Simple Blender for Brilliant Minds

General Forums Blender and CG Discussions
21

There is not enough gratitude within the entire Blender community to make any ambitious endeavor based on Blender, that actually would make Blender palatable, more useful and pleasurable to use, that would make such a venture worth “contributing”.
I don’t understand this- the 2.5 project is exactly what you are describing (I think, the wording is a bit unclear). If you are only doing modeling and texturing I suggest you look into a program like Zbrush or Mudbox, which are apparently closer to using clay and organic methods than conventional software. But to say that nobody is trying to make Blender more “palatable,” or won’t when 2.5 comes out, that’s a pretty uninformed statement that is full of assumptions- especially since 2.5 is still in the womb.

And just because a piece of software has tools doesn’t mean you have to use or understand them, just use what you need- I probably use only about 10% of the GIMP’s functionality and it serves it’s purpose fine. But I don’t get why anyone would want to strip parts from Blender, how would you even decide what stays and what goes? Different artists have different needs- artist is a pretty broad category.

edit: if you are intimidated by all the numerical inputs you may be able to change their color in the UI to suit your needs, as well as the function buttons to make it more visually appealing.

22

I have a sneaking suspicion that Ton would disagree strongly with that statement. :wink:

Maybe it is time he reconsiders a new licensing scheme that would begin to reward people, including himself, for their contributions.
Why would he do that? The GPL has served him and Blender so well already, and is continuing to do so.

I don’t think the GPL, as it applies to Blender, stands to reign in perpetuity.
It’s possible. But that’s no reason to quit using it when it’s still working well. If it stops working, then Blender can switch to something else. But until then, there’s no point. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

Man does not live on gratitude, alone.
That may be true. But it’s a totally stupid reason to refrain from doing what you love on the side.

If the Blender dev’s enjoy what they do (for whatever reasons), and are continuing to get by just fine, why should they stop?

23

You could argue that if your mind was brilliant, you’d be able to work out the Blender interface no matter what. Try laening maya and max and photoshop and zbrush and blender and then contemplate learning Houdini on top. Artists are required to learn all sorts of abstract concepts and IMOHO, Blender 2.5 is one of the more elegant, straight forward interfaces out there.

Just learn the thing and get on with making great work. :smiley:

~Glenn

24

Well I think that most artistic endevours involved a meaty portion of intelligence as well as just general curiousy about the universe and how things work. Painters study the complexities of light and they have to know all kinds of technical things just to know how to put their canvas together and how to mix their paints before they even paint, while, animators study skeletons, muscles, and physics - I mean, I don’t think “artist” equal “simple minded” or “impatient spoiled professional”.

Or some kind of “pure beast” that can’t be bothered with the technical trappings behind the shapes and colors and sound that they present to the public through whatever medium that has chosen them. In fact I’ts the exact opposite in my opinion. The purer the beast, the more his/her hands are going to be covered in grease.

Just look at martinsh, a shining example of an artist in the blender community. He can do everything. I mean that’s my notion of an artist. Not the ones who complain constantly to the programmers, “such and such a thing about your interface is preventing my brilliance from shinging most truly now I’m pissed”

bleh

25

Yes,I totally agree,thanks for this answer grsaaynoel.
I find this thread an insult for every people that:
A)Are clever and smart enough to use Blender.
B)Aren’t “real artists”.

26

The thought that an artist must be a technician, of sorts, is true. The fact that a good artist retains his technical skill inside of his head, is also true. He does not need to spill out his brains on a piece of paper, or on to the screen of his computer to prove to himself, and others that he has this technical expertise.

Most good “real world” artists use very few tools to execute their art and exercise their technical skill. That is the point I’m trying to make here. The software and hardware tools we use should represent the same simple selection of favorite tools that find their parallel in the tool kits of many real world artists. A small selection of tools neatly, or messily placed at hand.

I don’t know what kind of audio/visual art you experts are trying to create that requires vast arrays of numeric input fields, cryptically labeled categories of “modifiers” along with read-outs of every aspect of your creation, just to be able to produce it.

Perhaps you do need these things - and I seriously doubt the Blender “team” will ever take these functions away from you. Why make that the point of this conversation?

I’m simply suggesting that along with these manifestations of Blender, there could and should be alternate ones that are simpler to look at and simpler to use - without deleting a single stroke of functionality from the underlying program.

You see no value in allowing this?

Greg Smith

27

I agree with you that Blender could be much simpler. However the point I disagree with you is when it comes to “real world” artists. Real world artists have contact with their work. A sculptor can see and feel the material they remove. A painter has the most minute control over brush strokes. A mouse and keyboard are not natural tools, nor does a screen have three dimensions. It may work for 2d drawing since you should be able to draw without looking I guess but you can’t really compare real sculpting and digital sculpting. They share a large number of the same concepts (a digital sculptor should probably have some formal training in sculpture even), but they are very different beasts. I wouldn’t try to make digital art just like traditional art because the tools just aren’t going to work the same. They just won’t. You can take the most realistic racing game and put a gamer against a real driver and the gamer would probably win. But if you put the gamer in a car and they raced the gamer would probably crap his pants.
I’m all for the simple interface, but that’s why I just use a maximized 3d window. The tools I need most are in easy to reach hotkeys, and if I then need something else, well. Sometimes even a “real world” artist has to go get something from a drawer.

I don’t know what kind of audio/visual art you experts are trying to create that requires vast arrays of numeric input fields, cryptically labeled categories of “modifiers” along with read-outs of every aspect of your creation, just to be able to produce it.

Some people here do archiviz with Blender, for instance.

28

You seem to be very “modelling centric” from the opinions that you express…

Dude, just maximise your viewport and use the shortcuts… no clutter, no fuss, already implemented!

Don’t know the shortcuts? either learn them or wait for 2.5 and put all your most used commands in the tool shelf…(t key to toggle it on and off) I’m sure the default population of the shelf will suit most modelers just fine
You can even “save defaults” with it that way.

This sounds like exactly what your asking for to me. and I did point it out in my first post…

You obviously don’t like the buttons and widgets, but how else do you set your material parameters? I’ve used a lot of renderers and a lot of packages and they all have an extensive parameter set for this…
Not necesary? It is if you want anything other than a default material on everything!

Or are you such a master that materials and textures are un-necesary?

Ever done any character rigging? again, an enourmous amount of parameters and controls need to be set
Is this an uncommon task? hell no!

The buttons window is actually pretty well sorted for all the diverse extra information and tasks… the only really clunky part is the textures/materials relationship, but that’s better than it was in 2.4 and still being improved… (material indices and material/texture previews still require panel swapping right now rather than being doable on one panel… but it’s WIP) I’m sure that’ll get fixed…

As for modifiers, constraints, textures and materials… You really really do need all of those controls when texturing, lighting and rigging… Have you used any other packages? the amount of buttons and widgets is no different than with maya, max, lightwave, modo… Only specialist modelling packages have less (silo, sketchup)…

or are you just annoyed with all of the 3d software out there at the moment?

29

I don’t know what kind of audio/visual art you experts are trying to create that requires vast arrays of numeric input fields, cryptically labeled categories of “modifiers” along with read-outs of every aspect of your creation, just to be able to produce it.

How dare you!

everyone has been very polite and yet you are sarcastic and question the abilities of those that disagree with you. and yet you obviously only model otherwise you’d understand the needs for this stuff, and I will have to question your experience because every app has a vast amount of its UI devoted to these tasks

30

Michael:

Aren’t you reacting a little emotionally to simple questions? You read quite a lot into what I have written.

In answer to some of your questions: I have used Maya, XSI, Lightwave, Silo, ZBrush, Modo, Carrara and 3D-Coat, own most of them, and other applications that are not commercially available.

No, I do not only use software to make models, or images or animations or games. I use 3D software for all of these things.

Yes, I do know and use most of the Blender single key shortcuts - and like them. I have used Blender for modeling, sculpting, UV unwrapping, texturing and painting, rigging, animating and for making games. I’ve spent many years doing so.

Each of these applications, with the exception of Silo, and to some degree, Cararra, feature many of the same interface elements as does Blender. In general, and in my opinion, these interfaces dominate the creative workspace and the creative process. And, these are not the only applications that exist or that have tried to present themselves as “user friendly”.

Unfortunately, the best of the 3D applications exist mainly as the thesis of many talented, brilliant and insightful designers and are not available for public use. I also dare say that many production companies own and use some of the most “artist friendly” tools ever conceived, and these are also not available to the public at large.

Whether you like it or not, the future trends for all application interfaces are heading in the direction of less and not more - visual and less numeric - “tactile” and less abstract. The mouse and the stylus may not precisely parallel their real world counterparts, at this moment in time, but future sotware has the capability of making the parallel much more precise.

Blender development is open source and is at a crossroads. The choices of the development “team” are also open ended ones. The opportunity exists for them to visualize the future, to accurately anticipate it and to become innovators rather than followers. It is not time for them to take a conservative and reserved approach to making Blender “anew”. If they properly “read the writing on the wall”, they now have the chance to make many efficient and revolutionary design choices.

My observations in this discussion are only presented in a hopeful manner, to the end of possibly influencing some of their design choices for the better.

Greg Smith

31

As I understand it, efficient and revolutionary design choices are what people have historically complained about the most in Blender whether they realize it or not.

32

brucegregory, perhaps you could make up a visual aid to help out. 2.5 is getting some cool features, like the toolbox and the shaded ball to adjust the angles of certain tools (like seen in mfoxxdogg’s 7th vid). I’m trying to think of how often I actually use numerical inputs, and its pretty rare, unless I need to exactly reproduce something. I gotta be honest, the more I use Blender the more it just feels like a simple toolset, like anything (including painting or sculpture) you just need to get comfortable with the tools.

33

No, I’m reacting to your condescending and patronising tone.

your “simple” questions have been answered in my book…

Your talking in generalisations about things being complicated that just seem trivial to users that use major “allround” packages… now you’ve given us your softography I’m even more mystified how some numeric inputs could be “daunting”…

What could be simpler than running each editor full screen and only pulling up extra data when you need it?

Grand ideas about simplifying workflow without any kind of proposals are pointless.

34

Don’t feed the…

35

my 2 cents.

We didn’t free the blender sources to have them closed again.

Suggesting to close the source code now, when blender is starting to reach a critical point, is showing disrespect to the coders and all the hard work a lot of people have put into it.

It makes me wonder if you understand the passion some people have for this piece of software.

Closing the source code again would require the agreement of every single person who paid to freed it.

I won’t give mine…

pin

36

no it’s just the fact that you come across as full of crap the more of your messages I read.

“Blahblahblah, Maya,XSI, revolutionary artist friendly…blahblahblah…how could such a simple minded person rub you the wrong way…? I’m so simple minded…righhhhh…”

Playing around with user interface options is like a dangerous game of Jenga because you will break 10s of other workflows in favor of simplyfing 1-2 others.

37

Where would I post if I wanted to contribute to user experience development with blender devs, and possibly contribute workflow and UI sketches and videos? Do threads like this cut it or should I be looking outside of this forum?

38

Hello James

Post here -though possibly in a separate thread :wink: to guage some reactions from blender users…

http://www.blenderstorm.org is a very good site for suggestions ( though it’s offline at the moment)

Bare in mind that these sorts of threads crop up a lot and that lots of people like how blender works at the moment, so be tactful! Proposals are better than “feature X” from “whatever” is needed type threads!

39

Normally I would point you to blenderstorm.org, but it seems that it’s been down for some time. Be warned though that if you post something here, you’ll want to make sure that what you propose is well thought out, your proposal should be well written with proper diagrams where needed, and most of all it should benefit all blender users instead of catering to the minority and alienating others. Also important is you shouldn’t get upset if someone criticizes your proposal, but instead try to take as much constructive criticism as you can and adapt your proposal accordingly.

Workflow and UI stuff is a notoriously touchy subject here; people will flame you for no other reason than to be bitches and trolls. If you make the mistake of doing it back, well… your proposal thread will immediately go down the tubes. If you can do your best to separate the trolls from the people with genuine insight, you can make a polished proposal that many can agree upon which then MAY be looked at and considered. I can’t stress enough that you can’t expect something to be done immediately (or at all) just because it was asked for. Devs get bombarded with this stuff every day. Again, please don’t fall into the proposal troll trap.

Even though I’m not a developer I look forward to hearing what you come up with, as I’m sure everyone else is :smiley:

EDIT: Michael_W beat me to it by a lot :smiley:

40

Thanks for the advice… I would not try to force anything on anyone… Mostly the type of stuff I would suggest would be ‘optional’ at best. I’m less about things being a certain way, and more into tools that just allow me the freedom to build my own workflow. I think blender works fine as it is in its default state and definitely wouldn’t be proposing any crazy changes to that. I actually think it’s very important for 2.5 and beyond to maintain the way a lot of it has always worked. It wouldn’t do to alienate the existing user base in order to attract new ones. What excites me the most is that the ability to customize 2.5 seems to be much more versatile than most software I’ve used to date. So I would probably focus most of my ideas there. Feedback is great… whatever helps to refine an idea and bring it closer to reality is good.