yeah I guess I'm really asking how to find keys blank keys to use or when conflicts are valid rather than how to actually add a shortcut.
Right now its a bit of a mess with the hotkeys... they use quite a few and leave very little room for fresh keys unless its some weird combo of key presses.
Im kind of hoping the addition of pie menus will alleviate this a bit, but that probably wont be out for another few months.
I've not had that, but have had a similar issue: sometimes 'l' for selecting the entire surface stops working for me. Everything else seems fine, but 'l' just stops until I restart Blender.
im not sure, if this is what happens to you in this case, but i had the problem of changing keyboard layouts multiple times. one of blenders shortcuts or a very similar key combination that i hit by accident is bound by windows to change the keyboard layout to another language. due to that, some keyboard shortcuts in blender stopped working as expected.
if you simply deactivate the windows shortcut, the problem is solved.
I finally got around to trying the new bevel and inset tools, and once again a tool was implemented without considering consistency. ctrl does nothing in bevel (I was expecting it to bevel in increments of 1 unit), and in inset it controls the offset. Such a shame, since the tools are finally decent!
What you can do to get around that it type a number value using the NumKeys to get a fixed increment.. it's a real pain in the potatoes doing that absent being able to use Ctrl to initiate snap (use backspace/delete to 'delete' incorrect value and retype if a mistake is made).
These types of minor issues highlight the rather detached view BF has of it's more professional user-base, many things are done from an intellectual point of view rather than a utilitarian position of Real World (TM) use. But one digresses from topic *cough*
I'll try to relay the issue about Ctrl. Also note the bevel modifier uses the new bevel code too. It may work a bit better for doing precise bevels. To control specific edges use the Bevel weight slider in the side panel and set the modifier to weight (screenshot).
If more people utilized the mailing list, irc, and the bug tracker there would probably be a lot less detachment.
Has anyone come up with a decent default light config that doesn't look weird? I'm talking about the 3 point OpenGL Solid lights. Most of the time I'll use real opengl lights in the texture view, or use matcaps.
Has anyone come up with a decent default light config that doesn't look weird? I'm talking about the 3 point OpenGL Solid lights. Most of the time I'll use real opengl lights in the texture view, or use matcaps.
The two most interesting ones are both continuations from last gsoc imo:
Antonis Riakiotakis – Painting tool improvements
Mentor: Lukas Toenne
This proposal will target usability, feature and system design improvements for Blender’s paint system. Unification of symmetry and anchored and area stroke modes, curve driven strokes, sharpen tool, re-use code for Vertex/Weight paint, bucket fill, better texture selection, etc.
Jason Wilkins – Viewport FX II
Mentor: Brecht van Lommel
This is a proposal to continue updating the way Blender draws to the screen. Blender relies on an older version of the OpenGL graphics library that is no longer fully supported by hardware providers. For this reason, when new generations of graphics cards are released, Blender would not fully benefit from the increases in capability and performance.
--
I can't imagine using the paint tools in Blender right now for anything but really simple pieces given:
-No import/export of layered images with blending. PSD was dropped, but OpenRaster could substitute.
-Using Undo on a painted mesh with overlapping UVs causes texture artifacts to appear.
-The paint layer plugin has no way to merge layers.
If those three things could be solved though it would be nice to use.
I've actually been working on a paint demo video that people have been harassing me to do for months. Painted this entirely in Blender, but yeah, Blender's paint system still has a way to go.
It does have a reprojection feature not a lot of people are aware of that is pretty cool:
I've actually been working on a paint demo video that people have been harassing me to do for months. Painted this entirely in Blender, but yeah, Blender's paint system still has a way to go.
I would love to see your workflow for this. I've always found Blender's texture paint system to be frustrating.
Have to agree with carter, way frustrating to produce fully-fledged textures using the paint system so that's some pretty neat stuff you've achieved there.
XRG, wasnt Ton interested in the icon sets you were making for your Blend files? Any followup on that. I have to admit, I liked what you were pumping out.
I never got any word back on that. I'll probably hop in IRC and talk with him about it at some point. I don't care much about the icons specifically, but Blender really needs some better brush defaults. The ones that have been in there for years I think were just thrown in as placeholders and just never replaced.
One thing the paint tools in 3D mode need is a masking system so that you only paint on the surfaces you want to. So if you want to paint a specific area and not have it bleed onto other stuff you've already painted, you should be able to mask it off. They got it working in sculpt mode after all.
You can mask off faces which can help in some cases with overspray, but it's probably more useful in something like weight paint than texture paint. I'd certainly like to see the cavity masking and things like that though. Even just having a lasso tool in the image editor would be really convenient.
Masking example: Click the button, then hit 'a' to deselect everything, then use circle select to pick out the polys you want to make a mask out of.
Two years ago, we scheduled the 2.6x period to have a branch migration focus. In the past years, weve seen the results of this work, with massive amounts of new tools and new editors in Blender.
All of 2.6x builds were meant to be (mostly) compatible with 2.5x though.
Since were running out of 2.6x numbers its really time to think of focus and projects for coming years. Below is a proposal Id like to see discussed and reviewed here and on our mailing list(s). The last 2.6x releases
For 2.68 and 2.69 we strictly keep compatibility and keep focusing on stability for Blender.
Anything potentially unstable or breaking compatibility should go to a 2.7 branch
If needed, we can do a couple of 2.69 updates (a b c d) to merge in bug fixes only.
Blender 2.7x projects
For 2.7x projects we will allow forward and (minor) backward compatibility breakage. That means that by default, the 2.7x .blend files dont have to read reliably in 2.6x or older. Backward compatibility stays crucial though, and should only be acceptable for big and important improvements. Changes can also be including a revision of UI layouts, naming of options, themes, and shortcut defaults.
However, for as long as we add breakage in Blender 2.7x versions, we could also try to keep the last 2.69 release updated with essential fixes.
This is also the perfect period to move to git for Blender coding.
A summary of projects or targets that fit this period:
Move to OpenGL 2.1 minimal (means: UI/tools can be designed needing it, like offscreen drawing)
Depsgraph refactor, including threaded updates
Fix our duplicator system, animation proxy (for local parts of linked/referenced data)
Redesign 3D viewport drawing (full cleanup of space_view3d module)
Work on cpu-based selection code for viewport
Sequencer rewrite
Asset manager, better UI and tools for handling linkage
Python Custom Editor api (including better Python support for event handlers, notifiers).
UI: refresh our default
Blender 2.8x projects
I propose to not wait with 2.8x versions as long as we did for 2.6x and 2.7x. Its not needed to release every digit. At some moment in the near future, even while we still work on a first 2.70, projects for 2.8x could already get started.
For 2.8x we can target projects for bigger rewrites, with a lot of compatibility loss. Examples could be:
New unified physics systems, using much more of Bullet, unification of point caches (Alembic).
Particle nodes (could co-exist for a while with old particles though)
Nodification of more parts of Blender (modifiers, constraints)
Game engine (see below)
OpenGL 3.0?
Blender 3.0 projects
For all 2.x projects we will stick to the existing C core, Blender files and data structures (DNA) and Blenders scene/object/data methods as much as possible. It has its limits though its a design from mid 90ies that survived very well but never was predicted to work 20 years already.
During the next few years we can collect in our wiki the issues we have, and the wishlists and design ideas for tackling this topic.
Blender Game Engine
With work being done on threaded drawing and updates, viewport (compositing) effects, unified physics, node based animation, and everything thats currently real-time in Blender already, I also propose to refocus the current game engine to re-use much more of this work.
Or more radically worded: I propose to make the GE to become a real part of Blender code to make it not separated anymore. This would make it more supported, more stable and (Im sure) much more fun to work on as well.
Instead of calling it the GE we would just put Blender in Interaction mode.
Topics to think of:
Integrate the concept of Logic in the animation system itself. Rule or behavior based animation is a great step forward for animation as well (like massive anims, or for extras).
Support of all Blender physics.
Optimizing speed for interactive playback will then also benefit regular 3d editing (and vice versa)
Singular Python API for logic scripting
Ensure good I/O integration with external game engines, similar to render engines.
What should then be dropped is the idea to make Blender have an embedded true game engine. We should acknowledge that we never managed to make something with the portability and quality of Unreal or Crysis or even Unity3D. And Blenders GPL license is not helping here much either.
On the positive side I think that the main cool feature of our GE is that it was integrated with a 3D tool, to allow people to make 3D interaction for walkthroughs, for scientific sims, or game prototypes. If we bring back this (original) design focus for a GE, I think we still get something unique and cool, with seamless integration of realtime and offline 3D.
Agreed. Best alternative to industry standard tools you can get for free. Every new build is like Christmas morning and development moves much faster than Max or Maya. There must be a new version every 2-3 months with a panoply of new features.
i working with blender almost three years, and give me a conflict, i hate how the others tools need to the other programs to make simple stuff like Uvs.
blender get more strong with the time, more and more.
If any artist of any application wants to help fund the alternative so they are not enslaved to autodesk for example, then here's your chance to really speed up the development of this amazing application.
Starting today, item creators in Team Fortress 2 and Dota 2 Workshops may choose from a selection of toolmakers, communities, and mentors and allocate a percentage of revenues from in-game item sales to the toolmakers who aided in the items' creation.
Since the Steam Workshop launched in October of 2011, over 1,200 items created by members of the community have been made available for sale in Team Fortress 2 and Dota 2, producing over $10 million in royalties paid to item creators.
However, creating high quality content for games is rarely a solo endeavor. Along the way, item creators often make use of specialized tools and receive help, guidance, and feedback from various communities and individuals. We've heard from a number of item creators that are looking for a formal way of recognizing and rewarding the toolmakers and service providers that have helped them. Now they can!
When submitting an item to the Team Fortress 2 or Dota 2 Workshop, item creators can select from a list of companies, organizations, or individuals to receive a portion of revenue from that item's sales.
The contribution will be made from a set percentage that is redirected from Valve to the toolmakers, not taken from the item creator's royalty.
There are a lot of organizations and companies that provide valuable tools and services to aid in the creation of game content. But it's usually not obvious to us which of these organizations are providing the most value for any individual content creator. We've started with a basic list (links below), but we'd like to hear about others from item creators such as yourself. Jump into the TF2 and Dota 2 Workshop Discussions and tell us what other communities, individuals, or companies have helped you along the way that you'd like to be able to compensate.
If you already have an item in the Team Fortress 2 or Dota 2 Workshop, you can add and set these royalty splits by visiting the page for your item in the Workshop (only available for items that have not yet been accepted for sale in-game). Click here to view all your workshop items.
I would donate everything I have on my body, including my balls, if someone just made a UI a la Max or Maya for Blender, not in terms of UI-Code, just looks.
I would donate everything I have on my body, including my balls, if someone just made a UI a la Max or Maya for Blender, not in terms of UI-Code, just looks.
It is not impossible. Apparently it can be changed with some phython scripting. You can even hide most of the interface and use pull up menus instead (similar to Maya). There is interest in having a larger UI overhaul to organize and fix Blender even more, but not to the point of breaking its window workflow, which is pretty decent.
Ace: Blender's interface was overhauled quite extensively, trying to eliminate all the shit that didn't make sense in 2.49, and now you want to throw out the baby with the bathwater and emulate Max or Maya's interface?
While I don't use Blender much yet for modeling, the interface is very nice. In a lot of ways, the UI framework is superior to the examples you mention, even if the features are not.
edit: also, speaking of donating: keep your testicles, pay someone to code you what you want.
Ace: Blender's interface was overhauled quite extensively, trying to eliminate all the shit that didn't make sense in 2.49, and now you want to throw out the baby with the bathwater and emulate Max or Maya's interface?
While I don't use Blender much yet for modeling, the interface is very nice. In a lot of ways, the UI framework is superior to the examples you mention, even if the features are not.
edit: also, speaking of donating: keep your testicles, pay someone to code you what you want.
Well chances are it will get overhauled again one way or another. I honestly think it could use a bit more Maya-esq design properties, which is pretty much a more standard and organized interface. Though at the same time I think Blender's strengths are how customizable it is via opening and closing windows and panels within the screen space.
Anyways, for 2.7 Ton R. had this to say:
For 2.7x projects we will allow forward and (minor) backward compatibility breakage. That means that by default, the 2.7x .blend files dont have to read reliably in 2.6x or older. Backward compatibility stays crucial though, and should only be acceptable for big and important improvements. Changes can also be including a revision of UI layouts, naming of options, themes, and shortcut defaults.
However, for as long as we add breakage in Blender 2.7x versions, we could also try to keep the last 2.69 release updated with essential fixes.
This is also the perfect period to move to git for Blender coding.
A summary of projects or targets that fit this period:
Move to OpenGL 2.1 minimal (means: UI/tools can be designed needing it, like offscreen drawing)
Depsgraph refactor, including threaded updates
Fix our duplicator system, animation proxy (for local parts of linked/referenced data)
Redesign 3D viewport drawing (full cleanup of space_view3d module)
Work on cpu-based selection code for viewport
Sequencer rewrite
Asset manager, better UI and tools for handling linkage
Python Custom Editor api (including better Python support for event handlers, notifiers).
UI: refresh our default
UI changes will be coming. They know its not perfect, but the question is how much change will occur and where.
Oh I agree, the interface could use a lot of work, I'm just saying the base framework is very, very nice.
I really miss customisable panels/palettes/toolbars, for one.
What Ton's talking about is just the default layout of the interface though, that's all.
@xrg: Hey man, I was just ranting over at BlenderArtists about the confirm on delete stuff, but I just saw your painting demo is one of the things that got me to take a look at Blender again :P
Blender is still growing/changing. Best thing to do with blender is not to reject it due to its annoyances or temporary design issues, but to advocate change and find ways to offset that possible hobbyist image it has. The mind behind Blender most certainly see's it in a more professional light, and we can see this every time you go to Siggraph and check out the Blender booth.
I would donate everything I have on my body, including my balls, if someone just made a UI a la Max or Maya for Blender, not in terms of UI-Code, just looks.
Welcome aboard. Prepare to probably be both very impressed by what it can do and very frustrated that you can't figure out how to do it. :P I think it took me around 2 weeks just to be comfortable with navigation. Probably a bit faster these days with all the video tutorials.
I really hope some day, Ton puts a keymap overhaul as a high priority.
Data: recently there's been some discussion on ways for the end user to influence Blender without doing any coding him/herself (and even then, there'd be no guarantee of getting it accepted), and the conclusion was basically that there was none, and worse: because they're opensource they have no strong incentive to listen to users. Personally, I'd like to see a less single-minded approach to donations, where I could donate to a specific proposal rather than just give them a blank cheque to spend however they wish. I have specific needs of Blender, and they run counter to the Blender Foundation's focus on animations.
I think the only way it's going to throw the amateur image is if they start listening to pros, much like Krita has been doing.
edit: xrg, I really like the alternative keymap that's been floating around for a while now. I'm not sure if it's included in official builds, but a lot of builds on graphicall have it as a choice in the splash screen dropdown.
Adding Artists as module owners is still the plan. Ton's mail about it. They discussed it in the last Blender Podcast a bit too. There is a link to the modeling mailing list in the Discussion Links from there.
I'd really like to see that keymap get done, but he hasn't committed to it since last November.
I think the only way it's going to throw the amateur image is if they start listening to pros, much like Krita has been doing.
I think this is an unfortunate misconception. In fact the devs are very good about listening to Blender's professional users. When you have a change you need, the key is this: know where to inquire, know who to ask, and keep the wheel squeaky.
Most people get frustrated when trying to promote changes because they ask on Blender Artists or somewhere else, rather than directly approaching specific developers with a solid, reasoned proposal.
As one of the many professional Blender users, I frequently find things that need fixed or changed and so am in constant touch with the devs. In the last few weeks alone I've had five issues addressed very quickly. Those changes are either in trunk now (Multi-res fixes with flipped normals, edit-mode wire color option, vertex connect cutting through in-between edges) or else they're waiting for 2.68 to be released to then go in 2.69 (Hidden Line drawing for retopo work in Edit Mode, Gravity brush option for sculpt mode).
Admittedly I have a fair bit of influence when it comes to requesting features, but that's aside the point.
Another way people often go wrong when requesting changes is to propose massive changes. Such as a completely new keymap, or completely new navigation schemes. Instead keep it small. Focus on small improvements, one at a time. These small improvements go a long ways to make us pro users happy
I'm a long time max *and* blender guy and fwiw for me personally it's the UI in max that I find tiresome now (each to his own I guess) and using Blender feels like getting home and dropping a bunch of heavy baggage at the front door.
I'll offer another observation too, hopefully it doesn't start a flame war
I work with a bunch of guys teaching game dev, some are indies, some are from the industry. My (general) observation is that the indies are happy to try any tool that let's them get the result they want, while the guys from the industry tend to be quite "institutionalized" in their thinking (they'll resist OS software even when it let's them get a better result with less work).
While I can sympathise with max or maya "lifers" wanting their new girlfriend (blender) to dress up in their ex girlfriends clothes (max/maya), I think it'd be a shame to make "not wanting to learn a different UI" the guiding influence for determining the way in which Blenders UI evolves.
I love Blender. It has more powerful modeling tools than Maya. And I like Blender's workflow approach. It is blazing fast, once you get used to it.
However, I dislike the fact that the Blender Foundation focus mostly on Blender as animation and VFX tool.
I feel the gaming market is really left in the dust here. And that is a shame, because I believe the majority of professional Blender users, working in game related fields. Just see how much Blender is used in conjunction with Unity.
On the other hand, the people who ask for new Cycles features and a better video editor, are mostly hobbyists that just play around with those features.
I don't think this is wrong. Blender's foundation should not favor professionals only. It should be accessible to everyone who is interested in 3d.
But it would be wise to invest a bit more into game relevant features and improvements. As a professional game tool, Blender is almost there. But the stuff that actually Blender lacks to get there, is still very important and not something you can code in a weekend. Such as cage baking, vertex normals editing etc.
If Blender Foundation would get more professionals into their boat, it would also result in more funds, and thus in a better app with faster development for everyone.
Same goes for commercial Blender education sites like CG Cookie. They are too animation and VFX centric for my taste.
I'm a long time max *and* blender guy and fwiw for me personally it's the UI in max that I find tiresome now (each to his own I guess) and using Blender feels like getting home and dropping a bunch of heavy baggage at the front door.
I'll offer another observation too, hopefully it doesn't start a flame war
I work with a bunch of guys teaching game dev, some are indies, some are from the industry. My (general) observation is that the indies are happy to try any tool that let's them get the result they want, while the guys from the industry tend to be quite "institutionalized" in their thinking (they'll resist OS software even when it let's them get a better result with less work).
While I can sympathise with max or maya "lifers" wanting their new girlfriend (blender) to dress up in their ex girlfriends clothes (max/maya), I think it'd be a shame to make "not wanting to learn a different UI" the guiding influence for determining the way in which Blenders UI evolves.
Err, plenty of people change Max's UI to that of Maya, or Maya to XSI or ZB to that of Maya navigation, so don't give me any of that sass of "Each to their own" line. Some of us would like a certain amount of resemblance to the software we're using, even if it's something as simple as Quad Menu's, so I don't see what the big issue is with the 'I want to change UI' issue.
Also, 'industry vet's aren't "institutionalized", if you have been using the same software for well over 10 years, then it becomes kinda struggle to adapt to a new one, especially if a software is in the same 'working' area as other ones (EI: Traditional software users want them to be the same, just like ZB, 3DC and Mud users want them to be the same).
Seriously, this isn't some psychological dilemma about indies and vets, this is a simple case of going with what you're comfortable in, especially if you don't have time to experiment in your free time.
Indies are new comers usually to the industry, hence why they use Blender, outside of it's being free and easy on the home budget.
And what bloody OS are you talking about? Almost all software related to this industry has a windows version, and SOMETIMES another version, in some cases like ZB, the Windows version is the most stable, there is no resistance in here, and those that do show resistance, is because the software they're using pertains to another field, period, again, a simple case of "this is where I'm coming from and want to go to, what the point of changing the OS if my software doesn't need to".
Lastly, horrible analogy, and a really creepy one at that. It's more akin to having an ex that was outgoing, likes bouncy castles and dogs, and you would like your new ladyfriend to at least like dogs, and not cats, because you're allergic to cats or cannot tolerate this one small kink of cats, and can tolerate the rest, that is what using Blender is like to me sometimes, forget about the clunky export/import tools, weird hierarchy functions, all those, I can learn.
Although I'm not sure why we're using relationship's as an example for Blender and Max, they're software, not people.
No one is asking for Blender to change, and maybe I'm wrong, but I personally would like to see a single video that shows me how to arrange and manage my Blender UI in a quick and effective manner in order for me to have at least the 'superficial look' of Max, so that just like Photoshop, in which I have all the tools arranged on my right side of the screen, with animation bottom and plugins top, is kept, so I don't keep on breaking my flow, that is one thing I was able to do with even software like ZB, but only after seeing videos about it, Blender, not so much yet, if any.
Infact, come to think of it, almost all of my tools have the same UI look that I customized, I wasn't able to do that with Blender as far as I can tell, and the very little that I did change, was nowhere I need it to be, maybe the latest version have a much more robust UI manager, but again, I can barely find any videos that are on the level of PointPusher's video for ZB.
Err, plenty of people change Max's UI to that of Maya, or Maya to XSI or ZB to that of Maya navigation, so don't give me any of that sass of "Each to their own" line. Some of us would like a certain amount of resemblance to the software we're using, even if it's something as simple as Quad Menu's, so I don't see what the big issue is with the 'I want to change UI' issue.
Each to their own is my way of saying I don't think it's a big deal if people want to change the UI.
Also, 'industry vet's aren't "institutionalized", if you have been using the same software for well over 10 years, then it becomes kinda struggle to adapt to a new one
Institutionalized is my way of saying if you have been using the same software for well over 10 years, then it becomes kinda struggle to adapt to a new one.
Although I'm not sure why we're using relationship's as an example for Blender and Max, they're software, not people.
To be creepy. But seriously, fair enough, maybe a better analogy would be musical instruments.
For me, people who want Blender to be more like Max or Maya are like a pianist who wants to add some piano keys to a guitar because the whole strumming thing just doesn't feel right. Or a guitarist who wants the piano strings out in the open so they can strum them instead of using those big clunky keys
To further the analogy, I'm pretty comfortable on a guitar and pretty uncomfortable on a piano. This doesn't mean that there's something wrong with the piano or that it needs to be made more like a guitar. It just means that it's a different instrument and if I want to get comfortable on it I'm going to need to learn a different way of playing.
Even further, I've never bothered to learn piano properly because I'm happy with what I can play on the guitar. I guess you could say I was "institutionalized"
Sure they are. Blender has a long rich history of people saying it's too hard to learn because it doesn't operate the same as some other program they've already learned.
I personally would like to see a single video that shows me how to arrange and manage my Blender UI in a quick and effective manner in order for me to have at least the 'superficial look' of Max
In fact, come to think of it, almost all of my tools have the same UI look that I customized, I wasn't able to do that with Blender as far as I can tell, and the very little that I did change, was nowhere I need it to be, maybe the latest version have a much more robust UI manager, but again, I can barely find any videos that are on the level of PointPusher's video for ZB.
Haven't seen the PointPushers video sorry, but I can say that perhaps the most addictive feature for me in Blender is the extreme configurability of the UI. That might be the reason why I seasonally indulge in conversations like this - I can't help feeling if people knew how free it was (as in, unrestricted) they might find it more appealing.
Replies
Right now its a bit of a mess with the hotkeys... they use quite a few and leave very little room for fresh keys unless its some weird combo of key presses.
Im kind of hoping the addition of pie menus will alleviate this a bit, but that probably wont be out for another few months.
I thought my mouse broke (even after replugging the mouse and restarting the computer), then I ran Blender again and the mousewheel got fixed.
if you simply deactivate the windows shortcut, the problem is solved.
These types of minor issues highlight the rather detached view BF has of it's more professional user-base, many things are done from an intellectual point of view rather than a utilitarian position of Real World (TM) use. But one digresses from topic *cough*
If more people utilized the mailing list, irc, and the bug tracker there would probably be a lot less detachment.
Try out this add-on: http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Extensions:2.6/Py/Scripts/3D_interaction/QuickPrefs
nice find
Antonis Riakiotakis – Painting tool improvements
Mentor: Lukas Toenne
This proposal will target usability, feature and system design improvements for Blender’s paint system. Unification of symmetry and anchored and area stroke modes, curve driven strokes, sharpen tool, re-use code for Vertex/Weight paint, bucket fill, better texture selection, etc.
Jason Wilkins – Viewport FX II
Mentor: Brecht van Lommel
This is a proposal to continue updating the way Blender draws to the screen. Blender relies on an older version of the OpenGL graphics library that is no longer fully supported by hardware providers. For this reason, when new generations of graphics cards are released, Blender would not fully benefit from the increases in capability and performance.
--
I can't imagine using the paint tools in Blender right now for anything but really simple pieces given:
-No import/export of layered images with blending. PSD was dropped, but OpenRaster could substitute.
-Using Undo on a painted mesh with overlapping UVs causes texture artifacts to appear.
-The paint layer plugin has no way to merge layers.
If those three things could be solved though it would be nice to use.
It does have a reprojection feature not a lot of people are aware of that is pretty cool:
[ame="
I would love to see your workflow for this. I've always found Blender's texture paint system to be frustrating.
Masking example: Click the button, then hit 'a' to deselect everything, then use circle select to pick out the polys you want to make a mask out of.
Blender roadmap 2.7, 2.8 and beyond
http://code.blender.org/index.php/2013/06/blender-roadmap-2-7-2-8-and-beyond/
Blender has almost everything I need, so I use blender for all my modeling and uving after changing over from max.
Ditto. Been tinkering with Blender since the 2.49b days and I'm still impressed with what you get for free.
Damn, didn't you use C4d, Max and Modo before? What is up with your pipeline constantly changing?
You forgot maya, I guess I like learning new programs
Used max for 2 years, the other programs I did not use for as long, I was mostly testing out what app I liked the most back then
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2ZSxxWmrQc
blender get more strong with the time, more and more.
Read: http://steamcommunity.com/games/SteamWorkshop/announcements/detail/1819734886367365945
If any artist of any application wants to help fund the alternative so they are not enslaved to autodesk for example, then here's your chance to really speed up the development of this amazing application.
It is not impossible. Apparently it can be changed with some phython scripting. You can even hide most of the interface and use pull up menus instead (similar to Maya). There is interest in having a larger UI overhaul to organize and fix Blender even more, but not to the point of breaking its window workflow, which is pretty decent.
While I don't use Blender much yet for modeling, the interface is very nice. In a lot of ways, the UI framework is superior to the examples you mention, even if the features are not.
edit: also, speaking of donating: keep your testicles, pay someone to code you what you want.
Guess it takes a lot of balls to work in that field, there's some stiff competition.
omg...
:poly122:
Well chances are it will get overhauled again one way or another. I honestly think it could use a bit more Maya-esq design properties, which is pretty much a more standard and organized interface. Though at the same time I think Blender's strengths are how customizable it is via opening and closing windows and panels within the screen space.
Anyways, for 2.7 Ton R. had this to say:
UI changes will be coming. They know its not perfect, but the question is how much change will occur and where.
I really miss customisable panels/palettes/toolbars, for one.
What Ton's talking about is just the default layout of the interface though, that's all.
Blender is still growing/changing. Best thing to do with blender is not to reject it due to its annoyances or temporary design issues, but to advocate change and find ways to offset that possible hobbyist image it has. The mind behind Blender most certainly see's it in a more professional light, and we can see this every time you go to Siggraph and check out the Blender booth.
I've not tried it so I don't know how well it works, but you could try: http://tidalkraken.deviantart.com/art/Mender-maya-for-blender-BLENDER-2-6-ONLY-360834749?q=gallery%3Atidalkraken&qo=0
I really hope some day, Ton puts a keymap overhaul as a high priority.
I think the only way it's going to throw the amateur image is if they start listening to pros, much like Krita has been doing.
edit: xrg, I really like the alternative keymap that's been floating around for a while now. I'm not sure if it's included in official builds, but a lot of builds on graphicall have it as a choice in the splash screen dropdown.
I'd really like to see that keymap get done, but he hasn't committed to it since last November.
I think this is an unfortunate misconception. In fact the devs are very good about listening to Blender's professional users. When you have a change you need, the key is this: know where to inquire, know who to ask, and keep the wheel squeaky.
Most people get frustrated when trying to promote changes because they ask on Blender Artists or somewhere else, rather than directly approaching specific developers with a solid, reasoned proposal.
As one of the many professional Blender users, I frequently find things that need fixed or changed and so am in constant touch with the devs. In the last few weeks alone I've had five issues addressed very quickly. Those changes are either in trunk now (Multi-res fixes with flipped normals, edit-mode wire color option, vertex connect cutting through in-between edges) or else they're waiting for 2.68 to be released to then go in 2.69 (Hidden Line drawing for retopo work in Edit Mode, Gravity brush option for sculpt mode).
Admittedly I have a fair bit of influence when it comes to requesting features, but that's aside the point.
Another way people often go wrong when requesting changes is to propose massive changes. Such as a completely new keymap, or completely new navigation schemes. Instead keep it small. Focus on small improvements, one at a time. These small improvements go a long ways to make us pro users happy
I'm a long time max *and* blender guy and fwiw for me personally it's the UI in max that I find tiresome now (each to his own I guess) and using Blender feels like getting home and dropping a bunch of heavy baggage at the front door.
I'll offer another observation too, hopefully it doesn't start a flame war
I work with a bunch of guys teaching game dev, some are indies, some are from the industry. My (general) observation is that the indies are happy to try any tool that let's them get the result they want, while the guys from the industry tend to be quite "institutionalized" in their thinking (they'll resist OS software even when it let's them get a better result with less work).
While I can sympathise with max or maya "lifers" wanting their new girlfriend (blender) to dress up in their ex girlfriends clothes (max/maya), I think it'd be a shame to make "not wanting to learn a different UI" the guiding influence for determining the way in which Blenders UI evolves.
However, I dislike the fact that the Blender Foundation focus mostly on Blender as animation and VFX tool.
I feel the gaming market is really left in the dust here. And that is a shame, because I believe the majority of professional Blender users, working in game related fields. Just see how much Blender is used in conjunction with Unity.
On the other hand, the people who ask for new Cycles features and a better video editor, are mostly hobbyists that just play around with those features.
I don't think this is wrong. Blender's foundation should not favor professionals only. It should be accessible to everyone who is interested in 3d.
But it would be wise to invest a bit more into game relevant features and improvements. As a professional game tool, Blender is almost there. But the stuff that actually Blender lacks to get there, is still very important and not something you can code in a weekend. Such as cage baking, vertex normals editing etc.
If Blender Foundation would get more professionals into their boat, it would also result in more funds, and thus in a better app with faster development for everyone.
Same goes for commercial Blender education sites like CG Cookie. They are too animation and VFX centric for my taste.
My two cents.
Also, 'industry vet's aren't "institutionalized", if you have been using the same software for well over 10 years, then it becomes kinda struggle to adapt to a new one, especially if a software is in the same 'working' area as other ones (EI: Traditional software users want them to be the same, just like ZB, 3DC and Mud users want them to be the same).
Seriously, this isn't some psychological dilemma about indies and vets, this is a simple case of going with what you're comfortable in, especially if you don't have time to experiment in your free time.
Indies are new comers usually to the industry, hence why they use Blender, outside of it's being free and easy on the home budget.
And what bloody OS are you talking about? Almost all software related to this industry has a windows version, and SOMETIMES another version, in some cases like ZB, the Windows version is the most stable, there is no resistance in here, and those that do show resistance, is because the software they're using pertains to another field, period, again, a simple case of "this is where I'm coming from and want to go to, what the point of changing the OS if my software doesn't need to".
Lastly, horrible analogy, and a really creepy one at that. It's more akin to having an ex that was outgoing, likes bouncy castles and dogs, and you would like your new ladyfriend to at least like dogs, and not cats, because you're allergic to cats or cannot tolerate this one small kink of cats, and can tolerate the rest, that is what using Blender is like to me sometimes, forget about the clunky export/import tools, weird hierarchy functions, all those, I can learn.
Although I'm not sure why we're using relationship's as an example for Blender and Max, they're software, not people.
No one is asking for Blender to change, and maybe I'm wrong, but I personally would like to see a single video that shows me how to arrange and manage my Blender UI in a quick and effective manner in order for me to have at least the 'superficial look' of Max, so that just like Photoshop, in which I have all the tools arranged on my right side of the screen, with animation bottom and plugins top, is kept, so I don't keep on breaking my flow, that is one thing I was able to do with even software like ZB, but only after seeing videos about it, Blender, not so much yet, if any.
Infact, come to think of it, almost all of my tools have the same UI look that I customized, I wasn't able to do that with Blender as far as I can tell, and the very little that I did change, was nowhere I need it to be, maybe the latest version have a much more robust UI manager, but again, I can barely find any videos that are on the level of PointPusher's video for ZB.
First up, love your work, enjoy your posts
Each to their own is my way of saying I don't think it's a big deal if people want to change the UI.
Institutionalized is my way of saying if you have been using the same software for well over 10 years, then it becomes kinda struggle to adapt to a new one.
Agreed!
Sorry, my bad
To be creepy. But seriously, fair enough, maybe a better analogy would be musical instruments.
For me, people who want Blender to be more like Max or Maya are like a pianist who wants to add some piano keys to a guitar because the whole strumming thing just doesn't feel right. Or a guitarist who wants the piano strings out in the open so they can strum them instead of using those big clunky keys
To further the analogy, I'm pretty comfortable on a guitar and pretty uncomfortable on a piano. This doesn't mean that there's something wrong with the piano or that it needs to be made more like a guitar. It just means that it's a different instrument and if I want to get comfortable on it I'm going to need to learn a different way of playing.
Even further, I've never bothered to learn piano properly because I'm happy with what I can play on the guitar. I guess you could say I was "institutionalized"
Sure they are. Blender has a long rich history of people saying it's too hard to learn because it doesn't operate the same as some other program they've already learned.
I saw this a while back (haven't tried it) but maybe it'll help?
http://www.blendernation.com/2012/08/14/blender-theme-for-3ds-max/
Haven't seen the PointPushers video sorry, but I can say that perhaps the most addictive feature for me in Blender is the extreme configurability of the UI. That might be the reason why I seasonally indulge in conversations like this - I can't help feeling if people knew how free it was (as in, unrestricted) they might find it more appealing.
I did a quick youtube search, and found this:
[ame="
He does a pretty nice job of explaining the freeform UI in Blender, maybe this will help too?