Regarding the n-gons question, I really think it’s rather a point of view. Since the n-gons will have to be triangulated anyway, I think it’s a good thing that we know in advance what it will look like.
Also, regarding the face selection tool, it’s not that much hard. Instead of entering directly in Edit mode, enter in Face mode first. Then, you can select the faces and go into Edit mode direct from Face mode.
Martin
Features I like:
No un-do! - If I want to do something I want to do it. Windows with ‘do you really want to exit’ stink. Give me software that does what I want with out asking dam stupid questions. I want the freedom to delete without wasting RAM on backup copies. And as for waste bins on the desk top arggggg. Err sorry got a bit carried away.
It would be good to get rid of the limits on the number of vertices etc. I mean no limits so given enough RAM I might want to have 30million vertices for example.
Better import from other systems.
Rob.
theeth:
while it’s true that everything is triangulated in the rendering, it is much more convenient to have ngons while actually constructing a mesh.
take for example this picture: http://members.lycos.co.uk/thatbrickwall/untitled.gif
this is a simple setup commonly used in subd modeling, since it retains a predictable all-quad surface (good for the catmull-clark smoothing algorithm) while allowing for localised detail.
to achieve this setup in blender, one must delete and subdivide individually each edge the loop intersects, then recreate every single affected face by hand. N-gon support greatly simplifies the process.
While this is simply an intermediate step, and will ultimately be triangulated anyway, it is important since it directly affects the geometry of the subd surface, which determines what will be rendered.
Amen!!!
And to all those gaytracers: Don’t reinvent the wheel! Only export to some “standard”-renderengines (Renderman, Povray, MentalRay…) is needed.
Hey Eric,
sorry, actually I didn’t meant sweeping. What I would like to have is skinning!
Schlops: okay, you can use Blender for modelling and then export the mesh to another render engine (BTW: I’m unsing VirtuaLight), but what you get in all cases is only a very basic support of the specific features and you need a lot of work after the export. In my opinion an integrated raytracing engine would be very nice. And Blenders render engine is not the best (correct me if I’m wrong, I believe that Blender is using Phong shading).
Xtra
Xtra,
I didn’t say that blenders renderengine is good, and I didn’t say that the export-function shouldn’t be comfortable 
Sorry about that.
Undo is an expected feature from most modern-day software users. There are few, if any (rational) arguments that it does not serve a useful purpose. If humans were perfect, let alone the interfaces between humans and computers, there would be no need for an Undo function. But that’s not reality. Errors happen. In the interest of efficiency and productivity, recovery needs to be hassle-free and quick. I see no reason why a software application should step back in time, and fail to offer support for something that has become so ubiquitous. Besides, the use of an Undo function isn’t a passive process, thereby giving those who don’t need it the option to bypass it altogether. As much as I like Blender, I personally will not use another software app without this functionality. It’s not that my skills are so frail that I need the handholding, it’s that if an error occurs, I want a method of swift and hassle-free recovery. It’s as simple as that.
I absolutely agree. Not everybody is perfect.
I absolutely agree. Not everybody is perfect.[/quote]
The blender solution (F2/Numpad+/Enter) to save versions is IMHO a good “UNDO-Function”. In any 2d-graphic prog (gimp, PS) I miss this versioning (in fact, I wrote a Pygimp-script to do it for me).
But this only gives you a chanse to return to the points you created yourself. If your work very enthousiastic and you forget to make saves and you make a bad mistake you have a problem.
