> On 12/18/09 01:32, scott wrote:
> Somehow, I've never been sympathetic to this kind of complaint. Maybe
> I'm an "old fart" (who's not that old in age) who remembers the time
> when this was not the default behavior of apps.
It's not a matter of liking this or that. I'm not crazy about driving on the
right or 110V. And it was a bad old time when software did not follow UI
standards - I don't remember having to learn hundereds of different and
incompatible key combinations fondly. Standards are, most of the time,
somewhat arbitrarily established. But them's the standards, and makes life
easier for all if followed.
> 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?"
Yes it is, and it's hard to retain, when everybody else follows a standard.
If one's life revolves around Blender, that's different, but many
professionals and amateurs alike use several different applications to get
their work done. Switching between them is no fun when they all implement
arbitrary interfaces and try to be overly clever or cute.
> and "Is their choice of deviating from the
> standard efficient?"
No, hardly. No matter how efficient or consistent Esperanto may be, if you
speak Esperanto on your establishment and everybody in the country speaks
English, it's not efficient when you consider the big picture, even if it
might be efficient for those who never leave the office.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"nemesis" <nam### [at] nospam-gmailcom> wrote in message
news:4b2c0883@news.povray.org...
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> > Darren New wrote:
> >> I can't think of any programmer that uses something like Notepad to
> >> write code.
> > {...Shuffles back into the corner...}
> I know of lots of other types like Andrew who enjoy being miserable
> while editing code.
I think he enjoys being miserable.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>>> I can't think of any programmer that uses something like Notepad to
>>>> write code.
>
>>> {...Shuffles back into the corner...}
>
>> I know of lots of other types like Andrew who enjoy being miserable
>> while editing code.
>
> I think he enjoys being miserable.
Or rather, sometimes Notepad is the only thing installed. :-P
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/18/09 14:57, Darren New wrote:
> 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?
I was pointing out that it's not that much of a standard.
--
Depend on the rabbit's foot if you will, but remember, it didn't help
the rabbit.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/18/09 15:39, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> So tell me: How do you right click on a Mac?
>
> You press the right mouse button, if your mouse has one. Or you hold Ctrl
> while clicking.
>
> Or, on modern laptop Macs, you can click while another finger is on the
> trackpad (if that mode is enabled). Or click on the bottom right corner of
> the trackpad area (if that mode is enabled).
Umm...Sure. My point was that using the right mouse button to get a
menu isn't always expected - given that most Mac users (at least that I
know) don't even have a right mouse button.
Of course, perhaps bringing up Macs was a bad idea, since I think
software on it follows standards more rigorously than on Windows.
--
Depend on the rabbit's foot if you will, but remember, it didn't help
the rabbit.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/18/09 17:58, somebody wrote:
>> Somehow, I've never been sympathetic to this kind of complaint. Maybe
>> I'm an "old fart" (who's not that old in age) who remembers the time
>> when this was not the default behavior of apps.
>
> It's not a matter of liking this or that. I'm not crazy about driving on the
> right or 110V. And it was a bad old time when software did not follow UI
> standards - I don't remember having to learn hundereds of different and
> incompatible key combinations fondly. Standards are, most of the time,
> somewhat arbitrarily established. But them's the standards, and makes life
> easier for all if followed.
None of which is disputed. I'd just add a sentence: "Sometimes life is
made easier if a standard isn't followed".
>> 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?"
>
> Yes it is, and it's hard to retain, when everybody else follows a standard.
Not monolithically. Blender's may suck, but I refuse to take as an
axiom that all such apps that don't follow some aspect of the standard
make learning difficult.
Here's a hint: In many games, the right mouse button has nothing to do
with menus. Few complain about them being hard to learn.
> If one's life revolves around Blender, that's different, but many
I wasn't talking about Blender.
>> and "Is their choice of deviating from the
>> standard efficient?"
>
> No, hardly. No matter how efficient or consistent Esperanto may be, if you
> speak Esperanto on your establishment and everybody in the country speaks
> English, it's not efficient when you consider the big picture, even if it
> might be efficient for those who never leave the office.
Let's not jump to extremes. Learning another language is much more
difficult than small deviations from the standard.
--
Depend on the rabbit's foot if you will, but remember, it didn't help
the rabbit.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 18:15:05 +0100, Patrick Elliott
> <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
>>
>> Oh, and what is it with applications that can "unwrap" a mesh to a UV
>> map, but do so either using an ugly form that you can't be precise
>> with (since all the surfaces have curves that prevent it), or a
>> completely flat one, where you can't tell what surface you are
>> *actually* looking at? lol Got to be a better way to do that, even if
>> its just "let me paint some basic colors on this damn thing, then
>> export the mesh *with* the colors, so I can tell what the hell I am
>> doing."
>
> Something like this?
>
> http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Doc:Manual/Materials/Vertex_Paint
>
>
>
Well... Yes and no. Problem here is I want to export the "mesh" UV map,
with the color overlayed, so that when I take it into a more complex
application, which I can use real image editing, etc. on, I can see,
generally, where things where in the 3D version. Closest you can
probably get is to export the vertex paint map, and the mesh map,
separate, then overlay them in the application. Depending on which sort
of export you use though, this isn't going to necessarily work.
Actually, better idea would be something that let me treat the 3D
surface as a canvas, while still *using* the tools from something like
Paintshop Pro. I am sure there is something out there, in the $500-$1000
range that supports this, maybe, but for the rest of us... All you have
is exporting of the edge lines, in one of several forms, and *trying* to
match what ever you are editing on the image to those lines.
Unfortunately, in something like PSP, you are stuck with the flat
version, unless you hand draw everything, because it has no awareness
that the lines define curvature, so you can't bend your textures to fit
the shape. Tools to do that, for the most part, don't exist, except,
again, in the same high-level apps that probably already work with 3D.
Given what I do most 3D in, most of my time is spent making things
"look" like they have more structure than they do, without being *able*
to add real geometry. This puts me in a conundrum. Either I have to
unwrap something into a flat surface, then apply details, which is
frustrating, since its hard to tell which bits you are working with,
or.. a better solution would be some way to take a "real" 3D result,
warped to fit the "shape" I need, then applied that way. Needless to
say, while POVRay's camera system is real neat, it doesn't have a "make
a camera whose lens looks like an entire {insert general shape of the
object needed}. lol I can't think of a good way to manage that, at least
not with anything that has any sort of complexity. A sphere, cylinder,
or other simple object, fine, you just make it reflective, sit the
camera in the middle, with 360 degrees of view, then make the object you
are trying to "copy" have no image. All you get is the reflection. But
something with dips, bumps, or other complex shapes? Just really doesn't
work, in most cases.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> range that supports this, maybe, but for the rest of us... All you have
> is exporting of the edge lines, in one of several forms, and *trying* to
> match what ever you are editing on the image to those lines.
> Unfortunately, in something like PSP, you are stuck with the flat
> version, unless you hand draw everything, because it has no awareness
> that the lines define curvature, so you can't bend your textures to fit
> the shape. Tools to do that, for the most part, don't exist, except,
> again, in the same high-level apps that probably already work with 3D.
>
> Given what I do most 3D in, most of my time is spent making things
> "look" like they have more structure than they do, without being *able*
> to add real geometry. This puts me in a conundrum. Either I have to
> unwrap something into a flat surface, then apply details, which is
> frustrating, since its hard to tell which bits you are working with,
> or..
Some reasonable seam choices plus AO baking seem to do the trick to me.
They make a good work of providing good references for when you begin
editing the UV map later on a bitmap editor.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18-12-2009 21:45, Darren New wrote:
> 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. :-)
You might ;)
I have been using blender for some time now and I never complained, I
think. For me it does not matter much if something is intuitive or not,
if it is, the key bindings will become reflexes in two weeks, if not:
three. What is the point if you are using it for many years? And yes I
am using the hardcoded alt-mouse movements to turn my 3D objects in
Marlab and that invariably fails.
Ok, that is not completely true. It was my second attempt. First one
failed because I couldn't get long enough motivated. Partly because of
the UI and partly because 3D sculpting is inherently difficult with a
lot of knowledge that got into it to make it simpler. E.g. an edge loop
was not something I was familiar with before that. The main reason,
however, was of course that I did not need it, it was just for fun.
Second time I really needed a 3D mesh manipulation tool.
So, If you need 3D modelling, Blender is OK, with this or a better UI.
If you want to attract a new group of users, changing the UI to comply
to standards developed after the first implementations of Blenders
ancestors is a good idea.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
