Exactly, its more a issue of it being worth their time... more specifically if it will fit within their pipeline well enough and where the benefits are. Simply being free isnt enough.
Yes but do you understand what it really means in terms of development?
Blender's development is paid for through donations and ancillary product purchases (it was originally released from NaN that way).. that makes it a 'commercially' funded operation however it's looked at (so sayeth the TAX man)...
Finished first round of FBX export work, now it exports polygons instead of tessellated faces, split normals, and is at least about 20% more performant with huge models (500k vertices and more). I’ve made some tests with HoudiniFX free version under Linux, but i’d like to have a few more tests from real users before I submit it to Cambell for review…
Ok so I'm playing around with using the node editor to modify my vertex colors, and I've realized this is probably the best way to do the vertex color modifications I want. Does any blenderhead know of a way I could use the results of the node's modifications to the vertex colors and overwrite my current vertex colors? I'm really trying to figure out a way to play with the values of my vertex colors similar to 3DSMax's Paintbox tool: http://docs.autodesk.com/3DSMAX/16/ENU/3ds-Max-Help/index.html?url=files/GUID-C6746472-B239-45F1-B8F0-38420ACD7399.htm,topicNumber=d30e272593
You can bake those colors to a new vertex color layer.
Of course you can only bake in Blender Internal, but it works well,
I've just tested it out of curiosity.
Is this what you're talking about? Using that I'm not seeing the changes propagated, maybe because I'm not using an image. Basically I have this (my current vertex colors):
and then I'm using nodes to make this hue change:
I've successfully baked new vertex color layers, but they appear to be unchanged. Thanks for the help! I'm probably going to end up making a simple python script for doing this but I'd like to learn what my options are first
Have you considered joining the #blender and #blendercoders channel on irc.freenode.net?
Thats the best place to get answers and the developers will actively work to help find a solution if none exists. Also a good place to jump into helping with the development of Blender.
@Dataday: Cool I'll check it out now, seems like a good way to get sucked into doing some Blender scripting
For sure.
As an application thats open and community driven it can always use more game people getting involved. With the right people and the right input it just keeps getting better.
There have been rumors that Valve has been in talks with the Blender Foundation. I would rather Blender not be under the thumb of a commercial company, so hopefully this won't lead to some manner of buyout. I don't think it will, but still. With any luck, we will just see better support for Blender in the Source engine. I always hated having to use Maya or SoftImage to export Source models.
It's also likely that those talks were simply a pre-cursor to getting Blender optimized for SteamOS. This would be understandable. Blender gets ported to just about everything, so having a port to Valve's new OS initiative makes sense.
I would rather Blender not be under the thumb of a commercial company, so hopefully this won't lead to some manner of buyout. I don't think it will, but still.
It's Longshot that any buyout would happen - the current license says that every contributor to Blender would have to agree or have their individual code taken out of Blender before the buyout. Here is the contrib list of the last release: http://www.blender.org/development/credits/ Mind you, that is a fraction of the names that would have to agree since you would need to contact everybody who has contributed since the first GPL version.
With any luck, we will just see better support for Blender in the Source engine. I always hated having to use Maya or SoftImage to export Source models.
It's also likely that those talks were simply a pre-cursor to getting Blender optimized for SteamOS. This would be understandable. Blender gets ported to just about everything, so having a port to Valve's new OS initiative makes sense.
It will probably run easily on SteamOS - As I understand it, steamOS is just another flavor of debian(Ubuntu's base), which all run Blender fine.
how about a valve build of Blender suited towards game artists? I always get the feeling game artists aren't particularly welcome by the overall Blender community so why not split us off and have us play in our own pool.
how about a valve build of Blender suited towards game artists?
Given Blender's open-source nature, there's nothing stopping Valve from doing exactly that. They could quite easily create a Source-optimized version of Blender if they wanted to. We'll see what happens as more details come out about SteamOS.
@frmdbl: Thanks so much! I'm probably still going to end up making a tool for making it more straight-forward to edit vertex colors but this will work for now
To those interested in User Interface and the ongoing discussion regarding the changes needed for blender's UI...Andrew Price has released a video discussing the very subject.
To those interested in User Interface and the ongoing discussion regarding the changes needed for blender's UI...Andrew Price has released a video discussing the very subject.
The whole LMB and RMB being worthless/backwards by default really colored my view of the entire blender community.
My only issue with the video is how he keeps talking about experienced blender users like there are more than a few of them. If you can't execute badass art or animation then you can't use blender for it's intended purpose, which means you are not an experienced blender user no matter how many years you have been making poorly rigged stick-men.
[edit] To put this another way:
I think Blender is kind of like a race car that has a pizza for a steering wheel. 99.9% of the blender community screams "but I like pizza! what if I get hungry?" at any suggestion to change things
Ninja, its not that bad. There is a vocal minority on some forums that hate all change, but those types can be found all over the place. They are not a good representation of Blender's core user base or the developer base for that matter. I realized that most just ignore the few who oppose change in an irrational fashion.
It's funny all the hate the community gets, personally I've got virtually instant support about everything on IRC, it's been the most help I've ever got learning 3d software.
Ninja, its not that bad. There is a vocal minority on some forums that hate all change, but those types can be found all over the place. They are not a good representation of Blender's core user base or the developer base for that matter. I realized that most just ignore the few who oppose change in an irrational fashion.
That's good to hear. Maybe I have the wrong impression. Obviously there are at least a few very talented coders working on blender, and a lot of artists I respect in this thread also.
I do hope that all the changes he mentions, and also a revamp of the windows happens for v. 3 -- at that point I think I could recommend it to people without reservation.
I think Blender is kind of like a race car that has a pizza for a steering wheel.
I disagree with a lot of what you're saying about Blender, but that's perhaps the funniest way I've heard someone describe Blender. And it's accurate, too, to a point.
I agree that Blender's interface is often chaotic. It's a side effect of the development model. When you have a different dev working on a different tool with no real logic or HID documents behind the UI, it's what you're going to get. And I agree that the right button / left button thing is a pretty dumb move. But the other stuff?
I often think that people are just expecting QWER tools and Maya/Max navigation when they complain about the Blender interface, or expecting to not have to learn the volume of information that it takes to do 3d art in any application.
Think about all of the menus in Maya, and how you have to learn so many of them to be effective. Same thing with Max. See also Z-Brush for its own host of UI issues (seriously, who the hell designed that interface?). My point is Blender gets a lot of heat for having a bad interface, but really it's no more complex or daunting than Maya or Max. Softimage has a completely different way of interacting with a lot of things, as does Modo, and you don't see people hating on their interfaces.
So, a lot of the criticism for me is just standard 'let's jump on the bandwagon' behavior because people don't like being confronted with something new. Don't get me wrong, there is a need for a serious refactoring of Blender's UI, but not in the way that most people would have it. I don't want Blender to behave like Maya, I want it to be internally consistent and efficient. Having used Maya and Max alongside Blender, I find navigation consistently faster in Blender (especially because of the mouse 3 button - it takes one button and one hand to do basic panning / rotation in Blender and 2 in Max/Maya). There are really good, and superior ways of doing things in terms of interaction in Blender, so we need to be careful to keep those and improve everything else.
So, a lot of the criticism for me is just standard 'let's jump on the bandwagon' behavior because people don't like being confronted with something new.
I don't know, I see all sorts of new programs that come out and are quickly adopted by the game industry. Zbrush, Mudbox, Modo, Xnormal, Crazybump, dDo, nDo, 3Dcoat to name a few off the top of my head.
All of those programs (minus Modo) aren't primary programs, they're complements to the standard Max/Maya workflow. Blender is competing with both Max and Maya directly, because it is a substitute, not a compliment. That could explain a bit why studios are so reluctant to adopt it. It means replacing the proven (and relatively efficient) Max/Maya workflow.
It's past record of sub-standard game dev support definitely isn't helping either.
All of those programs (minus Modo) aren't primary programs, they're complements to the standard Max/Maya workflow. Blender is competing with both Max and Maya directly,
Why does it have to compete directly? Wouldn't it be a better idea to follow the example of all these newcomers and be able to function as a complimentary program?
The problem is just what Blender's function is. Quixel, external baking, sculpting, Crazybump... they all serve a function that is complementary to Max and Maya. Blender's function, by nature, is almost identical to that of Max or Maya. It's not a marketing decision, it's just how Blender works.
The problem is just what Blender's function is. Quixel, external baking, sculpting, Crazybump... they all serve a function that is complementary to Max and Maya. Blender's function, by nature, is almost identical to that of Max or Maya. It's not a marketing decision, it's just how Blender works.
I don't think having a worthless default mouse setup is part of blender's core design -- OR IS IT???!!
All of those programs (minus Modo) aren't primary programs, they're complements to the standard Max/Maya workflow. Blender is competing with both Max and Maya directly, because it is a substitute, not a compliment. That could explain a bit why studios are so reluctant to adopt it. It means replacing the proven (and relatively efficient) Max/Maya workflow.
It's past record of sub-standard game dev support definitely isn't helping either.
I'm not really sure Blender is trying to compete in the sense you're thinking. I read a lot of the dev notes and hang out on IRC, and never do I really see 'guys did you see the Maya 2014 presentation, we have to get working on that feature, they're taking our market share.' It's more like 'oh hey, that thing that Z-Brush does is pretty cool, let's try to do that.' Blender does what Blender users and devs want it to do, it's not a corporate product.
This ties directly into support as well. Nobody's going to fix your particular bug unless you can make them care about it. The smooth/hard edges thing is an example...it's fixed now because we told people about it. It's not a bad way of doing things, it's just different.
I realize the Blender Foundation isn't actually trying to compete with Max or Maya, they're just trying to improve Blender in the best ways they see fit. However, the reality is that a developer will probably end up using Max, Maya, Blender, or Modo, etc, not really a combination of the programs. I know it can happen, but for the most part people chose one core package and stick with it. So really, Blender is competing with Max/Maya/etc, whether it wants to or not.
I realize the Blender Foundation isn't actually trying to compete with Max or Maya, they're just trying to improve Blender in the best ways they see fit. However, the reality is that a developer will probably end up using Max, Maya, Blender, or Modo, etc, not really a combination of the programs. I know it can happen, but for the most part people chose one core package and stick with it. So really, Blender is competing with Max/Maya/etc, whether it wants to or not.
That's probably the reason why the idea of working in Max gives me nightmares.
When you put it that way...Blender is competing, inadvertantly, at least at the tools level. But that sort of begs the question...why does Blender have to change to conform to Max/Maya? Beyond certain caveats (vertex normals, cage baking) what you can get out of Blender in the same time frame and with the same amount of effort is largely the same as what you can get of a pro package. Is it ease of adoption? I wouldn't say that Maya is particularly user friendly either (and I really like Maya). About a year ago I didn't know how to use 3d software and learned the rudiments of Max/Maya/Blender at the same time...I didn't really find that one was easier than the other.
If studio support is the reason, though, I'm not sure Blender will ever really compete with AD support or the stability of their tools in pro deployments. Perhaps that's something the BF needs to look into...maybe they could provide support contracts.
All of those programs (minus Modo) aren't primary programs, they're complements to the standard Max/Maya workflow. Blender is competing with both Max and Maya directly, because it is a substitute, not a compliment. That could explain a bit why studios are so reluctant to adopt it. It means replacing the proven (and relatively efficient) Max/Maya workflow.
I would want to agree with you but when looking at the bigger picture, I cant...not completely.
While yes, it is true that as a complete content creation package Blender is going head to head with the rest of the major players... the reality is that it also is going head to head with the companion products as well.
It is one of those applications that hits all areas of asset production, if not as replacement for a 3d suit product, then as one tool in a larger pipeline.
The reason it can be seen as such is due its accessibility and modular design. This means it can also be a dedicated UV application, a dedicate application for Retopology, A render engine for Cycles in which scenes created in another 3d package can be rendered out, it can a dedicated texturing progam or hit any of the other areas which programs fill when working alongside max/modo/maya.
It has that luxury to be both a stand alone tool in a dedicated blender pipeline or just one tool in a larger one outside of a primary 3d package.
I have been encouraging development to go in that direction as well...able to do ONE thing so well that it finds its way even into a maya/max pipeline for that sole purpose. I know quite a few people will use it just for its UV unwrapping, but it would be great if it could have retopo and painting tools to rival even that of 3d coat. Its getting there though.
The UI work will certainly help make it more usable... its a fairly simple application made unnecessarily complex and if that can be remedied then there will be a much larger impact on how its used and who uses it.
I think the flaws in Blender occur because this isn't one team of developers working under a single unifying producer. This is an ad hoc group of volunteers and contractors each working on their own pet projects and few of them have any cross-team standards. Go to graphical.org and you can see the chaos that is the builds list. You have trunks, experimental builds, 32 bit, 64 bit, OpenGL, OpenCL, Cycles, and so on. I have no idea what process they use to vet these builds and consider them ready to be integrated into the RC.
To borrow from the game industry's pipeline, they need a design doc detailing what UI standard to adhere to. Units, shortcuts, visual elements, and inputs all need to be set in stone. Any submissions that fail to adhere to the UI standards should be sent back for revision. Without this, they'll just continue to arbitrarily set up UI elements. They could do with some sort of usability testing as well. They'd catch these issues a lot sooner and be able to fix them if they had people unfamiliar with Blender testing out the UI. The people that spend the majority of their time on Blender are the worst choice for testing because it's like working with manure, you eventually don't notice the smell and devs don't see the flaws because they're too close to it.
I've used Max and Blender for a sufficient amount of time to see that neither is the superior example of UI design. Many of the tools that Max expects you to click a menu button for (which takes you away from your workspace), Blender provides a shortcut and context menu that pops up right inside the view port. Blender doesn't follow conventions on basic mouse controls, while Max does. The problem is, that people don't focus on interface as the hook for attracting users to one suite over the other. They focus on tools and the exciting things they can do. The only time UI becomes the subject is when experienced users that are switching over find glaring flaws in the applications that irritate them enough to complain.
I don't think having a worthless default mouse setup is part of blender's core design -- OR IS IT???!!
Jeez. I'm getting really bored by posts like this again and again. Not to sound like a dick, but If you don't like the hotkeys just change them or use one of the Max/Maya presets that come with Blender. That or change the selection method in the prefs. (Prefs> Input> Select With.)
If I started to use Max/Maya then I would have to do exactly the same but I wouldn't post on here and bitch about how shit their defaults are...I would just nut up and get on with it.
And yes, it is part of the core design. The idea is that you always have a dedicated mouse button for selecting and another for manipulation. It's just a different paradigm than you are used to, but that doesn't make it worthless.
If you don't like it then change it. You have the power.
I've been trying to find out if there is a way to bring back the properties menu from when you create an object. Someone asked about it over 2 years ago here so I'm wondering if anything has changed since.
When perna uses the Max's modifier stack in this way you can see how he still has control over the cylinders to match them up.
I've been trying this in Blender and it's such a time sink having to create one cylinder and then only be able to tweak the other one. And F6 only works on the last operation you performed too.
Does anyone know of any way around this limitation?
iam having a major issue with blender (tungerz 2.68.2, it does exist in other builds too..)
at work iam working on a pretty large scene, multiple objects on all 20 layers, obj size ~200mb
and from time to time snap stops working.. i cannot figure out why it stops
i'am using basic modelling tools and the only modifiers i am using are solidify, mirror, curve, array and subdiv
when snap stops working it doesnt completly stop. snap to grid ALWAYS works ! but all other options dont
it doesnt matter if i close my scene and reload, the problem still exists.
its resolving itself after a time, like 30mins or an hour... couldnt figure out why.
the only work around i found is exporting the mesh iam working on as obj and reimporting it.
this is making me crazy.
I've been trying to find out if there is a way to bring back the properties menu from when you create an object. Someone asked about it over 2 years ago here so I'm wondering if anything has changed since.
When perna uses the Max's modifier stack in this way you can see how he still has control over the cylinders to match them up.
I've been trying this in Blender and it's such a time sink having to create one cylinder and then only be able to tweak the other one. And F6 only works on the last operation you performed too.
Does anyone know of any way around this limitation?
Yeah thats one of blender's short falls... the tweaking can only be done right after you create the mesh anything else and the opportunity to change its edge count or what not is lost after you do something else.
It has been brought up though and I hope we can get a history stack in sometime soon.
IMO I don't think adding a "history stack" is the way to go, I never thought mayas way of using a stack was worthwhile and sounds like a major overhaull too.
Instead why not just add some live primitives? Then when your done convert to mesh like you would with a curve, as someone with no programming experience that sounds really easy!
In the meantime you can get somewhere close to the video by per by using curves and a bevel object then changing the resolution "preview U". Far from ideal but at least it makes the method work a bit.
iam having a major issue with blender (tungerz 2.68.2, it does exist in other builds too..)
at work iam working on a pretty large scene, multiple objects on all 20 layers, obj size ~200mb
and from time to time snap stops working.. i cannot figure out why it stops
i'am using basic modelling tools and the only modifiers i am using are solidify, mirror, curve, array and subdiv
when snap stops working it doesnt completly stop. snap to grid ALWAYS works ! but all other options dont
it doesnt matter if i close my scene and reload, the problem still exists.
its resolving itself after a time, like 30mins or an hour... couldnt figure out why.
the only work around i found is exporting the mesh iam working on as obj and reimporting it.
this is making me crazy.
sadly i cant upload the scene (nda)
someone else having this issues ?
You could have been more specific, but if you're having problems where it just moves the points somewhere way off (I get this sometimes with face snapping) you could try switching to perspective mode (5) and see if that helps.
You could have been more specific, but if you're having problems where it just moves the points somewhere way off (I get this sometimes with face snapping) you could try switching to perspective mode (5) and see if that helps.
nope
i simply doesnt snap to anything
no error no nothing, it behaves like the movetool, thats it
it could have something to do with having too much geometry in the file (?)
iam working with a lot of CAD files imported into blender, so they have tons of geo, but i need them as guides
today i exported some of the stuff to a new file and worked there. didnt happen once
it may just be luck though
nope
i simply doesnt snap to anything
no error no nothing, it behaves like the movetool, thats it
it could have something to do with having too much geometry in the file (?)
iam working with a lot of CAD files imported into blender, so they have tons of geo, but i need them as guides
today i exported some of the stuff to a new file and worked there. didnt happen once
it may just be luck though
Sometimes Blender will snap to high poly objects that are under a mesh that you are currently working on, so maybe it is that?
no, its not snapping to anything
even if i create two cubes out of sight of everything. snap simply doesnt work
the only snapping option that works is snap to grid, the others do nothing
Replies
I'll try this soon.
Yea, considering that's Blenders #1 'selling point' it would be a challenge to find someone who knew of the program but didn't know about that.
Great to see you on Polycount! HUGE THANK YOU for all the great work you've done so far!
http://docs.autodesk.com/3DSMAX/16/ENU/3ds-Max-Help/index.html?url=files/GUID-C6746472-B239-45F1-B8F0-38420ACD7399.htm,topicNumber=d30e272593
You can bake those colors to a new vertex color layer.
Of course you can only bake in Blender Internal, but it works well,
I've just tested it out of curiosity.
It's happening
Video Testing out current PSD support & development:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYMrfNwamCk#t=81
http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Extensions:2.6/Py/Scripts/UV/Bake_Texture_to_Vertex_Colors
Is this what you're talking about? Using that I'm not seeing the changes propagated, maybe because I'm not using an image. Basically I have this (my current vertex colors):
and then I'm using nodes to make this hue change:
I've successfully baked new vertex color layers, but they appear to be unchanged. Thanks for the help! I'm probably going to end up making a simple python script for doing this but I'd like to learn what my options are first
Have you considered joining the #blender and #blendercoders channel on irc.freenode.net?
Thats the best place to get answers and the developers will actively work to help find a solution if none exists. Also a good place to jump into helping with the development of Blender.
For sure.
As an application thats open and community driven it can always use more game people getting involved. With the right people and the right input it just keeps getting better.
I don't know about this addon, it seems to bake a texture to vcolors.
you said you want something similar to 3ds Max's vertex paint.
I think your problem is probably not with the node setup, but with how you set up the baking.
You've got to make the layer for baking active and use these options.
Here's what I did, I blended three layers then baked the result onto a fourth one.
It's also likely that those talks were simply a pre-cursor to getting Blender optimized for SteamOS. This would be understandable. Blender gets ported to just about everything, so having a port to Valve's new OS initiative makes sense.
It will probably run easily on SteamOS - As I understand it, steamOS is just another flavor of debian(Ubuntu's base), which all run Blender fine.
Given Blender's open-source nature, there's nothing stopping Valve from doing exactly that. They could quite easily create a Source-optimized version of Blender if they wanted to. We'll see what happens as more details come out about SteamOS.
This video can be found here: [ame="
The whole LMB and RMB being worthless/backwards by default really colored my view of the entire blender community.
My only issue with the video is how he keeps talking about experienced blender users like there are more than a few of them. If you can't execute badass art or animation then you can't use blender for it's intended purpose, which means you are not an experienced blender user no matter how many years you have been making poorly rigged stick-men.
[edit] To put this another way:
I think Blender is kind of like a race car that has a pizza for a steering wheel. 99.9% of the blender community screams "but I like pizza! what if I get hungry?" at any suggestion to change things
That's good to hear. Maybe I have the wrong impression. Obviously there are at least a few very talented coders working on blender, and a lot of artists I respect in this thread also.
I do hope that all the changes he mentions, and also a revamp of the windows happens for v. 3 -- at that point I think I could recommend it to people without reservation.
I disagree with a lot of what you're saying about Blender, but that's perhaps the funniest way I've heard someone describe Blender. And it's accurate, too, to a point.
I agree that Blender's interface is often chaotic. It's a side effect of the development model. When you have a different dev working on a different tool with no real logic or HID documents behind the UI, it's what you're going to get. And I agree that the right button / left button thing is a pretty dumb move. But the other stuff?
I often think that people are just expecting QWER tools and Maya/Max navigation when they complain about the Blender interface, or expecting to not have to learn the volume of information that it takes to do 3d art in any application.
Think about all of the menus in Maya, and how you have to learn so many of them to be effective. Same thing with Max. See also Z-Brush for its own host of UI issues (seriously, who the hell designed that interface?). My point is Blender gets a lot of heat for having a bad interface, but really it's no more complex or daunting than Maya or Max. Softimage has a completely different way of interacting with a lot of things, as does Modo, and you don't see people hating on their interfaces.
So, a lot of the criticism for me is just standard 'let's jump on the bandwagon' behavior because people don't like being confronted with something new. Don't get me wrong, there is a need for a serious refactoring of Blender's UI, but not in the way that most people would have it. I don't want Blender to behave like Maya, I want it to be internally consistent and efficient. Having used Maya and Max alongside Blender, I find navigation consistently faster in Blender (especially because of the mouse 3 button - it takes one button and one hand to do basic panning / rotation in Blender and 2 in Max/Maya). There are really good, and superior ways of doing things in terms of interaction in Blender, so we need to be careful to keep those and improve everything else.
I don't know, I see all sorts of new programs that come out and are quickly adopted by the game industry. Zbrush, Mudbox, Modo, Xnormal, Crazybump, dDo, nDo, 3Dcoat to name a few off the top of my head.
It's past record of sub-standard game dev support definitely isn't helping either.
Why does it have to compete directly? Wouldn't it be a better idea to follow the example of all these newcomers and be able to function as a complimentary program?
I don't think having a worthless default mouse setup is part of blender's core design -- OR IS IT???!!
I'm not really sure Blender is trying to compete in the sense you're thinking. I read a lot of the dev notes and hang out on IRC, and never do I really see 'guys did you see the Maya 2014 presentation, we have to get working on that feature, they're taking our market share.' It's more like 'oh hey, that thing that Z-Brush does is pretty cool, let's try to do that.' Blender does what Blender users and devs want it to do, it's not a corporate product.
This ties directly into support as well. Nobody's going to fix your particular bug unless you can make them care about it. The smooth/hard edges thing is an example...it's fixed now because we told people about it. It's not a bad way of doing things, it's just different.
That's probably the reason why the idea of working in Max gives me nightmares.
When you put it that way...Blender is competing, inadvertantly, at least at the tools level. But that sort of begs the question...why does Blender have to change to conform to Max/Maya? Beyond certain caveats (vertex normals, cage baking) what you can get out of Blender in the same time frame and with the same amount of effort is largely the same as what you can get of a pro package. Is it ease of adoption? I wouldn't say that Maya is particularly user friendly either (and I really like Maya). About a year ago I didn't know how to use 3d software and learned the rudiments of Max/Maya/Blender at the same time...I didn't really find that one was easier than the other.
If studio support is the reason, though, I'm not sure Blender will ever really compete with AD support or the stability of their tools in pro deployments. Perhaps that's something the BF needs to look into...maybe they could provide support contracts.
I would want to agree with you but when looking at the bigger picture, I cant...not completely.
While yes, it is true that as a complete content creation package Blender is going head to head with the rest of the major players... the reality is that it also is going head to head with the companion products as well.
It is one of those applications that hits all areas of asset production, if not as replacement for a 3d suit product, then as one tool in a larger pipeline.
The reason it can be seen as such is due its accessibility and modular design. This means it can also be a dedicated UV application, a dedicate application for Retopology, A render engine for Cycles in which scenes created in another 3d package can be rendered out, it can a dedicated texturing progam or hit any of the other areas which programs fill when working alongside max/modo/maya.
It has that luxury to be both a stand alone tool in a dedicated blender pipeline or just one tool in a larger one outside of a primary 3d package.
I have been encouraging development to go in that direction as well...able to do ONE thing so well that it finds its way even into a maya/max pipeline for that sole purpose. I know quite a few people will use it just for its UV unwrapping, but it would be great if it could have retopo and painting tools to rival even that of 3d coat. Its getting there though.
The UI work will certainly help make it more usable... its a fairly simple application made unnecessarily complex and if that can be remedied then there will be a much larger impact on how its used and who uses it.
To borrow from the game industry's pipeline, they need a design doc detailing what UI standard to adhere to. Units, shortcuts, visual elements, and inputs all need to be set in stone. Any submissions that fail to adhere to the UI standards should be sent back for revision. Without this, they'll just continue to arbitrarily set up UI elements. They could do with some sort of usability testing as well. They'd catch these issues a lot sooner and be able to fix them if they had people unfamiliar with Blender testing out the UI. The people that spend the majority of their time on Blender are the worst choice for testing because it's like working with manure, you eventually don't notice the smell and devs don't see the flaws because they're too close to it.
I've used Max and Blender for a sufficient amount of time to see that neither is the superior example of UI design. Many of the tools that Max expects you to click a menu button for (which takes you away from your workspace), Blender provides a shortcut and context menu that pops up right inside the view port. Blender doesn't follow conventions on basic mouse controls, while Max does. The problem is, that people don't focus on interface as the hook for attracting users to one suite over the other. They focus on tools and the exciting things they can do. The only time UI becomes the subject is when experienced users that are switching over find glaring flaws in the applications that irritate them enough to complain.
Jeez. I'm getting really bored by posts like this again and again. Not to sound like a dick, but If you don't like the hotkeys just change them or use one of the Max/Maya presets that come with Blender. That or change the selection method in the prefs. (Prefs> Input> Select With.)
If I started to use Max/Maya then I would have to do exactly the same but I wouldn't post on here and bitch about how shit their defaults are...I would just nut up and get on with it.
And yes, it is part of the core design. The idea is that you always have a dedicated mouse button for selecting and another for manipulation. It's just a different paradigm than you are used to, but that doesn't make it worthless.
If you don't like it then change it. You have the power.
When perna uses the Max's modifier stack in this way you can see how he still has control over the cylinders to match them up.
I've been trying this in Blender and it's such a time sink having to create one cylinder and then only be able to tweak the other one. And F6 only works on the last operation you performed too.
Does anyone know of any way around this limitation?
iam having a major issue with blender (tungerz 2.68.2, it does exist in other builds too..)
at work iam working on a pretty large scene, multiple objects on all 20 layers, obj size ~200mb
and from time to time snap stops working.. i cannot figure out why it stops
i'am using basic modelling tools and the only modifiers i am using are solidify, mirror, curve, array and subdiv
when snap stops working it doesnt completly stop. snap to grid ALWAYS works ! but all other options dont
it doesnt matter if i close my scene and reload, the problem still exists.
its resolving itself after a time, like 30mins or an hour... couldnt figure out why.
the only work around i found is exporting the mesh iam working on as obj and reimporting it.
this is making me crazy.
sadly i cant upload the scene (nda)
someone else having this issues ?
Yeah thats one of blender's short falls... the tweaking can only be done right after you create the mesh anything else and the opportunity to change its edge count or what not is lost after you do something else.
It has been brought up though and I hope we can get a history stack in sometime soon.
Instead why not just add some live primitives? Then when your done convert to mesh like you would with a curve, as someone with no programming experience that sounds really easy!
In the meantime you can get somewhere close to the video by per by using curves and a bevel object then changing the resolution "preview U". Far from ideal but at least it makes the method work a bit.
nope
i simply doesnt snap to anything
no error no nothing, it behaves like the movetool, thats it
it could have something to do with having too much geometry in the file (?)
iam working with a lot of CAD files imported into blender, so they have tons of geo, but i need them as guides
today i exported some of the stuff to a new file and worked there. didnt happen once
it may just be luck though
Sometimes Blender will snap to high poly objects that are under a mesh that you are currently working on, so maybe it is that?
even if i create two cubes out of sight of everything. snap simply doesnt work
the only snapping option that works is snap to grid, the others do nothing