Blender Compared To the Major 3D Applications

LetterRip writes "Recently TDT 3D published a comparison of the major 3D digital content creation applications such as Maya, 3DS Max, and XSI, and of course Blender. Blender came out surprisingly well, although it definitely still has some weaknesses."

Comments

It's the UI that kills it

[l0ungeb0y]

I've always thought Blender to be a solid but completely useless application because for whatever reason, the developers created the most heinous god aweful UI known to man. It's a freakin eyebleeding headache that leaves one happily shelling out the hundreds or thousands of Dollars for a modelor with a usable GUI.

It's a shame. Because Blender could be a contender, but since the developers live in their own little world with the attitidude that their app is made for a "certain group of people and not everyone", the application is basically a sick joke. If you're looking for a free 3D package and don't care how painful it is to use it, Blender might be for you. Otherwise, go with Maya or Lightwave. Also, Modo is a good modeler with a great UI, if you just want to model and not animate/render.

Re:It's the UI that kills it

[bky1701]

I thought the same when I started using it. Actually, you can read my complaints on their forum. The thing is, after I made the commitment that I was *going* to learn it, and after I stopped trying to do things the old 3ds ways, it started to come naturally. Now I can do far more impressive work than in 3ds, much faster.

It's painful to LEARN, not use (though there are a few UI annoyances, like the non-standard save/load menu). I'd suggest if you really want to learn it, throw the tutorials (they often offer irrational, hard or just bad ways of doing things) and old knowledge out the window and learn it. Once you know it, you may understand why they kept the interface.

Re:It's the UI that kills it

[Anonymous Coward]

I think there are a lot of people who start with the closed source ones and a closed mind and from there on in the open source UIs are always "wrong". Having learning the GIMP without becoming indoctrinated into photoshop and hearing all the catatonic whinging about the GIMP UI, I somehow think that I will be fine with Blender. Sure, photoshop has more high end features, but as people say, unless you need the print colour range, there isn't actually that much difference other than the price and amount of whinging.

Also, not only are these programs 4 stars to the industry leader 5s (and often beating them in many features), for people starting out with the blender or GIMP in highschool, 15 yrs old say, they have to factor in that blender will undergo 5 or more years of development before they hit the job market after uni. They'd be insane to learn a closed source one, which might go bust in that time, as opposed to coming into the market with 5 years of Blender and GIMP under their belt (and blender and gimp with all those new features).

So basically if you are already in the game, keep using the industry standards photoshop and maya etc. Remember they only got the blender sourcecode in late 2002, so as much as it's improved since the first open source release it will improve again in 5 yrs. And with a larger user base and more devs, it will likely move even faster.

Spend $30 on a good book for blender another $30 on the gimp, maybe another $30 on a python book to script both apps way further than your peers using close source stuff - go to the forums and make some good friends above and at your skill level for other advice. Then with the $1000s you were going to spend on close source edu versions and expensive manuals for them, don't forget you have to upgrade when you graduate, into something else maybe an investment account. You'll end up with better skills, better software, more friends and more money.

Industry people your calculation is simple, to stick with your software till you feel the open source stuff is good enough for you to make a move. Simple as that. But one thing you should do is shut the fuck up discouraging other people from using it like there is a chosen way.

It's the future ppl. kthxbye.

Re:It's the UI that kills it

[deniable]

The UI wouldn't be half as bad if they provided some decent documentation for it. As others have mentioned, the tutorials aren't a good source of help. Once you learn how to use Blender, it's pretty good, but the learning curve is really steep.

It's been a while, so maybe they have better resources now. I'd be happy if they did.

Re:It's the UI that kills it

[ajs318]

Mod parent up.

Too many people confuse "hard to learn" with "hard to use". For example, typing less-than, e, m, more-than followed by text to italicise then less-than, divide, e, m, more-than is much quicker -- once you know how to do it -- than highlighting the text (an operation requiring leaving the keyboard, getting hold of the mouse, manoeuvring it with pixel precision, clicking and dragging), either clicking on an icon (invariably an italicised "i") or selecting something from a context menu (involving a tricky finger-swap or possibly even a keyboard operation), and then returning to the keyboard.

Also, anything that was hard to learn will be even harder to forget.

Re:It's the UI that kills it

[gaspyy]

[...]they have to factor in that blender will undergo 5 or more years of development before they hit the job market after uni. They'd be insane to learn a closed source one, which might go bust in that time, as opposed to coming into the market with 5 years of Blender

Sorry, I disagree.

First, all the major 3D apps have very strong markets; it's highly unlikely to see any of these disappearing any time soonn. Even when Autodesk purchased Maya, they didn't kill it, but rather refocused the programs a little: 3ds max for games and architectural visualisation and Maya for film.

Second, by learning any of these programs (I'm thinking of Max, Maya, Lightwave and XSI) a student would more easily jump to another program than from Blender.

Third, if a graduate goes to an interview and says he only knows Bldender, their chances of being hired would drop dramatically.

Re:It's the UI that kills it

[sabernet]

But they have to decide whether they want to please their niche or appeal to the greater audience. The niche may like it enough to stick with it. But a great many people, some with influence, some just with experience in industry apps, don't. And not everyone has time or the ability to throw those out the window.

Re:It's the UI that kills it

[4e617474]

Now, if the Blender team could ever pull theierr head out of their ass and bring in a UI developer and stay out of the way... they might have something. But it's been ears coming and I doubt we'll ever see Blender become usable.

I've actually seen an interview with a Blender developer (a Linux magazine I flipped through, I can't remember which one) from when Elephant's Dream came out that discussed why they made the interface the way they did. Being the in-house application of NeoGeo, it was geared towards how they worked, and the developers gave the animators what they wanted - maximum productivity after learning the application when used the way that particular group of people liked to use it. The developers came to them and offered them an easier to learn interface - they were told "No, you idiot. We're going out of business and have to try to finish our last few projects. We're not going to hire anyone new. Now add this highly unintuitive key sequence to shortcut this arcane task that no novice has ever heard of." After it was released for widespread consumption, ease of learning became a common request, but there were still people learning the interface it had and wanting to be able to use it the way they had learned to. After almost ten years since its shareware release, and five since its release under GPL, this hypothetical easy-to-use, powerful, intuitive 3d modeling software that someone must have their head up their ass not to have delivered on a silver platter by now would probably have to take the form of a completely separate front-end, a fork, or a complete rewrite with some of the nuts and bolts used over.

And there are people out there who think that Blender "has something" just like it is. If a hobbyist or student wants gratis open-source 3d modeling with an easy to use interface, they should try Art of Illusion. It's nowhere near as powerful, but it's easy and intuitive enough for someone to learn on, and it can export into formats used by the big boys. According to TFA, Blender has the same "Learning path to be productive" as the others, even with the less familiar and intuitive interface. If someone is "getting serious", there isn't really a way around having to invest the time to learn something. And of six packages the article reviewed, only one could be learned in the single month they give you to try modo, and I'm sure those figures are for people who aren't squeezing it in on a part-time basis.

Oh, and there's a few gotchas with modo. They support both platforms - Mac and Windows! Should I download the trial and see if I can get it to work under Wine? Let me click on the "Try Modo" link - "Interested in trying modo? As a result of modo 301 now being available, all of our website bandwidth is being focused on supporting our registered modo customers. Sign up to create an account and you will be informed just as soon as the new evaluation version of modo 301 is available. If you already have an account you're already on the list to be notified." What? If I have an account, I'm on a list to be notified that there's a trial version available? Oh, they want $400 for an upgrade (which they're ready to sell you sight-unseen right now). Okay, let me see if I can figure out if I can use modo to turn blueprints into 3d models the way they do here. Hmm... not too big on the import/export capabilities are they? Looking over the so-called tech specs (looks like they hired some marketing people and got out of the way) I can only find "modo is able to harvest animation data from other 3D applications in order to render it. modo reads .MDD files for this purpose." Maybe it

On the Interface

[Smerity]

First off, the name is a tad misleading, it's more "Major 3D Applications Comparison (including Blender)" as opposed to a focused against Blender - but that can be easily forgiven. What is good is that the author has used a wide range of industry standard tools (Maya, 3ds max and Lightwave etc) in everyday tasks, so it's not a fanboy style review where the outcome was and always would be 'Blender best'.

Blender is maturing well, especially considering if you look at the progress they've made since the code was first open sourced, and I'm confident that they will be able to continue this progress in to the future. I won't comment on the feature to feature comparison, I will just reiterate what the author said early on in the article - it's the artist not the tools - and in this case the an open source and free tool is sufficient to create some stunning art. Check out Elephant's Dream to see an example.

And my one note to those commenting later - the interface. Many people complain about the interface, how it's difficult to learn. Unfortunately, many of these people are trying to 'learn 3D' over the weekend - and I'm sorry, that won't happen, regardless of the package. To become truly proficient in any 3D software package takes a long time.
I also see many people compare the UI disaster to that of GIMP - I don't think that's really an accurate comparison. Read reviews of people who have actually mastered the Blender UI and they will confess that once learned it is very effective. The author in the article also states this, with him saying that it's a "Fast workflow, (but) can be more intuitive".
I'm not saying the Blender user interface is perfect, or that improvement can't be made, merely that even in its current state, once learned and mastered it is a powerful tool.

Overall however, I'm glad that Blender has progressed so well, and look forward to seeing it's progress in the future. Without it I would never have begun my exploration into 3D at all.

it's all in the details

[Dubbie99]

Comparison lists like this are very misleading. The devil is in the details. It's not about how many buzzword columns an app can check, it's about whether the app has had a userbase that has thrashed the software through years and years of real production work and had the software evolve into a powerful tool. It's very easy to add a feature in a 3D app. Most interested hobbiest weekend coders could whip up most functions found in any given 3D app. Whether that feature is production ready is another story. Going by the list it would seem that something like Blender of C4D is on a par with Maya and Max. They're not. They don't have the huge in-depth expert user communities and the benefit of thousands of users pushing them to the limit day in and day out. If you're choosing a 3D app, talk to some real 3D artists who have been in the industry for years and depend on their 3D application system for their living. Don't compare checkbox lists.

It's the UI that makes it

[Max Littlemore]

Some people don't like blender's UI like some people don't like vi.

Once you spend the time (say a day or two) it's really quick and productive. The UI is a major asset.

Re:It's the UI that makes it

[paganizer]

This is a rebuttal.
Background: My very first job, in the late 70's, was as a Draftsman. I used the very first version of Autocad, back in '83(?). I've been using 3dstudio since before it was a actual product. I used Lightwave on an Amiga in '91 (VideoToaster rocked).
I changed careers, and only play with 3D these days. But I play with everything, Vue d'esprit, Poser, Maya. I've tried pretty much every 3d application I hear about just to see if it's worth parting with my limited hobby money. Never had a problem figuring out the wildly different UI's (except Maya, a little. I was overthinking it).
Do you get what I'm saying here? I figured out Truespace from a german language version. I don't read or speak german.

I tried out blender first when it was shareware.. 2001 I think. The UI was a nightmare. I had a decently new copy of 3ds, so shook my head and forgot about it.
Then the game "The Movies" came out. I got hooked. after poking around, I found out that the only import/output scripts for customization were blender scripts, so i grabbed the latest version of blender.
I tried. I really, really tried. I grabbed the tutorials, FAQ's. I bought "The Official Blender guide". I even had a "Blender Guru" come on to my system in VNC to walk me through the (allegedly) simple process of opening a file, applying textures, and exporting using the plugin. it took 3 flipping hours.
Blender may be a great engine. But the interface is a crime against logic, nature and makes me revise my opinion on whether or not true Evil exists.
If you are thinking of getting into 3D software in some way, as a career or a hobby, keep this in mind: If you waste your time learning the Blender interface, you will not be able to use that "knowledge" with ANY OTHER APPLICATION.

Re:It's the UI that makes it

[Aladrin]

I have never been a professional, but this exactly matches my experience.

I wrote a program that converts TheSims models to OBJ format and back again. As part of that, I had to 'learn' a modeller and chose MilkShape3D. I say 'learn' because it took only a few minutes. I've also played with a few other modellers and they all had the same concepts, and the basic functions were all easy to find. (Add polys, move vertexes, apply textures, etc.)

I picked up Blender because I'd heard such good things about it. I spent 2 hours trying to figure out how to apply a texture to a model, another half an hour searching the web for the info, and another hour following a tutorial step by step to figure it out. I tried again without the tut and had lost it already.

Blender's UI is so completely anti-intuitive that it's impossible to just use, you MUST be trained. (Or self-trained.) This may be acceptable for those who never use computers and only want to use Blender, but the rest of us expect to be able to figure it out without a printed manual.

I wonder if it's just chance that the Gimp also has tons of interface complaints?

Re:It's the UI that makes it

[ozmanjusri]

Background: My very first job, in the late 70's, was as a Draftsman.

We have very similar backgrounds. I was a Surveyor in about the same era, and got into 3D modelling via mine design and surveying software (Surpac, DataMine). I started my own 3D software collection with Imagine, then Lightwave on the Amiga. I used Truespace from a coverdisk, tried C4D, and a few other packages.

I still haven't settled into using a single tool. My collection includes Hexagon modeller, Sketchup Pro, Bryce, Cinema 4D, and yes, Blender.

Each has their strengths. For some people, the time cost of learning the tool is higher than it's worth. It sound like that's the case for you. For me, I like being able to be productive anywhere and on any computer, and Blender on a thumb drive does that for me.

In any case, now that I'm used to it, I find there's things I can do quicker in Blender than with the other tools

It's all bunk

[QuantumG]

pushing polygons is wrong. It's a short term solution to a long term problem. Keeping to a poly budget is grunt work that should be done by the tool not by the artist. Programmers who think bitrot is bad should have a look at the "asset rot" of 3d models. The deprecation of graphics assets is so fast that it's a stretch to use the word "asset" to refer to them at all. A character model from a AAA title from six months ago has some value, to B quality games, but mostly none of them are reused.

For 3d models to earn their name as "assets" they need to be created with infinite resolution. This is not hard. Constructive Solid Geometry is a well understood technique for modeling and is typically used in CAD applications. An object described even at what would be considered a course level of detail of typical CSG modeling is orders of magnitude higher resolution than the typical game model. What's more, they can be incrementally improved, whereas the b-rep that is typical for a game model today is a one shot affair.

Today, the vast majority of CSG models are created for raytracing architectures which, although they give stunning results, are too slow for realtime applications such as games. Even the attempts to create realtime raytracing systems are aimed at rendering b-reps because of the opportunity to perform an acceleration stage which greatly reduces the scene complexity. B-reps are a win for realtime applications, but just because your application requires a b-rep doesn't mean artists need to get their hands dirty pushing polygons.

Two solutions exist which can render CSG models in realtime.

The image-based rendering algorithms with implementations (such as OpenCSG) which take advantage of z-buffer and stencil-buffer hardware in popular GPU cards. The image-based systems are more compatible than raytracing with the current 3d graphics rendering state of the art, but still require intricacies to integrate that have prevented them from appearing on the market.

The other option is the automatic generation of a b-rep from a CSG model. This has the advantage that it requires no change to the 3d graphics rendering in games and the algorithm can be parametrically tuned to produce b-reps that are fast for different applications. For example, the same CSG model can be used to generate b-reps of different Level Of Detail for when the object is close up vs far away, or for pre-rendered applications such as cut scenes or trailers.

It just happens to be really hard.

Re:It's all bunk

[big4ared]

Not exactly.

I work in video games, and ultimately the graphics cards render polygons. There are definitely tools that can down res, but have you ever seen what a 40k poly mesh looks like when you use an auto-down-res to 20k? It gives you a good start, but you still have to remesh it and tweak it by hand.

As for CSG, it's ok for CAD, but not practical at all for games. The realtime stuff is useful when comples models need to be edited in realtime (like for designing car engines), but the approaches like OpenCSG are too slow because each primitive needs to be drawn a bunch of times.

As an example, if you have the expression (A+B+C)*(D+E+F), you have to break the expression into sum-of-terms form which is AD+AE+AF+BC+BE+BF+CD+CE+CF, so that's at least 18 draw calls (acutally more). Alternatively, you could just precompute the CSG model into a triangle mesh. There are other techniques (like Blister) but they're still too slow.

CSG is used in moderation in games for tasks that make sense. For most applications, it doesn't. Imagine trying to model Wolverine with CSG. But even if you use CSG, at the end of the day, you still need an artist to tweak the vertices (which artists can do very quickly).

Not to mention, you also need to be able to lay out UVs.

If you really want your model to look good at higher resolutions, you can always subdivide your triangle meshes, which is robust (unlike triangle reduction). Up-resing meshes is easy. Down-resing takes artist work.

Re:It's all bunk

[KDR_11k]

CSG is just a means, you could just as well use NURBS or subdivision to represent a highpoly model. The problem is that you have to downres it to a point where it's not just fewer sides on a cylinder or something but where the entire surface has to change. Details must be removed from the geometry and put onto the texture instead. Some things will be faked with alpha. The software would have to automatically recognize which details are important and need to be kept. Even worse, for organic objects it has to understand where and how the object will deform and how to make that look good. And finally, it's just unnecessary work to model every little detail on a model when 90% of them will be lost in the downressing anyway, that just wastes time and time is money.

Blender rewarding once learnt.

[delire]

I've used 3DSMax and Blender extensively though learnt to be proficient in Maya.

Blender's interface is difficult at first but once learnt I found it more efficient for many tasks - especially rapid mesh-modeling. Moreso, I found Blender's interface much easier on the hands over long periods of working, namely because it prioritises keyboard useage over mouse, has one-key accessible menus (3DSMax has terrible problems here) and distributes mouse input over all three buttons. RSI is a real problem in 3D modeling/animation related work and it's here I think Blender has the one-up. Blender's many keyboard shortcuts need to be learnt for Blender to realise it's real capacity as a tool.

Re:Blender rewarding once learnt.

[Anonymous Coward]

As previous Max user, working on game models and animation, I have to say that I was stunned with effectiveness of Blender. Interface is a nightmare - ONLY when you encounter it for the first time (especially if you have used some other software previously). BUT, that said, if you take 2 days time by doing same of the basic tutorials, you will learn the shortcuts and way things are organized.

Doing that, I'll have to say that my productivity is better, in magnitude of 3X, in comparison with 3DS MAX. This applies especially to 3D modeling and mapping. I could not recommend Blender more, and as conclusion - interface is great, but you will have to take (some) time to learn it (half an hour in blender, for previous MAX user, is not enough). But one day of fooling around, doing tutorials, and you will become very productive). I would not change anything if that wold change the productivity and current speed and ease of use.

If you want to comment the UI, just take few days to explore it, do some tutorials, and you will see that this is the best (and fastest) way of doing things.

Everyone bitches about the ui, but...

[solios]

... the fact is, Maya's UI sucks. 3d Studio's UI sucks. Power Animator's UI sucks. Cinema 4d's UI sucks. Rhino's UI sucks. Nendo's UI sucks. Silo's UI sucks. Softimage's UI sucks. Lightwave's UI sucks. ALL 3d application UIs suck ass until you get up on the learning curve, because all 3d applications do fundamental things differently.

I "grew up" with 3d Studio MAX - Maya, Rhino, etc. all make my brain BLEED - not just because they're Not MAX (the way The GIMP is Not Photoshop) but because they're Not MAX the way Emacs is Not Vi.* 3d is HARD, dammit - hard to code, hard to learn. I'm picking up Silo pretty fast, but mostly because Silo seems to make it a point to do intuitively a lot of really basic things that are a massive assraping pain-in-the-ass to do in 3d Studio MAX.

That said, I have only two complaints about blender.

1. The open/save dialogue (as has been said elsewhere) does suck a load of flaming ass. Weapons grade Anthrax ass.

2. Like almost all modern 3d apps, you need a three button scroll-wheeled mouse to get ANY use out of the app at all. Which makes the app unuseable if you're using an input device, with, say... two buttons. While that's all fine and good, it ought to be fairly trivial to poll the bus, check for pointing devices, and pop up a nice little "FOR OPTIMAL USE PLZ ATTACH 3-BUTTON SCROLLWHEEL THINGER. [DIAGRAM WITH FUNCTIONS OUTLINED]" if inadequate hardware is detected. If Blender did this, it would put it well ahead of commercial apps for first-impression useability.

* Pick any two apps that generate the same results but go about it using completely contradictory and counterintuitive methods. Same principle.

Sorry but that's just wrong

[Sycraft-fu]

Just because you can learn to use a harder system, doesn't mean it isn't harder. Since car analogies are popular let's go for another one: The difference between a stick and an automatic. I drive a stick, always have, always will if I can get away with it. I'm an ace at it, never causes me any problems. I don't even think about it, I just do it. However there is no way I can argue that it isn't harder than driving an automatic. There is simply more to do, more to learn, and I remember how painful learning to drive on a stick was. It certainly isn't an unusable or unlearnable system, and once you've learned it well you are plenty efficient with it, but it is not as easy as an automatic.

Well same deal with interface. Not all choices are arbitrary, it isn't as though all UIs are created equal. There really are things that make it easier and things that make it harder. Just because you spent the time learning it and now don't have a problem, doesn't mean it is easy.

Also, some things are easier for computer people than non-technical people. I've seen many things that make assumptions in relation to a level of understanding of how computers work that if you lack that, you are really screwed. A good example would be regular expressions. If you understand how a finite state machine works, regular expressions are likely to be easy for you. I remember when I learned about them and as soon as I was shown the syntax, a light bulb went off. I found them quite easy, once told how they work, but then I'd been tinkering with FSMs before I knew that term. However a non-technical person could be hopelessly lost on them because they just don't understand the logic behind them.

Trying to defend bad UIs in OSS does no good for anyone. People don't want excuses and they certainly don't want to be told that it is their problem.

Re:OSX

[am 2k]

Uh, I'm using blender on Mac OS X, and it does not use X11. It's implemented using OpenGL, so the interface is completely custom, but no need for that X-server to be open.

blender's user interface is a bit rough to get used to, but once you're used to it, it's very efficient and fast (I once attended a Maya course, and always screamed out in terror when I had to hoover around in 2 levels of menus to access a simple thing like extrude -- in blender you just press 'e').

standard

[sergevi]

I'm an active blender's user. And i find the interface very productive too..like any other "real" blender user. However, we are in a big world and , yes, THERE IS other 3D apps over there.. People spent a lot of time learning these apps, and these apps tried to UNIFY their UI. Actually,If you do ctrl+c it does copy something . When you alt+mouse , the 3D view does something.. Well, not in blender. And that's the problem, and that's why the next version is all about the new CUSTOMISABLE UI :) Take care of blender.. it's one of the best real open source projects actually. congrats tom, you're a big guy !

Bitching about Blender's interface never gets old,

[astralpancakes]

I'd like to know how many of you complaining are actual 3D artists (of some sort, be it pro/student/hobbyist) of even an intermediate skill level, who actually made an honest effort learning Blender. No, opening it up, finding your left and right mouse buttons swapped, then giving up and going back to your pirated copy of Maya doesn't count.

I _HAD_ to learn Blender for an animated short I worked on over the summer. I had about 9 months of 3ds max experience behind me, and grasping the basics in Blender took me less than a week, using Tony Mullen's book Introducing Character Animation with Blender as well as whatever tutorials could be found online. Yes, the documentation is sometimes lacking (nothing new there, considering it's free software), but that mostly applies to more advanced features (NLA editing, linking animation files together, stuff like that) where you end up having to discover many things by trial and error (which is horrible if you're working to a deadline to be sure). In my experience there's no shortage of resources targetting beginners though. Just don't expect to become a master sitting around reading tutorials -- the reason 3D graphics in general and animation in particular is hard is because IT IS HARD. And it's hard even after you've mastered whatever application you're using. Getting past the user interface is the easy part.

At this point the only thing I could say 3ds max is outright "better" at is pure modelling, since Blender lacks n-gons, and even then I'd rather use Blender because the interface is just that much nicer. I haven't really used hair and fur much in 3ds max, but my understanding is that it's a fair bit more advanced than what's currently in Blender as well, although you can expect that to change soon as the Peach project gets underway. Textures, rigging, animation, lighting, rendering, compositing are all things I find much easier to do in Blender.

Yes, the Blender interface is "unintuitive" in the sense that it doesn't look like anything else, but compared to the hodgepodge that is max it's a shedload more consistent and logical. Once you grasp the basics (A selects/deselects all, B border selects, G moves, R rotates, S scales...) all 3D windows, node views, curve editors and what have you work exactly the same way which is just lovely. Add to that a completely customizable workspace layout and completely zoomable/pannable windows. I cannot tell you what a shock it was to go back to 3ds max and discover that to move and zoom the timeline you had to use combinations of ctrl, alt and mousebuttons, when you're used to doing all of that the same way you zoom and pan 3D windows: scrollwheel and middle mouse button. Or that the damn thing loads for a minute and a half even on a top of the line machine, while Blender takes about 2 seconds to start. :)

That's not to say the Blender interface couldn't be improved. The default keyboard shortcuts are WEIRD -- Ctrl-W to save, anyone? -- and more importantly, not customizable. The default view control options are pretty confusing as well if you're used to basically anything else ever, but these can at least be changed. I think changing the defaults (but making it easy for advanced users to change back) would go a long way towards improving Blender's image at large, but I'm not so arrogant as to assume that the Blender developers (who btw are excellent, pay attention to users needs and release new features at a mindboggling rate) aren't aware of these things.

(Struggling with the formatting here -- first post, sorry.)

About my article

[bsm3d]

Hello,
I'm the Benoît Saint-Moulin (the badboy) who writed this article :-)

First thanks to all for comments and email, I hope my article goal is reached : discuss about how improving softwares and what's can be offering us for our needs.
I'm CG technical artist and teacher in 3D College (HEAJ-Belgium) and try to stay independant into that's writed article. (sorry for my english...)
To writed this, take a long and painfull 12 months of works, I hope it's well understanded.

I read all comments, so here is few replies :

- I'm not Pro Blender or not, I tried to stay indepedant into my article, I'm using Blender because there is powerful tools inside, not because it's free or not. As teacher / trainer I can say today industries interface use ""standard"" shortcut, F1 for help, well organised docs,... in Blender it's a bit uncentralised and new users never done 3D before must probably loosed to found the info when he need...
To Blender be an industries and Film used softwares, replacing maybe some old dinosaurs, he must adapting his interface to be more CG artists friendly and open to artist's today kind of pipeline working, artists say not technical geek like us.

- I'm not anti-Lightwave, I have it (9.2 dvd), used from LW 3.5 and the famous LightRave dongle until today for such task others can do ! I also writed this words on LW with LW-europe dev.support.

- I'm not cons to text interface, I really prefer text interface, that's more faster to work with than vivid Icons as each softwares icons are not the sames ! text stay the sames...like in xsi, lw,...

- This article don't to tried to compare Blender opposed to the world. Blender is include in because to industries can't simply ignore Blender potential and great work who can be done by Opensource software. (no licence troubles, no network installation issues, no per year subscription...)

- Blender have a now a place to be in this kind article and I really don't like work with Nurbs in Blender, so each softwares are good for one tasks, try to do all with one is mayeb not the best to do !

If blender is really good today, he must evolving (as free it's the best) he as somes lacks on somes BIG datas projects. I know just because I'm worked with, why somes highend 3d softwares is again today so highly priced and in somes case that's really justified ! in many not :-) cheers, Ben (BSM3D)