I und the way materials are implemented in blender and that it is different from the way it may be implemented in other applications…
what I fail to understand is that why does it have to be really different from the way anybody else does it?
why not have a ‘material editor’ (akin to 3dsmax) panel which lists the materials by name and also has a sample window (thumbnail) for each material; selecting a material from that thumbnail list shows the parameters for the relevant material; and / or a node based material editor (akin to maya hypervisor or xsi material node editor); It makes life so simple.
why does everything have to be different from the way people might already be accustomed to?
Is it like … if we are different than the rest… then we are better than them… psychology?
I support the blender community for its efforts and initiatives… but i think it should have been a bit more conformal… not just because others have done it that way but bcoz some of it makes so much more sense.
How i wish, I had enough programming knowledge… so i could redo the interface so that the rest of the people (except of course those who have started off with blender itself) could see it the way they are accustomed to.
when I make this comment, Its not because I am already accustomed to the way the 3dsmax editor works… I am not biased by the fact that I am/was a 3dsmax user that it is the best way things can be. when I saw the XSI editor, it seemed so much (usablity wise) more usable than the way maya hypervisor is done, although both of them are node based editors and pretty good at it.
I hope u und my point of view.
This is not a 3ds Max vs Maya vs XSI vs Blender thread
Umm… you can make Node-based materials! http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Manual/Node_Materials
Really, why can’t people look things up in the wiki before coming to the forum and complaining and then making a huge fool out of themselves, which could have been much easier to go and look it up. This is why a lot of us (including myself), have the wiki in our sig.:rolleyes:
As far as the interface goes, it is well known that it was written for speed of workflow in NeoGeo, not so anyone could just pick it up and go. Hopefully 2.5 will help this, but not so much that it slows all of the rest of us down.
So really, this is my message to all you who are new: READ THE WIKI AND THEN ASK!!! YOU’LL SAVE YOURSELVES A LOT OF TROUBLE!!! Not to mention that you’ll get your answer faster. When you run into a problem, this should be how it goes, 1) look at the wiki, 2) google it, and then if you still can’t find your answer ask on the forums.
The point of contention was the absence of material editor type of panel… where i can see the thumbnail list of material slots… as against the small list that comes up next to the “add new” button… (if its there in blender… then i really have to look for it)
The point of discussion was about things being different…
Thanks for bringing attention to the Wiki. .It is truly a good reference…
Why do humans have to be so different than all the other animals on earth? All other animals are uncivilized, so obviously that is the standard. All other planets are lifeless, so we should sterilize earth in order to conform.
The answer to your question:
There is no reason why. It just is.
Perhaps this could be integrated into the Outliner. Currently it has objects and if an object has a material, you can select it. Maybe we could have the outliner not only show objects, but materials and when you select a material, it will select the first user and also have the material buttons come up. Just an idea though, I don’t completely understand.
Ok, I’ll get on subject. True, Blender is different, but many of those differences are for speed of use. To change them would greatly impact everyone else. Also it is known that having one version for newbies and one for the rest is NOT a good idea for the simple reason that it would cause too much trouble for the devs. But not only this, but when one grows out of that newbie stage, they would have to re-learn the entire interface again. If people are serious about learning, they should take a few weeks and really learn it. Once you have the concept, it really isn’t that hard to understand.
I personally believe that when you download Blender for the first time, it should come with a warning explaining the differences, their reasons and a clear statement that the documentation is very integral to learning the software. Something like the following would be nice:
As a new Blender user, we, the Blender development team, would like to warn you that this software was written in the '90’s as an in-house program for the Dutch animation studio NeoGeo. The software was written to be fast and easy for us to use, and at the time did not put much thought into the fact that new people would use it. It is well-known that our program has a steep learning curve and if you make the decision to learn it, we commend you. We believe that you will find Blender very fast and useful once you have learned. Our official documentation can be found on the wiki.Thank you for your time and Happy Blending!
Of course this is just my opinion and may or may not be a good idea in the eyes of the developers.
I also suggest that you watch this presentation by William Reynish from the Blender Conference if you haven’t. It is very nice for explaining the interface and where it is going.: http://www.vimeo.com/2093608. Warning, I, RedJay, am not accountable for any outbursts of laughter you may have in watching this video. It is well-known in the community that William is a really funny guy, and I ask that you point all fingers to him. ;)J/K of course;) I had to add some humor in this somewhere! Thank you for reading this XTremely long post.
This video was amazing… as it actually captures some of things that i find so commonly available in many 3d apps although missing in blender… like i said some things just makes more sense… and just because we have to be different, doesn’t mean we should be ignoring what is sensible…
Anyways… If the presentation was made to the right sort of audience (blender developers) I am willing to wait and see if it makes the right kind of influence that we shall be able to see some more improvements in the ui & workflow in the future versions of blender…
I think we (loyal fans of blender) all really need to see the video so that we realize that there is a lot of scope for improvements and just because its similar to other apps does not necessarily mean its wrong.
Lot of these features & UI elements have been implemented after a in-depth study of usability and remember a product that is not usable does not make sense. After all the product is for the user and not vice versa.
Yes, there were devs at the conference and the presentation was (I believe) checked by Ton first.
Yes, you are right. They are going to address the issues for 2.5 because they never did fix it after NeoGeo. The way it was written then was how they wanted it so they could work super fast, and at the time, they didn’t foresee it being used by others. This is the reason for the changes in 2.5. 2.5 will bring world peace! (Or at least this is the rumor that’s going around!;))
Blender’s Materials & Textures interface is a bit different.
Is this good or bad, I don’t know.
It could do with a clean up of sorts.
It is also very powerful & complex.
More advanced than most Apps Materials set ups,
but harder or more work to get results.
I guess in Blender you have to actually Make The Material,
rather than just drag & drop prefab generic shaders.
This in many ways is better, because you have to learn what you are doing & learn how to use the various elements that make up a shader/material/texture.
Anyway, for now if you like, check the Materials link in my sig.
follow the instructions for the preset materials library for a wide range of materials types.
you can set this up in Blender then ctrl/databrowse materials for image preview selection.
Yes, there were devs at the conference and the presentation was (I believe) checked by Ton first.
This is one of those things that actually irks me a little. Ton is the lead developer, no doubts or qualms about it, but why does he need to “check” a presentation about the kinds of changes someone desires from Blender 2.5?
If it is true that Ton “checked over” the presentation beforehand, it smacks of some pretty heavy-handed image control. Look at other “benevolent dictator” open source projects and you’ll not be seeing the successful ones doing similar things. Even Theo de Raadt (of OpenBSD infamy) simply loudly disagrees/debates rather than (attempt) control over an expression of an alternate argument.
On the other hand, the presentation was pretty damn good and had alot of good/great concepts and ideas so, if it was well received, it’s a good thing. It didn’t touch on some of Ton’s pet ideas/concepts (3D tool as mouse button, mouse gestures, etc) which I think need reviewing, but overall everything brought up was an improvement.
Thank you for reading this XTremely long post.