Blender 2.66 Released

First time accepted submitter hochl writes "The Blender Foundation has announced a new release of the popular, free 3D design program Blender. From the release page: The Blender Foundation and online developer community is proud to present Blender 2.66. This release contains long awaited features like rigid body physics simulation, dynamic topology sculpting and matcap display. Other new features include Cycles hair rendering, support for high pixel density displays, much better handling of premultiplied and straight alpha transparency, a vertex bevel tool, a mesh cache modifier and a new SPH particle fluid dynamics solver."

Comments

Sweet!

[mapuche]

Lots of nice new little features!

Re:Sweet!

[Anonymous Coward]

Maya = Closed Source software from Autodesk
Blender = Open Source software
You are comparing orange to apple, two different things...

Re:Sweet!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll consider using Maya when they give it away for free including its source code.

Re:Sweet!

[flimflammer]

I think they're doing just fine without your patronage.

Re:Sweet!

[JakeBurn]

He's actually trying to compare a $3700 apple with a free orange. If we're talking about people who don't like to pirate the software they use there's little reason for anyone who isn't a professional artist using company funds to ever think twice about Maya. Complete and total waste of money for 99% of anyone doing anything with 3d modelling programs.

Re:Sweet!

[Anonymous Coward]

so then where's your snappy response to the off-topic dickwaving GP was in response to? if maya doesn't need one AC's patronage, surely it doesn't need another AC's promotion, either?

Re:Sweet!

[Anonymous Coward]

But blender needs your dick waving. It. Can't. Survive. Without. It.

Re:Sweet!

[hairyfeet]

While that is true I think the Blender guys really don't get enough credit. Sure the UI is complex and some might say PITA but when you are dealing with 3D animation frankly its gonna be complex no matter how you slice it and Big Buck Bunny shows that Blender CAN make studio quality animation and at the end of the day its the product that people care about and Blender can obviously make compelling animation.

But you really can't compare something like Maya and Photoshop to a free tool like Blender or Gimp simply because of the difference in budget. I'm sure the Blender and Gimp devs would love to have every feature that their counterparts have but they don't have a fiftieth of the budget that the big boys so one really has to take that into consideration.All in all I think the Blender guys really deserve kudos, they have made a pretty nice tool that anybody can have for free that can make top notch animation if you are willing to put in the time.

Re:Sweet!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll consider using Maya when they give it away for free including its source code.

You are not disproving the GP's assertion. You are merely identifying yourself as the curious kiddie rather than the professional.

Re:Sweet!

[postofreason]

Blender can make movies that look absolutely professional. Isn't that what it's all about at the end of the day?

Re:Sweet!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think they're doing just fine without your patronage.

And I think we're doing just fine without their product. So everyone's happy! Finally, a good ending to all this!

Re:Sweet!

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't. Write. A. Post. Without. Using. Lots. Of. Periods. 'Cause. Kids. Think. It. Is. Cool. I. Call. It. Shatner. Style.

Re:Sweet!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I suppose any professional maya user would be ashamed to show off this kid stuff: http://blenderartists.org/forum/showthread.php?281902-Queen-of-the-destruction

Blender is catching up to the feature sets of the big commercial packages at an accelerating rate. Right now I would agree it's not appropriate for a big-budget VFX workflow, but for stills and small animations it's more than adequate to get professional results - if you give it a chance and know what you are doing in the first place.

Re:Sweet!

[Desler]

No, ease-of-use and supported workflowa are easily far more important than the end result. If the tool is hard to use and/or makes you have to waste time retooling your workflow most people will pass. Their time is not worthless.

Re:Sweet!

[Anonymous Coward]

Blender can make movies that look absolutely professional. Isn't that what it's all about at the end of the day?

If you are a hobbyist, yes. If you are a professional, no.

Re:Sweet!

[Genda]

What are you? Some kind of Rocket MAN... burning out your fuse up here alone?

Re:Sweet!

[Anonymous Coward]

You've obviously haven't tried blender for a while (or mayebe never), i have used Maya, Softimage, 3DsMax, Lightwave and others, to see the difference between blender and those that still live (Maya, 3DSmax sold to autodesk, lightwave, wich wasn't very intuitive until V6 , houdini that was waaaay to expensive), and frankly my dear, i don't give a damn... Blender rulez, there's nothing you can't do with blender (thanks to python and some c bindings.....) it'll take you a lot more bucks and time to extend maya for example: buy visual studio, learn mayascript instead of something standard : ( apt-get ) install GCC Python wget the source and build it yourself, ps with python you don't even need to do some C / C++ (id but still, for most stuff you can just script it since it integrates with your system and most bindings already exist....)

Re: Sweet!

[Anonymous Coward]

All these arguments re closed src vs open src are so bogus. I am starting up an indie videogame company and I look at these things from a practical perspective. Maya and 3ds max are horribly expensive. Even if I had the money to buy a few licences and spend money and time on training, what would be the big advantage over Blender? Better documentation and support, for sure. Otherwise I can do everything I need in Blender. In a videogame you need simple 3d models and animations, otherwise the end result will look choppy. It'a a different situation if you're a Hollywood movie producer, and your investors have deep pockets, and are willing to take a risk. Then you can hire expensive professionals and artists who are already experienced in expensive 3D modeling tools, and do the CGI offline. So these are the "selection criteria", not open vs closed source.

Re:Sweet!

[History's Coming To]

Depends on what you mean by "professional" - if you're a 3D modelling/animation specialist then yes, agreed, you're better off with one of the proprietary packages, but that's not the only people who use 3D packages these days. 99% of my work is PHP/HTML/CSS work, but I also use Blender to produce 2D and 3D graphics and animations to include in websites. For the amount I use it Blender has everything I need and saves me an absolute fortune in software costs. Horses for courses, to mix your metaphor.

Re:Sweet!

[Anonymous Coward]

The UI in Blender today is immeasurably better than the old versions. Just try something pre-2.0 and you'll see how bad it used to be.

Re:Sweet!

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends on what you mean by "professional" - if you're a 3D modelling/animation specialist then yes, agreed, you're better off with one of the proprietary packages

Well, I know what I plan to do. I'm going to use Blender to earn enough money to buy Maya, and then I'll be in a position to use whichever one is more suited to the job!

Re:Sweet!

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Depends on what you mean by "professional" - if you're a 3D modelling/animation specialist then yes, agreed, you're better off with one of the proprietary packages

Just to be historically accurate, Blender started its life as a professional in-house animation package on pretty expensive SGI IRIX workstations. So no, Blender is very much "professional". The original streamlined UI got a little bit muddled, though, in the recent years. It's somewhat frankensteinish these days, which makes me a little bit sad.

Re:Sweet!

[K. S. Kyosuke]

No, ease-of-use and supported workflowa are easily far more important than the end result. If the tool is hard to use and/or makes you have to waste time retooling your workflow most people will pass. Their time is not worthless.

It's funny that you're mentioning this in a discussion pertaining Maya. Standalone Maya is (or at least, had been until recently) the ultimate DIY experience for 3D artists. Many of the pieces are fine, but for any serious project, major tweaks were necessary. Most often, the renderer got replaced, by PRMan/RAT. TDs have spent countless man-years writing MEL scripts to integrate Maya into the workflowa of their animation shops. Yes, Maya is insanely flexible, but "easy to use"? For a single artist at least, there are much better choices. I believe that Softimage/XSI has a much better "out of the box" experience. I don't think that Maya is necessarily better for a single artist, it simply has a different set of problems.

Re:Sweet!

[Will.Woodhull]

I have worked with both Maya and Blender. They have different strengths.

The Autodesk (Maya) set of apps is optimized for use by teams that are large enough to have their own sysadmin, who handles everything from backup and version control to the naming conventions that keep the workflows straight. It would be difficult to use Blender in this kind of environment--- the structure of Blender's databases is such that it would be impossible to impose the limitations that are needed in large teams.

Blender is optimized for the solo artist who does everything from mesh building through texturing, rigging, animation, and compositing. Maya and the Autodesk products can also be used this way, but the individual artist has to spend much more time dealing with version control issues and making sure all the files are in the right folders, etc--- the overheads of managing complex data structures. Blender does all that internally, in its object oriented database. The small Maya shop has to devote time that would otherwise be used in making art to keeping the project databases clean and functional. The Blender artist can rely on his software to do all that.

If you want to grow up to become a CG artist, and you plan to do so in the next five years, then you absolutely, positively need to lean Maya--- and you will not have time to learn Blender. The interfaces are too different to easily switch between the two, and there is too much to learn in either one. Maya dominates the market, not because it is intrinsically better, but because it fits the design of current businesses better. This may change if partnerships of Blender artists start emerging as players in the market--- but don't count on that. Putting together partnerships of artists is like herding cats. It happens, but never on a large scale like Pixar, etc.

If you want to develop your talents in CG artwork rather than using it to make a living, then Blender is probably going to be a better choice for you. You have full artistic control over the entire project through the Blender package (the Maya ecosystem will force you to specialize in one aspect only, like modeling OR texturing OR rigging--- fine if you want to develop your art skills within the confines of your assigned cubicle).

At the moment, and for the foreseeable future, Blender is being developed more rapidly than Maya. So Blender is probably the better choice if you want to be on the bleeding edge of things. This is partly because the Blender core code has just been brought through a major refactoring that better fits what we have learned in 20+ years of CG art experience, and which has opened up a lot of new possibilities for development. And partly because Maya (and Autodesk in general) have the incredible inertia of a large installed base that slows down what they can put on the market. And Maya's development is always going to be guided more by where the profits are than by what the artist requires.

The 10 second sound bite: Autodesk is in business to make profits by selling artsy tools to commercial artists; Blender is an association of artists who are developing better artsy tools.

Re:Sweet!

[Will.Woodhull]

But you really can't compare something like Maya and Photoshop to a free tool like Blender or Gimp simply because of the difference in budget.

Too true. But the overriding reason these two are not comparable is that Maya, Photoshop, and other commercial art software are written to make money for their companies by selling artsy tools to artists. Blender, Gimp, and other FOSS art software are written by artists to make better artsy tools. That core difference in orientation results in massive differences in what can be done, and what will be done.

Re:Sweet!

[HornWumpus]

Wait a second. You have something good to say about blender's UI?

It sucks balls. Big wet donkey balls.

Re:Sweet!

[Will.Woodhull]

These are excellent points.

Maya is built for use in commercial art studios that employ several CG artists and have concerns about security wrt the work that they are doing and often wrt proprietary information that their clients have entrusted to them. Maya expects that different CG specialists will handle different aspects of the production: that there will be a lighting specialist (who is probably most comfortable working in the theater jargon of barn doors, rim lights, etc), and an animator (who thinks in terms of tweens, etc), a rigger (bones), a texture artist (seventeen different words for "grunge"), etc. These persons may never meet face to face, but Maya has to provide the means for keeping all the work organized.

Blender is designed for the solo artist who will take on each of the specialist roles in turn, as his project progresses. And will often want to jump between roles, when he realizes that if he does this neat thing with the texture then he can do another really fine thing with the lights and end up blowing everybody's mind. Blender has no internal provisions for security: it expects the artist to lock the door when he leaves home. Nor does Blender offer any means of internal version control: it expects its user to rename MyArt.blend to MyArt-[today's date].blend every once in a while.

I have worked with Blender for about 5 years and have taken a couple of courses that used Maya. In my experience, Blender allows much easier workflows for the solo artist than could be done in Maya. However it would be impossible for reasons having nothing to do with art to use Blender in a project like Toy Story or Avatar. You would need to have someone who was expert in both CG art and database security to manage the files, and I doubt that there is anyone anywhere as yet who has that kind of skill set. Or that any studio would have the budget to hire him, if they could find him.

Re:Sweet!

[Desler]

I never said Maya or 3ds Max, etc. were easy to use. I was not saying Blender was hard to use. I simply stated the truth that there are far more important factors when choosing a tool than simply just the results. Workflow is a major factor. In a professional environment you don't have time to waste migrating tools if you get no benefit that greatly exceed the initial effort. People's time is not worthless.

Re:Sweet!

[hairyfeet]

Actually you ALMOST had it then it slipped through your fingers. See the difference is thanks to the bigger budgets the pros can hire focus groups and experts in UI design whereas with FOSS we have seen time and time again programmers make for lousy UI designers because the skills to make a good UI are different than the skills for making a good stable program and without the big budget they can't afford to bring in guys that know how to make easy to use UIs.

Re:Sweet!

[Will.Woodhull]

Perhaps from your point of view my post missed the target that yours seemed to hit dead on, but that's an illusion caused by your two dimensional perspective of a three dimension problem.

I will only say this: Autodesk, etc, might have the cash to hire focus groups and UI designers, but Blender has been built by artists who also do some programming. Further, Autodesk's focus groups and UI designers are focused on developing a product that can be marketed at a profit. Blender's developers are focused on developing a product that does what an artist wants done.

Re:Sweet!

[geedubyoo]

Once you've put a little effort into learning Blender's interface you realize that it is actually very good. Far from perfect, but still very good. Tools are (mostly) in logical, consistent places, it's very customisable and, in my opinion, quite attractive. I suspect that the problem most people have with the interface is that it looks and behaves differently to other programs, but why should a 3d modelling and animation package's interface be similar to a word processors?

There. I've said something good about Blender's UI.

Re:Sweet!

[hairyfeet]

You can say Blender and Gimp is built by "artists" all day long, don't make the UI not suck. Again I don't blame them for that, UI design is fucking HARD which is why there are companies that make crazy money JUST focusing on UI design and advising companies on good UI design. That is why I had to LMAO at how bad Win 8 was because even with all that money it was obvious MSFT didn't call in any UI designers or specialized UI companies because the one thing they could ALL agree on was Win 8 has a terrible UI.

Look I'm a bass player, I write beautiful songs and cool cooking lines based on that instrument, but you seem to be saying because I'm an "artist" in that regard I'd be able to paint beautiful pictures...but that's a completely different skillset. Writing a great program is a HELL of a lot different than the skills required to take a blank canvas and create a UI that is intuitive and easily discoverable. I'm saying while its obvious the Blender and Gimp guys are good at the former, the latter? Not so much. Again no blame, nobody is great at everything but with their budgets they just can't afford to bring in the guys required to do what needs doing in that dept.

Re:Sweet!

[Will.Woodhull]

Um, what I am trying to say is that UI experts add the same kind of value to the design of a 3D application like Blender as typographers add to writing new musical scores. Which is to say, not much. And basically nothing with regard to the making of a new piece of art, whether visual or auditory.

Computer graphics is in its infancy. What is critically needed are easier ways to manipulate Bezier curve control points, smoother processes for manipulating UV mappings, improvements in presenting approximations of the final rendered result while doing mesh edits, and that kind of thing. The musical equivalent would be determining the best number of strings for a bass guitar, and what they should be tuned to, how far apart they placed, and whether the neck should be fretted. After those things are resolved, by the musicians through their experience in making music, then there would be value in having some polishing expert develop the very best in non-scuff, scratch resistant coatings for the thing.

UI experts will have their place in making the 3D apps of tomorrow a little easier to use. But today their contribution is insignificant compared to whether Blender's techniques with 3D cursor usage are better than Maya's approach, or managing textures in a stack is better than managing them with nodes. That basic design work comes from artists in the field determining by their aggregated experience which methods are the most fruitful. Outsiders like UI designers have nothing meaningful to contribute to that.

Re:Sweet!

[Will.Woodhull]

Another thought that just occurred to me: Would you expect that someone who has never studied music and never learned to play any kind of instrument would be capable of using your bass guitar to develop new cool cooking lines after a week or two of fooling around with it? It has been about 40 years since I once tried to learn to play a guitar, but I still remember how unintuitive the chord fingerings and strumming patterns were.

3D graphics applications are much the same way. The ones that are useful in creative work are necessarily going to have unique interfaces that will be as foreign to a typist as a piano keyboard or guitar chord fingerings.

Re:Sweet!

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I the only one who actually loves blender's UI?

Usability

[SplashMyBandit]

Good on the Blender crew for plugging away at it. When I saw "UI and Usability" my heart leapt, until I saw that was about Retina. The UI in Blender is pretty much the best example of how not to design a UI. The UI has grown by evolution and not by sensible design. Every time I have to use Blender I wish for something better - not in terms of features (although improved reliability of import and export formats would be nice), but in terms of usability. Navigation is loathsome and I find to be troublesome as UI panels don't seem logically arranged to me (its hard to get from import to 3D view and back using menus, so you have to remember the accelerators instead). I hope that someone takes the bull by the horns and rationalizes the Blender UI (sorry, my development time is on another project).

Re:Usability

[Anonymous Coward]

No kidding. Blender's UI sucks ass. It's not an evolutionary thing, it has always sucked from the beginning. It's an idiotic design.

Use Wings 3D or similar (Mirai, Nendo) for a usable interface.

Re:Usability

[nametaken]

I don't know if you saw, but they completely gutted and redid the UI a while back. It's just my opinion, but I think it's fantastic now. One of the few cases where a project listened and made a good, major change.

Of course you might disagree.

Re:Usability

[Sigma 7]

Actually, you could say the UI is broken. In Blender 2.64 (still applies to 2.66), go to the help menu, and click "Operator Cheat Sheet". The most you see is a small message saying to check something like the operatorlist.txt textblock - and no clue on how to get that.

When an experienced user needs to ask for help on how to use help, then it's time to focus on making Blender usable.

Re:Usability

[dbIII]

So Kid - how do you go about designing a GUI for handling 3D objects shown on a 2D screen?
AutoCAD etc has had interfaces just as initially confusing for decades without much obvious improvement (apart from the hack of hiding stuff in menus) simply because when you are displaying a lot of options at once the GUI gets busy.

Re:Usability

[Anonymous Coward]

You obviously have not used tools that are actually good.

I know how to use a variety of tools, including 3DS MAX, and Blender, both of which totally suck ass. It's a poor workflow, period.

Re:Usability

[Nermal6693]

I tried Blender for the first time a couple of weeks ago (version 2.65) and I found the UI horrendous. Multiple menu bars, non-standard file browsers, not to mention having to press X instead of Delete to remove objects. I shudder to think what the old UI was like if this is a "new and improved" one.

Re:Usability

[sg_oneill]

Pretty much how Max, Maya or Cinema4d are doing it. You should be able to open a new program and see at a glance how the basic operations are performed, and if you can't find out how to do it without consulting a manual. Blender is the only 3d software I know where its impossible to learn without a manual.

UI design isn't a black art, its a science with a lot of research behind it and its abundantly clear the blender team never consulted with it. Its an undoubtably power piece of software, and with inbuilt sculpting and matchmoving (I think), it may well be one of the most powerful 3D pieces of software on the market. But if nobody knows how to use the damn thing, it'll never achieve its goal of bringing that power to the masses.

Tough decisions need to be made that will disrupt the comfort of the power users by adjusting for workflow and ease of learning. My understanding is that blender can be operated well with a keyboard, and that doesn't need to change at all since keyboard shortcuts are largely non-discoverable. But The UI needs a massive redesign to create discoverability for new users.

Re: Usability

[deathguppie]

Are you even talking about the same product? Or have you actually tried Blender in the last few years? The non overlapping window layout can be modified any way that you desire. Import is on the main file menu in the upper right hand corner at all times.. You can even change the key keymapping to that of Maya with one click in the preferences. I understand when people have valid complaints about products, but what you are saying neither makes any sense or is in any way even truthful.

Re:Usability

[del_diablo]

Seriously, I am only saying this:
>Implying Blender has a bad UI

Re:Usability

[Anonymous Coward]

You'd think they'd hire a technical writer to document it. You know, like anyone that wants people to use their software would.

Re:Usability

[X0563511]

Yep. Nevermind that they overhauled the UI between 2.4 and 2.6, throwing just about everything away in the process.

Re:Usability

[mapuche]

Blender interface is pretty configurable. There's a chance to change the shortcuts to something more standard, like a BlendMax or BlendMaya UI setup. It just requires someone to put some work on this (I know, it takes somone else time).

Daniel Martinez started something with his maxmaya interface:

http://www.daniel3d.com/pepeland/misc/3dstuff/blender/maxmayainterface/maxmayainterface.htm

Re:Usability

[dbIII]

Blender is the only 3d software I know where its impossible to learn without a manual.

That is simply showing how shallowly you delve into such applications and not informing us of anything useful.

Re:Usability

[Anonymous Coward]

Some folks would probably hate me for saying this...

The tabbed layout with a side column in Daz3D's Carrara isn't all that bad. It makes navigating and using previously made content and materials "stupid-easy". In some ways that semi-pro 3D renderer is better thought out in terms of UI than the pro stuff Blender imitates in some aspects. (Most pros don't consider it because Daz3D pushes content more than the rendering engine, and there are still bugs. But despite that Carrara is still a little bit of a gem there. At least try it before you knock it.) More or less, Carrara is probably the most "noob friendly" of commercial 3D software. After that? C4D would be next in line.

For modeling?
In my opinion Wings3D (in Mirai mode) has best workflow for polygon modeling.
(Even with Wings, I might be wierd though as I favor an old 1.3-ish development version as some of the "mechanical style" modeling aspects have been depreciated since. Newer versions seriously nerfed my workflow because certain options were removed from prefs and some of the new "organic modeling" stuff got in the way.)

Blender still has a way to go. However it's supposedly modularized with plugins and skins in mind. If somebody with the right coding skills would take the time to correct what's lacking in comparison to what I mentioned, it wouldn't take too much time to make that powerful software known as Blender a lot more user friendly. No need to keep doing things the hard way just because "that's the way it is, and you'll like it!" (It really could use another and different UI shell on top.)

Re:Usability

[Anonymous Coward]

They redid the UI. It's much better now and keeps getting better. The only thing still throwing me off is the fact that the selection modes aren't standardised between each other and putting the 3d cursor move on left click where it gets constantly clicked accidentally.

Still small annoyances considering how far it's come.

Re:Usability

[Mystery00]

So tired of these comments, the UI in Blender is some of the BEST and FASTEST most EFFICIENT there is.

If you want an example of how NOT to design a UI look no further than 3Ds Max.

Re:Usability

[Anonymous Coward]

X is pretty standard for Delete in a lot of packages, the reason is simple: you have your left hand on the keyboard WASD and your right on the mouse, you don't need to reach over to the other side of the keyboard to find the Delete button.

Re: Usability

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes: Blender's UI *is* slightly obscure. That's probably because it's not really designed for discoverability by someone who has invested a grand total of 10 minutes learning it. Instead, it's designed for people who have to spend all day in the tool, and actually Get Work Done. My suggestion would be to try using Blender and its commercial competitors on projects that take several weeks to complete... *then* compare usability! Blender's UI is often actually *praised* when compared with the competition.

However, all that said, efforts have been made to make the UI discoverable since the 2.5 series was release. You can press spacebar to get a large list of filterable commands. The menus also make the vast majority of the commands discoverable.

Re:Usability

[kayoshiii]

the x and delete keys do exactly the same thing in blender. x is also available because delete is a common operation and x is in the part of the keyboard where the left hand normally sits

Re:Usability

[postofreason]

In-as-much as the UI relies upon keyboard input (and non-standard keys at that - a la 'X' instead of [delete]) the previous poster cannot be gainsayed, because the keyboard shortcuts are, as he pointed out, non-discoverable. I won't even touch on the use of right-click selection rather than left.

Re:Usability

[dbIII]

In-as-much as the UI relies upon keyboard input

See also AutoCAD for another example with a lot of keyboard input. They've been tweaking their UI for a couple of decades but decided it's still a good idea.
It's not a simple 2D raster graphics thing like photoshop and 3D is hard to manipulate with software until you get used to it. I've never seen an interface to a effective 3D object modelling program that doesn't look as if someone threw box of little tiles all over the place.
I agree that it's initially confusing to see such a large number of options in front of you at once but dumbing it down probably slows down the workflow of people that know how to use those options.

Re:Usability

[SplashMyBandit]

In addition to software development I'm also trained in the Information Mapping methodology for technical writing. I have worked internationally doing technical writing (as well as software development). Because of this training that is why I think the documentation for Blender is poor and the UI is very poorly laid out in terms of workflow and task completion. I'm pleased that Blender has been made available and is so actively maintained. My criticism is that some proper design of the structure could improve the product immensely.

Re:Usability

[Anonymous Coward]

There are keyboard hints in many, if not most places. Perhaps your tooltips were off? To be honest, I was completely confused by the Cinema4d's UI at first and very quick to dive in to Maya's, both without reading the manual.

Re:Usability

[SplashMyBandit]

Well, there are numerous ways to improve Blender for those skilled in UI design and workflow. As a software developer and trained technical writer (both with plenty of international experience) I see that changing the structure of Blender could improve the product a great deal. It turns out that in my spare time I'm working on a jet combat flight simulator. It's multi-threaded and cross platform (its written in modern Java, so already works on Linux, Windows and Mac with fantastic runtime performance) and I've recently got multi-player communication going with IEEE 1278.1 (just like a military sim) and a SOAP Webservice. For many graphical tasks I write my own algorithms and GLSL shaders (based on a lot of research on the physics of light transmission, atmospheric extinction etc). That covers most of my needs but occasionally I'll license a complex $1000 model from Turbosquid and I'll need to adjust the mesh or normals. That's where Blender can come in handy for a quick tweak along with many other tools.

Given that a modern flight simulator has very very many components, of which building or importing graphic assets are actually a relatively small part of effort to build a product (smaller than many would think, despite the quality of assets having a big apparent impact) I don't want to spend a great deal of time in Blender if I can help it. I'm not interested in spending ages learning Blender, since I'm more of a casual user and would rather spend the time I have making excellent flight dynamics models and integrating devices like the TrackIR (on all of Windows, Mac and Linux).

So you can arrogantly call me "kid" if you wish. However, it is almost certain I know a great deal more about computer graphics/hardware shaders than the average Blender monkey (not a competition, but I'm no n00b). However, I'm not an expert in Blender and don't wish to be one. I just want to get what I need done (eg. reorganize normals, optimize the mesh, etc) because I have so many other tasks to do than merely create models (although I have zero problem with those that do). Learning Blender is certainly not beyond my capabilities, I have a PhD in Physics (Astrophysics, as part of a gravitational microlensing project that has successfully detected several extra-solar planets). I'm also a software developer and technical writer by day. So learning curve Blender is not a problem - time is.

So I still think my statement is valid. Blender is a great product that suffers from a terrible user interface with poor discoverability for users who are doing 'just-in-time' style learning across a huge breadth of technologies and associated applied mathematics [an even larger set of things to learn] for a real multiplayer application - rather than getting deep into a single thing. Blender could use much a better UI *design*, and it ought to work on doing so. So please drop the conceited and arrogant attitude, you'll do everyone a favor (not least yourself). k?

Re:Usability

[SplashMyBandit]

The UI may be fast and efficient. What it is not is 'discoverable'. This makes Blender a pig for those learning it - especially those who know what they want to do (eg. understand computer graphics) and find that trying to get Blender to do what they want is unnecessarily obscure. This appears to be something you don't get, which is why you also fail to understand what so many people are trying to so. I hope this clears the issue people are talking about for you. They are not complaining you can't get by with accelerators or that Blender isn't powerful, they are complaining that accessing that power could be made far more accessible and discoverable with a well-thought out UI design (which is entirely possible for a good designer to do - the trick of design is to orient the interface towards the current task and simplify where you can). Get it now?

ps. the movie "Constantine" rocks!

Re:Usability

[gl4ss]

Blender is the only 3d software I know where its impossible to learn without a manual.

That is simply showing how shallowly you delve into such applications and not informing us of anything useful.

blender is also one of the apps for which it's fucking hard to find a manual that's actually anything like the version you downloaded!

they should look at moray(old, not so capable 3d modelling sw) built in help and go from that. that is, the application should have a bundled in help/tutorials WHICH WOULD BE KEPT UP TO DATE and would hold your hand through the features.

Re:Usability

[Mystery00]

Saying 's is not "discoverable" is the same as saying a jet plane's cockpit controls aren't "discoverable". This is a tool for PROFESSIONALS, the only thing they care about is speed, efficiency (time is money) and functionality. If it takes an hour to learn something but then takes 5 minutes to DO something, that is better for a professional than being able to learn something in 5 minutes but then take an hour to actually do your work.

People complaining about Blender's UI are usually kids who jump on the "bad UI" bandwagon because they can't figure out how to make the next Pixar movie in half an hour.

The UI of Blender is very well thought out, for the people that actually use it, and those people are more important than the ones that are still figuring it out. If you want to "discover" how to use it, read the manual, tutorials and learn how 3D production works.

Re:Usability

[Pf0tzenpfritz]

Blender is the only 3d software I know where its impossible to learn without a manual.

What else do you know, then? As just another "pro", I don't feel ashamed to say that I was unable to get anything out of Cinema 4D without the manual when I tried for the first time. Not even to talk about AutoCAD in 3D mode. I dare to claim that practically nobody will get anything three-dimensional done using AutoCAD without the help of a manual (still hard enough) or some training. Maybe newer versions are better, but anything I've seen between 1992 and 2009 was just terrible.

This applies even to 3D software said to be user-friendly, like p.e. VectorWorks. I've seen three freshman classes start with VW and C4D at the university - but I've never seen anyone successfully design even 2D objects without training. I don't say that Blender's interface or documentation are very good (especially the documentation is plain awful, IMO.) But I don't think other tools of similar complexity are that much easier to handle.

Re:Usability

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about the other two, but you can not figure out Maya without a tutorial/manual and I have used various other 3D tools before.
Those other 3D tools also require you to read the manual.

3D tools are very complex some work differently then others and non can be used without a manual.

Re:Usability

[Marxdot]

There are no "standard keys".

Also, baby duck syndrome.

Re:Usability

[teatimebing]

What are you talking about? What 3D suite has a GOOD UI? This isn't Drag and Drop magical effects, like those fire writing apps on the iPad. These are complex tools with complex workflows. It's just as "messy" as Maya and Houdini, and as highly customisable. That's the selling point to studios for these apps, customisable. The Zbrush UI is horrific, yet it's praised incredibly because the output is far more important than the method. Modo probably has the best UI in the market, evidently so because people don't talk about it.

Re:Usability

[teatimebing]

Very untrue. Softimage, max, and Maya all now under the guise of Autodesk, all 3 on first start up throw Introductory videos on how to perform basic navigation, and choose the more common manipulators.

Re:Usability

[SplashMyBandit]

Actually, great effort is spent to make aircraft controls as simple and *consistent* as possible. Even beginners can perform basic flight maneuvers in complex aircraft. More complicated things require more study in aircraft, but the simple things remain simple and *obvious* to any pilot with as little as a few hours hands-on training. Think of Einstein who is paraphrased as, "As simple as possible, but no simpler". If simplification of complex systems is good enough for Einstein then its good enough for me. That was the position I tried to outline - Blender can be made simpler, more consistent, and more discoeverable in many places if you think about it. So your aircraft analogy was kinda poor on your part (just shows you understand neither the principles of good software design nor aircraft design - simplify and make consistent where possible).

People complaining about Blender's UI are usually kids who jump on the "bad UI" bandwagon because they can't figure out how to make the next Pixar movie in half an hour.

I know a great deal about computer graphics, since I write a lot of OpenGL (both fixed functionality and GLSL shaders). I also understand a lot of the maths algorithms and modern techniques (parallalx mapping etc). I understand what I'm trying to do, but what I often cannot see is how to do it with Blender. This is because Blender's interface is not discoverable, poorly laid out, and items elided unnecessarily (hidden). I'm not one of the "kids" you lament about. My criticism of the UI is because I'm both a practicing software developer and technical writer and understand the principles of good UI design - and Blender simply doesn't meet them.

The UI of Blender is very well thought out, for the people that actually use it

That is not true. What you are saying is that Blender suits you personally because you have invested a great deal of time to learn it. In fact, the time you have spent learning Blender makes you a worse judge of its interface from the perspective of the requirements of people who are competent and would like to use Blender, but don't want to deal with its interface in the sorry state it is in. There are programs doing far more complicated things than Blender that are far easier (as in intuitive) to use - eg. many software Integrated Development Environments can do a lot more than Blender. It is this property that sets great UI design from mediocre or poor design. Unfortunately it appears you might be good at 3D modelling but are rather clueless about the principles of human-computer interaction and good software UI design.

As an example, take the fantastic product like OmniGraffle for 2D artwork. It is a joy to use even when doing some complex compositions. It is consistent, helpful and works well. It also has pretty good online documentation. In short, a skilled designer put a great deal of thought in (which can also be said for most Apple products - which is why they have often trounced the competition). Most of what you need to do in Blender is actually not that complicated, yet it is a dog to navigate through and the online help is pathetic (eg. non-existent) or woefully out of date; the python messages are not helpful for non-programmers (fortunately I am a developer, but I realise I'm an atypical user) etc etc.

Re:Usability

[shaitand]

Not all belittling is irrational.

Re:Usability

[BlackPignouf]

I've got no problem with the "hard to learn, easy and fast to use" philosophy of Blender.
It's basically the same with Emacs/Vim.
You want an "easy to learn, not so powerful and not so easy to do advanced stuff"?
Use Sketchup and Notepad.

Re:Usability

[hackertourist]

Some time ago, I decided to try creating some models for 3D printing. I'd never used a 3d CAD package before. I do have experience with 2D vector programs, mainly Adobe Illustrator.

So I started by trying several CAD apps. I'd download one and try to create a simple shape (cube, cylinder).
- Sketchup is great. You're up and running in seconds. The version I used had one big flaw though: there was no way to enter exact dimensions for an object. So no Sketchup for me. (The latest version may be more capable in this regard, though).
I tried several others, including Blender (may have been before the UI redesign). All failed this test. If I can't figure out how to draw a rectangle, you're doing something wrong.

In the end I used Inivis AC3D, which did pass the test.

I've also found that a 3D controller (e.g. the 3DConnexion ones) makes life much simpler than trying to rotate/pan/zoom your object with the mouse. There's no standard gesture for these operations, so each program works differently. This wreaks havoc when you need several programs to create your model (AC3D and Netfabb, in my case).

Re:Usability

[SplashMyBandit]

Many CAD suites have quite decent UIs. They are doing 3D, just in a more logical way (and with different emphasis) on the chaotic artistic "modelling" tools. While not exactly the same the CAD packages can produce 3D meshes with normals, texture coordinates, animations etc etc. The point being that if CAD can have relatively intuitive, discoverable and most importantly *consistent* interfaces, then why can't the modelling tools do it?

Re:Usability

[shaitand]

I find his criticism of the UI wasn't immature it was constructive. He gave specific examples of problems he was having with the UI. You don't have to know the solution to recognize a problem. You don't have to be able to write the program to know a bug or missing critical feature when you see one. Especially a UI bug or feature.

Obviously the problem is a challenging one or it is safe to say the minds who built an advanced 3D modeling platform wouldn't have built an interface the elicits so much criticism. The developers are free to not care and ignore that criticism and do what they want anyway. Or the devs can file the criticism away and use it as window into the mind of a user. After all, the entire point of an interface is to be intuitive and work the way the users expect. I suspect that the devs are creative problem solvers and exactly the type to be up to that challenge and would want all the constructive criticism they can get.

Re:Usability

[dbIII]

Since I haven't as yet seen any 3d solid modelling program with more than a handful of features that doesn't look like somebody dumped a wheelbarrow full of icons on the screen I really cannot see how the GUI of any of those things can be dumbed down to a far enough point to stop complaints about confusion and still be useful. Here's why I called you "kid" - your comment (along with many others here on the same subject - sorry about the baggage from reading stuff from a dozen idiots I dumped on you instead of others) came across as a request for instant gratification combined with appearing to not be able to grasp the concept of there being many options available in solid modelling - and also because I used to do this stuff on paper before wrapping my head around the more confusing AutoCAD GUI in around 1988, a few other ones since and much simpler ones like the blender one now (even the earlier one wasn't too bad) . Every time blender gets mentioned there's a pile of posts about how the interface is shit but nothing about why - thus my challenge above. Even though I've got nothing to do with blender the pointless criticism of "it's all too hard" without any suggestions why is annoying. I don't care about your bio where you try to prove I shouldn't be able to call you kid, just about the general level of pointless noise you were part of which may even be about the older interface for all I know. You had a second chance to post something constructive about an item you think should be improved but instead posted a story about how wonderful you are, which, while interesting, adds nothing of use.

Re:Usability

[teatimebing]

Touché, I have had the privilege of using Solidworks about 6 years ago. It is indeed very clean. Maya has had a great modelling toolset for years, but the interface does indeed not do a lot to promote them. Mirai (written in Common Lisp!), had a much more organised approach and separated modelling, animation, texture maps, into different tabs. Same for Softimage.

Re:Usability

[Anonymous Coward]

Operator Cheat Sheet is a list of API operators for coders to write add-ons with. If that's actually what you want, you can switch the 3D view to a text editor and look at it.

Re:Usability

[mikael_j]

I first tried Blender back when it was a NaN product and not open source. I've downloaded and tried it every now and then since but most of my experience is with Maya and 3dsmax.

I'll agree with those who say that Blender has made huge steps forward. However, the UI feels, to me with experience from other 3D software, a lot like a "programmer UI". It's not just a UI for 3D graphics professionals, it's a UI for Blender-using 3D graphics professionals. That's the problem with it. If you know 3D graphics in general but are unfamiliar with Blender the learning curve can still be a PITA (not as bad as it used to be though, in the past it felt like you were starting over from scratch when going from 3dsmax or Maya to Blender).

Re:Usability

[dbIII]

The question, as I tried to say very rudely above, is how to do that proper design. That's the hard bit that I can't answer after looking at similar things for years and you and all the others that say it should be improved are not even trying to answer.
Just saying "things could be better" doesn't get anyone anywhere.

Re:Usability

[Anonymous Coward]

For a novice like you it would be better to watch a 10-minutes tutorial instead of bitching on forums about things you have no idea about (Blender Cookie has tons of tutorials, including tutorials about basic things like interface and simple modeling). Don't lie -- time is not an issue, you have already wasted more time on that flamewar than time required to learn basics from tutorials. Of course, learning is not nearly as interesting as bitching forums, so whatever is best for you.

Re:Usability

[dbIII]

I'm not a blender developer, and in fact don't even use it much, but I've never seen a "simple" UI to a decent bit of 3D modelling software and can't think of a way to do one without slowing the user down. That's why I put up the rude challenge after a post that initially looked like a childish declaration that it's too hot in summer. Remove the "Kid" bit and it's still a valid question, but don't blame the developers for what an occasional user that's pissed off after hundreds of "it's all too hard" comments over time has written without thinking enough before posting.

would want all the constructive criticism they can get.

That's not what is being posted in all of those "it's all too hard" comments, some of which are probably about older versions of the GUI anyway.

Re:Usability

[dbIII]

Which 3D CAD suite with solid modelling do you consider has a decent UI?

Re:Usability

[Anonymous Coward]

I am pretty good with 3d graphics as I spent years learning modeling, rigging, shading, sculpting, compositing and so on. Still when I try to get into astrophysics I have a really hard time because the whole bunch of scientists behind it did a really awful job when trying to provide a good entry point for the casual astrophysicist who doesn't want to waste a lot of time on all of that boring math stuff but would rather put their time in improving graphics.
Shame on them!

Re:Usability

[Anonymous Coward]

I am completely sick of this fucking 'blame the user' response from the Open Source fanboi community whenever one of their favorite applications is criticized. I just downloaded and opened Blender 2.66 for the first time a few days ago and the UI is shit. [One example, I followed the instructions in a tutorial, pressed "Render" and now my 3D view is gone. How do I get it back to try something else? No fucking idea. No back button, no menu I can find immediately out of 10 to 12 different popup menus all over the screen, promising menu items with names like "View all layers" or "Home" don't work. Finally I stumbled around a while or Googled and found F11 (Show/Hide Render View). Principles like 'don't surprise the user', 'show controls relevant to the current context', or 'make actions easily reversible' are apparently unknown here.] I get paid to create UIs for a living and if we sold paying customers something like this, the company would be bankrupt in short order. And then when somebody asks for help or asks why the UI has to be so obtuse and unconventional, here's all they get in return:

- You have the source, if you don't like it make it better (not my fucking job dickweed - I'm trying to -USE- the software, not write it).

- It's just a complicated problem space, that's why the UI is so clunky (then explain why other people manage to do better).

- Power users are used to it this way so we don't want to change it (there's such a thing as striking a balance between discoverability, learnability and usability and you missed by a mile).

- You didn't pay anything so you can't complain (I guess we're all twelve years old now).

Sound familiar? It's the same in the forums for Gimp, Handbrake, Blender and lots other open source packages. Tired excuses.

Why not just admit the truth? The people who -contribute- to Open Source software are super-enthusiasts and experts in their domain. They know intuitively exactly what they want the app to do, so they (and pretty much only they) don't need an expressive, well-planned UI. In the rush to provide the most feature-rich solution, the UI is the very last thing on their priority list. I understand. Just don't go treating this like a virtue and insist on heaping sarcasm and disdain on new users who want something better.

Re:Usability

[RobertLTux]

part of the problem is that the blender developers have been working on writing the Program and have considered Documentation as SEP.

so what we have is

1 Video "tutorials" that don't document %feature% IN DETAIL (hows about starting with a good transcript of the vids BC??)
2 Outdated and or completely WRONG tutorials (they used an old version and or had a number of nonstandard plugins)
3 a wiki that has MASSIVE sections that are backlinked to older versions

So what i would like to do is as part of a Bad Wolf Ballet project host a set of tutorials using Blender 2.66 (win32).
If anybody would like to step up to help make content (and document how you made whatever) email me directly with the subject Bad Wolf Ballet.

Re:Usability

[Beezlebub33]

Sound familiar? It's the same in the forums for Gimp, Handbrake, Blender and lots other open source packages. Tired excuses.

At this point, I have to speak up for GIMP. They have realized that there has been a long-term UI issue. They have been working on it. It's all volunteer so it goes slow, but there is distinct progress. I don't think the same is happening for Blender.

Re:Usability

[K. S. Kyosuke]

The people who -contribute- to Open Source software are super-enthusiasts and experts in their domain. They know intuitively exactly what they want the app to do, so they (and pretty much only they) don't need an expressive, well-planned UI. In the rush to provide the most feature-rich solution, the UI is the very last thing on their priority list. I understand.

No, you most likely don't. The problem is different. Many of the FLOSS app UIs are expert-oriented, rather than beginner-oriented or even everyone-oriented. It's perfectly possible to be very productive in those interfaces (early Blender was very much a streamlined "one hand on your mouse, another hand on your keyboard" kind of experience), but they do't accomodate new users easily. Those UIs *are* expressive, but not exactly discoverable.

Re:Usability

[postofreason]

There may not be any standard keys per se, but when you have a key that says,"del" right on it (on most keyboards), and that is used in many other programs, including the ones provided by the manufacturer, as a delete key, and which functions as a delete key at the system level and in most bioses, then I'd have to say, if it looks like a delete key, and quacks like a delete key, then it is a delete key.

Re:Usability

[geminidomino]

Have the GIMP devs pulled their heads from their (respective, I hope) colons and backtracked on the stupid "save as xpf regardless of original format" decision? If not, then I offer that up as exhibit A that the progress you're speaking of is actually moving backwards.

Re:Usability

[SplashMyBandit]

Fantastic! Good luck with the project - it'll make a huge difference.

Re:Usability

[SplashMyBandit]

No worries, we can move on now. I'll post my reply to another of your posts.

Re:Usability

[HornWumpus]

Start with the basics.

Cross platform is all well and good. But using your own file browse dialog is just _brain dead_. Especially one as broken as Blender's.

Step one, use the OS's supplied file open etc dialogs.

Step two, use the OS's supplied menus and window frames. Alt in windows, Mac key etc.

Step three, use the OS's supplied context menu system. Right clicking on something in should bring up a list of things you can do with them. Useful menus (everywhere) also include Hotkeys so you can learn them.

Step four, fix help.

Re:Usability

[SplashMyBandit]

Well, in both software UI design and technical writing the first things to do is perform an analysis to answer things like:

• * Who are we building this for? are they all expert or do we want to support non-expert users too?
• * What are the tasks we want to accomplish?
• * What tasks are related?
• * What is the minimal set of information and actions we need to accomplish the task?
• * In what order must tasks be completed?
• * How can we simplify things? how can we get the human to do less and the machine to do more?
• * How to we achieve consistency between actions?
• * How do we achieve consistency with what the user already knows ? (eg. window management like open/close/minimize/resize/dock)

The list is not exhaustive, and doesn't cover the technical parts of construction, but it is a starting point.

After doing such an exercise with Blender you could conclude something like the following:

• * Power users will ignore the UI and use keybindings a great deal. Ensure everything has sensible keybindings. Ensure modifiers (SHIFT, ALT etc) have consistency when applied to different actions (eg. SHIFT might always toggle something off).
• * Power users want customizability. Ensure that they can customize their workspace to some degree (the software cannot be a straightjacket). Power users will want to use the software in ways the original designers didn't think of, so the designers should not be too strict with flows.
• * Intermediate users will use icons and toolbars.
• * New users will use menus, tooltips and documentation. Ensure these are available. Don't modify menus or dialogs to hide items - it can be confusing as to why the menu item was seen in the past but not any more.

In the case of Blender the UI should be arranged around the functional areas and the tasks within the functional areas. Some of the major ones are:

• Project level: create new scene, import/export scene
• Model level: create new model, import/export model. Model global attributes and metadata
• Parts and part groups: parts are groups of related faces that are the basic level of animation, definitions of parts into part groups, definition of faces into parts
• Modelling: creation of parts, association of parts with model, duplication of parts, creation of faces, creation and manipulation of of vertexes, display and fine editing of vertex coordinates, face winding, normal adjustment, orthogonal three-view and backgound template image control (great for making models from 3-view drawings or photos); then there is a whole set of advanced set operations for solid modelling (but noobs don't need these to get started)
• Skinning: textures (color, specular, transparency, normal maps) and texture coordinates, materials, effects (bump/parallax mapping)
• Animation: animation of parts, animation display controls, skeletal articulation
• Rendering: view/zoom controls, lighting and shading, background, special effects (eg. lightning flash) etc, video and still creation
• etc

Now each of these modes are not exclusive, but mostly when you are working on adjusting vertexes you don't want to see the animation controls - but the default view in blender brings them up. Rather than object and edit modes as in blender it would be better (IMHO) to reorder the *default* views into the functional areas. When I'm fiddling with vertexes I don't want to see the animation controls or material editor as they are irrelevant. When the model is nearly complete and I do want to cross-controls I should then be able to select a dialog from any functional area and dock it to my dialog palette. Even better would be to save this new view in a list of customized views (that gives power users some customizability in the way they want to work). Blender should also drop its windowing system and instead use a standard widget toolkit to give consistency in windowing paradigm and window decorations with

Re:Usability

[Anonymous Coward]

You pull up that textblock the same way you pull up any textblock, from the selection dropdown in the header of any text editor subwindow. If you don't have a text editor subwindow at the moment, you can access one by using the window type dropdown at the corner of any subwindow, including your 3dview, and selecting the text editor. It's the one with the same icon as the operator cheat sheet help listing.

For anyone who's actually wondering, the operator cheat sheet is just a list of the various available python operands, intended to be used in blenders python console, also available via the window type dropdown on any subwindow.

Re:Usability

[dbIII]

See now - you can do a lot better than your insulting "best example of how not to design a UI" (ignoring tens of thousands of VB in-house GUI atrocities) and "UI has grown by evolution and not by sensible design" and then reacting like a scalded snake when a mild insult came back from a bystander like me that doesn't think the GUI is bad for the task it does.
While I disagree strongly with the idea of GUIs that change with context and would consider your three different interface idea crap I can see why you are suggesting it to try to comfort new users, but don't think it would work or give more than an illusion of comfort. New users still want to get a task done which may need advanced features and really don't want a GUI to hide a pile of stuff under a twisty group of menu passages when they've seen somebody do something with an icon in a video/screenshot/over the shoulder.
Do you see now? It's not easy to do a GUI for solid modelling of 3D objects and all the other bits on top without it being very "busy". Your three interface idea adds in even more complexity and IMHO only adds speed bumps onto what's still going to be a hard learning curve.

Now in Blender you can get 3-view with background display and 3D pointer coordinate display but it is not part of the standard Blender interface

It wasn't part of the standard AutoCAD interface either and probably still isn't - they are views you apply when you need them just like in blender etc. In CAD there's often a lot of work on views outside of the top, side, end views and instead some view orthogonal to what you are working on. You can also use AutoCAD like a 3D sketch program (your TLAR) and blender like a CAD program so it comes down to what the user wants to do, so I don't see your comment about that as valid criticism - simply exposing that you do not appear to accept that the GUI should allow both users with a casual approach and a precise approach.

Re:Usability

[Anonymous Coward]

The delete works just fine in blender, so does the x key. They both delete things.

Re:Usability

[dbIII]

That's a lot of extra work for a volunteer project that works on at least three platforms with a lot more than three types of file open dialogs, so I can't see step one being viable or even useful - three or four times as much tutorial information on the GUI with a lot of different screenshots. Step two sucks on an MS platform since you have to manage sub-windows yourself anyway, so why not do it everywhere. Step three also sucks for something cross-platform. Four sounds good, except with your other suggestions it would be a lot harder than it would be without them.

Re:Usability

[HornWumpus]

Blender is not the only cross platform program. Most can use common dialogs and comply with the style of their target OSs.

Blender does nothing like the environment it operates in. It is only cross platform in the sense that it presents it's ugliness the same bad way on all OSs.

It serves as a warning, don't try to reinvent all the UI widgets for your crossplatform app or your app will suck like Blender.

Re:Usability

[SplashMyBandit]

and would consider your three different interface idea crap

Blender already has the three interfaces, they are just applied inconsistently rather than consistently. I'm surprised you cannot see this.

It wasn't part of the standard AutoCAD interface either and probably still isn't - they are views you apply when you need them just like in blender etc

I get it, your imagination doesn't extend past what has been done already. That's ok, it's not uncommon. However it does show that the (innovative) *design* part of software would not be your strong point - hence you argue against those that do know something about design. "Who moved my cheese?" might be an excellent book for you to read.

Re:Usability

[dbIII]

Hence far better advice would be something like Qt (or even your own widgets) instead of your suggestion to use something different for each OS, which is, as you put things "just _brain dead_" advice.

Re:Usability

[dbIII]

With your second comment you are showing that you either didn't read the bit you quoted or didn't understand it, so lay off with your "imagination" insults.
Which is it - you are saying the interface should be more standard but also should be something new and dishing out more insults despite completely losing it over my "kid" response to your childish "best example of how not to design a UI"? It looks like we've hit a dead end where you have nothing to add other than insults, buzzwords, and "best practice" which is the fucking annoying mode changing UI which has an even steeper learning curve (all of which the blender developers would have thought of way back when NaN was doing it over a decade ago), and you seem to be showing you are unwilling to listen and just want to make noise. Have you even used the thing you are bitching about for long enough to work out the GUI?

Re:Usability

[SplashMyBandit]

Have you even used the thing you are bitching about for long enough to work out the GUI?

Yes.

completely losing it over my "kid" response to your childish

You will note that I'm not alone in calling out your unwarranted and inacurate insult.

With your second comment you are showing that you either didn't read the bit you quoted or didn't understand it, so lay off with your "imagination" insults.

My intend was not to insult. Yes I did read your comment. I think it is you that can't grok the concept myself and others are trying to get across. Yes, I acknowledge you are an expert user in the product. No need to be so defensive about what a *majority* of newcomers (who may well be experts in other products and computer graphics, despite being new to Blender) think about Blender. Your utterly defensive nature is puzzling. May I inquire as to why you are so resistant to suggestions that the Blender user interface could use some re-organization?

and "best practice" which is the fucking annoying mode changing UI which has an even steeper learning curve (all of which the blender developers would have thought of way back when NaN was doing it over a decade ago)

I think you have misread my post and that is why you have lost your temper. I suggested that the current three modes of UI that Blender *already supports* be re-organized to be more consistent and discoverable. My new suggestion is that customized views be remembered, hardly a revolutionary suggestion and one that works well with other tools (including more complex ones, such as the Eclipse IDE). I'm guessing you don't do software development for a living, yes? almost no product gets it right the first time, and I don't think NaN's work is any exception, and product can and should be reorganized as experience with real users is gained. This is one of the reasons why product UIs get changed, and myself and others are calling for just such a thing. It really isn't any reason to become enraged about and start cursing in a public forum about.

So am I right to believe that you consider the Blender UI the height of perfection and in your humble opinion nothing should be changed or restructured to support new users? is that a correct reading of your statements? incidentally, you don't happen to be the UI developer for Blender do you - that would explain why you are taking suggestions so personally (although wouldn't explain why you don't appear to understand the realities of software development and product lifecycle). I have an open mind and am very prepared to listen, if you are prepared to rationally lay out your particular objections to the changes I've proposed (eg. re-organize the *existing* interfaces to suit new people as much as veteran users [who use keybindings anyway, so the re-org doesn't really affect them]).

Re:Usability

[Sigg3.net]

Seconded. I really love GIMP and have done so since the moment I found it. I used a shady version of Photoshop 5 before the switch, and was glad I could replace my rather simple needs with a FOSS alternative.

However, some choices they've made recently are clearly wrong. I use GIMP weekly to take a screenshot and save as JPG. Since the last couple of minor versions I'm always stumped when I hit CTRL+S, or even select File->Save as, only to be met with an error message telling me I _have to_ double back and select File->Export As. This is clearly a usability issue specific to GIMP. The software should understand that if I choose something else than xcf, then I'm exporting. I don't need the software telling me exactly what I want to do, because I know what I want to do, and this is the way applications do it. Except for GIMP.

Remember, I love GIMP, and I will use it as long as its available and usable. But it's a limit to how much nitpicking a program should require. KISS!

Re:Usability

[sg_oneill]

Unless your doing industrial CAD, your not actually going to be using Autocad for 3d work, its not its strong point.

Personally I found Cinema 4D very intuitive although the tag thing admittedly had me scratching my head a bit. However I'm not talking about advanced features (Nobody would deny that basic primitive modeling is very straightforward in C4d. Select if from the menu and drag it about).

The problem with blender is that its not even obvious how to do THAT. Its a huge cognitive load at step 1.

UI

[Anonymous Coward]

Since 2.5 came out Blender's UI has improved incredibly. I now prefer it to tools like 3ds Max and Maya, which feel clunky by comparison. And anyone who says Blender is a toy and can't be used for serious projects clearly doesn't know what they are talking about. Blender can read/write most formats, has excellent rigging and animation tools, an incredible compositor, integrated video editing, UV editing, sculpting, remeshing tools, motion tracking, soft and hard body simulation, hair, network rendering, several renderers available, including the new (excellent) cycles renderer, the list goes on and on. It has improved FBX support now, which means it integrates with most game engine asset pipelines seamlessly. Plus it has fairly easy-to-pick-up python scripting built-in, which means whatever you need that isn't there you can hack in without too much work.

Unlike many OSS projects, the blender foundation does a really good job of accepting patches, and creating branches for what seem at first to be random ideas, that quickly develop into can't-live-without features. And yes, that does lead to some bloat, but so what -- it's still a fraction of the size of 3dsMax, and far more functional in most areas.

Seriously, if you haven't tried Blender since 2.49, you haven't used blender at all.

Heh, captcha "approval"

Re:UI

[wilhoitm]

I agree and correct me if I am wrong but even Maya and 3ds Max have nothing like the Cycles unbiased renderer. With Maya and 3ds Max you have to shelling out $1000 or $2000 more for an external unbiased renderer. I think this "Introduction to Cycles" video says it all http://www.blenderguru.com/videos/introduction-to-cycles Also, once the Pie Menus ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCIoYf8-5pI ) are added to the next version I think Blender might just be the best out there!

Re:UI

[pspahn]

Once, when I was young and idealistic, I really had a lot of fun playing around with TrueSpace, and subsequently Blender... for a bit.

Of course, then I got older and got into web development and lost touch with the creative side of things, and this article and your comment comes along.

Cheers, I think I might check out Blender for the first time in 10+ years. I'm sure I'll be delighted at what is possible now.

Re:UI

[Pf0tzenpfritz]

10 years? Well, prepare to be surprised. I still remember the -horrific- 1.x GUI. Can't believe that I really used it for everyday's work back then.

Re:UI

[Grim Beefer]

If we're talking about unbiased render engines, Max got the Iray engine a couple of years back. 3dsMax and Maya already both come packaged with Mental Ray, which produces amazing results. Lots of people use 3rd party render engines, such as V-ray, but that really comes down to preference.

how bout them changelogs?

[X0563511]

How about linking to the changelog instead of directly to the download page? Or even better, both?

Sometimes open source loses ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Maya = Closed Source software from Autodesk
Blender = Open Source software
You are comparing orange to apple, two different things...

No. He is comparing two similar pieces of software. The fact that their respective developers are organized and funded differently does not change the fact that these are similar pieces of software. Open source is not some panacea, there is no law of nature that says it will deliver the better product, it will at times suffer from a lack of *capable* volunteers and/or a lack of subsidies/donations to hire paid professionals.

Re:Sometimes open source loses ...

[Anonymous Coward]

One is open source, which mean if you don't like it you can improve it.
The other is close source, which mean if you don't like, tough luck, you lost your hard earned money.

So he is comparing apples to oranges.

Re:Sometimes open source loses ...

[Anonymous Coward]

One is open source, which mean if you don't like it you can improve it.

The Blender manual claims it has been usable since 1994. If it is still inferior after everyone has had the source code for nearly 20 years then your argument has failed.

The other is close source, which mean if you don't like, tough luck, you lost your hard earned money.

Which fails to address the specific point in this argument. That the closed source app is considered superior in numerous ways by its target audience. You are merely offering a straw man.

So he is comparing apples to oranges.

No. The two software products address the same audience and the same tasks. The method of organization and funding is irrelevant. It is an apples to apples comparison, merely the case where one apple is preferred over the other, admittedly the preferred product being unaffordable by hobbyists.

Re:Sometimes open source loses ...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Blender manual claims it has been usable since 1994. If it is still inferior after everyone has had the source code for nearly 20 years then your argument has failed.

The only failure here is your total lack of any research.

  Blender was a closed source program for roughly the first ten years of its life. The company, NaN (Not a Number), inc. was one of those profitable small businesses that got caught in the fallout from the dotcom collapse, and went under. They had begun Blender as an in-house tool for their own artists, but began selling it in the latter years; the folks who bought Blender and loved it managed to raise the cash to purchase the source code and copyrights from the now-defunct NaN, and released it as open source.

  It was a small community working on it until the past few years.

Re:Sometimes open source loses ...

[History's Coming To]

The two software products address the same audience and the same tasks.

People who have $3k to spend on a 3D package != people who don't have $3k to spend on a 3D package.

Re:Sometimes open source loses ...

[K. S. Kyosuke]

The two software products address the same audience and the same tasks.

People who have $3k to spend on a 3D package != people who don't have $3k to spend on a 3D package.

That's a stupid argument and you know it. Now go away before I taunt you a second time.

Re:Sometimes open source loses ...

[Will.Woodhull]

Maya = Closed Source software from Autodesk Blender = Open Source software You are comparing orange to apple, two different things...

No. He is comparing two similar pieces of software. The fact that their respective developers are organized and funded differently does not change the fact that these are similar pieces of software. Open source is not some panacea, there is no law of nature that says it will deliver the better product, it will at times suffer from a lack of *capable* volunteers and/or a lack of subsidies/donations to hire paid professionals.

No, again, and a thousand times no.

Maya is being developed by programmer-artists to make money for the Autodesk stockholders by selling artsy tools to commercial artists. Blender is being developed by artist-programmers to make better artsy tools for their own use. There is a world of difference in the results.

From my POV as an artist, Maya is crippled by the security features and database management methodology that it needs to be useful to a commercial art business employing dozens of artists, any of whom could quit at any time and carry away the family jewels in a thumb drive, save for Maya's ways of limiting that. I don't need that kind of protection, and I am not interested in taking on the limitations that Maya has to impose. I don't need a database that is implemented in subdirectory structures where persons with an access to one mesh can be prevented from accessing any textures, rigging, other meshes, etc. But I recognize that some commercial art projects do need that kind of control.

Maya is good if you are running a commercial art business or if you want to work for such a business. (If you are willing to limit your creative development to the confines of your assigned cubicle.) Blender is better for the person who wants to do CG art and is not directly concerned with paying the rent through that activity.

UI

[Anonymous Coward]

Blah blah blah I don't like Blender's UI. Um.. yeah no duh it's blender. Blender is sick though, it's awesome to have free open source software out there that does everything it does (and it really does everything.)

Beating a dead horse

[Anonymous Coward]

ITT: comments about the interface

This is coming from a group of CLI nerds.

Then swap them

[tepples]

Anonymous Coward wrote:

putting the 3d cursor move on left click where it gets constantly clicked accidentally

Swapping left and right mouse buttons so that select is on LMB and move cursor is on RMB is the first thing I do when I set up Blender.

That's great and all...

[Tarlus]

...but will it blend?

Regarding the UI

[razorshark]

There have already been several posts about Blender's UI, and the topic of its UI always seems to come up every time a story about Blender appears.

The problem seems to be an assumption about modern software being easy enough to pick up and use without requiring a manual or even a basic tutorial. This might suffice for some software, maybe most, but for a complex 3D development package with thousands of different features and functions, there's a limit as to how far that "dive-in-and-use" approach works. I'm not suggesting there aren't ways the UI could be improved further; of course there are. It's just that sometimes you need to read and study in order to learn, and you can't just click buttons and expect to pick things up from a cursory approach.

3D modelling and development is hard. There are a ton of different things that are expected in modern 3D packages and if Blender is to support them, then that means more buttons, more options, and more complexity. Some of it can be redesigned to provide novice users a less intimidating experience, but it's the nature of the beast, and it's unfair to harp on about it when it's been shown that you CAN use Blender to do good work.

Re:Regarding the UI

[socceroos]

Well said. Blender has come so far since the 2.49 series. I actually find the interface in Blender to be far and away the quickest workflow in any 3D package I've used.

er....

[Anonymous Coward]

Will it blend ... er ... what is it you wanted blended?

Captcha: disposal
No, really.

OSS graphics tools

[jones_supa]

While the desktop is always a bit broken, at least the open source graphics tools for Linux are excellent.

- Blender
- Inkscape
- Gimp

There might be some certain enterprise features missing, but the tools are not "broken" in any way. The pack is completely usable for semi-professional work right now.

This works, and should be improved even further.

Re:OSS graphics tools

[serviscope_minor]

While the desktop is always a bit broken,

Indeed it is! That's why I like Linux, where I don't have to suffer the desktop metaphor. FVWM FTW.

There might be some certain enterprise features missing,

Well, I'm sure if you paid someone, they could throw in a licensing server, a dependency on an obscure version of java with no option to upgrade and some very expensive 19" rackmount hardware which is inexplicably slower and less reliable than a commodity rackmount box.

Re:OSS graphics tools

[deathguppie]

Though I love all of those programs, I do have one complaint about Inkscape in that it quickly becomes overwhelmed when using effects or blur in multiple layers, and becomes completely non responsive. I don't know what can be done to overcome this but it is a serious problem if you are trying to do large or complex projects as they are at this time out of reach for the product.

Re:OSS graphics tools

[razorshark]

Indeed. Filter effects in Inkscape are its Achilles' heel, and although the performance (apparently) improves with each new version it's something that seems to be a continuing problem compared to commercial packages. General workarounds include using layers and hiding filters that you don't need displayed all the time, reduce geometry and nodes, and simply make sure enough RAM is available for the program.

I do know for a fact there have been several GSoC projects addressing this very issue. It's a pity that it's so much work in improving its performance, but if it was easy it'd been done ages ago. This is why commercial software sometimes wins out - paying people to work on the boring, tedious but necessary stuff results in fixing this issue, but this isn't an option for most open source so you take what you can get.

Re:OSS graphics tools

[Anonymous Coward]

you may include Krita in the list... it is already used by professionals instead of photoshop because has superior features for drawing and blending.

Please specify why the Maya UI is easier to use

[G3ckoG33k]

Please specify why the Maya UI (or any other 3D package) is easier to use than the Blender UI. I've never used Maya and would like to get some idea what are the differences.

Please be specific.

Re:Please specify why the Maya UI is easier to use

[Anonymous Coward]

Please specify why the Maya UI (or any other 3D package) is easier to use than the Blender UI. I've never used Maya and would like to get some idea what are the differences.

Please be specific.

It costs money! After spending a big wad of cash on it, I'm sure as hell not going to admit there's anything else worth using, especially if it costs nothing! I hate you hippies SO MUCH right now!

Re:Please specify why the Maya UI is easier to use

[deathguppie]

Here you go. http://wiki.cgsociety.org/index.php/Comparison_of_3d_tools
Blender compares extremely well with other sweets, especially now with it's new dynamic topology sculpting
http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Dev:Ref/Release_Notes/2.66/Dynamic_Topology_Sculpting

Complexity redux

[Anonymous Coward]

The depth of features available to a dedicated Blender user is staggering. You can make an full-length feature without ever leaving Blender, including a spin-off game, promotional material etc and programme anything missing with proper python integration including basic IDE, on ANY computer and OS out-of-the-box, for free, with the possible exception of writing music and foley, NOTHING else needed except an investment of time and intelligence. A true swiss army knife of cinematography. Amazing!

Obligatory

[Anonymous Coward]

"Bite my highly specular metal ass."

Blender isn't for defeatists

[freedom_surfer]

Blender is an awesome tool that just gets better by the day. Defeatists won't like it because it takes effort to learn how to use it. However once you do, you'll be addicted and basically only be limited by your imagination and your willingness to learn more. It is such a powerful tool that even after using it for almost 4 years now I still learn new abilities and hack gems outside of the new stuff that is added all the time.

I can't thank the blender devs enough. Keep up the good work and don't let the haters get you down. Our community is better off without people who don't contribute more than insults and complaints. Which reminds me, time to make another donation. I now make a living doing something I actually enjoy because of blender.

Blender is FREE

[Quakeulf]

What part of free do you not understand? Stop complaining about it. You have no reason at all. I switched from 3Dsmax to Blender and have never looked back. Seamless integration with the Unity made it superior as a development tool for graphics and animations. Whenever I see people complain about a free product like Blender for petty reasons remember that jumping off a bridge is free too.

Re:Blender is FREE

[serviscope_minor]

Stop complaining about it.

But I like pretending to be a professional photographer, 3D animator, enterprise network administrator, web-scale programmer and professional musician on the internet.

Re:Blender is FREE

[Sigg3.net]

What part of free do you not understand? Stop complaining about it. You have no reason at all.

It's quite obvious _you_ don't understand free software. Free does not mean no-cost or gratis (as in grace). It means that the software is licensed under a Free software license (specifically GPL2) which invokes the right to certain Freedoms.

What you're talking about is that something that comes at no charge and without responsibility on provider and user, a gratis give-away. Free software, in contrast, comes with responsibilities on both parties. If someone discovers something that is wrong, they should report it (or "complain"), using the proper channels and preferrably by filing a bug report. This is the users responsibility, granted that the user expects improvement and further use of the software. The reponsibility on the software makers' side is to meet the "complaints" and/or bug reports, and either follow the user's suggestions or explain why they don't qualify as an improvement or not within the aim of the software.

Free software is NOT free of responsibilities and expectations. In fact, it's the very reason Free software exists at all. It promises to do X, you expect it to do X, it comes close to X but not entirely, so improvement is needed. It is this open democratic process which makes F/OSS pervasive in today's technologies.

But of course, just shouting 'it sux!' is not really constructive and will be ignored. But F/OSS is open to constructive criticism. It depends on it.

with power comes complexity

[Anonymous Coward]

Once again many bad comments about the UI of blender prompt me to make my first post here!
I used max, Maya and hundreds of other commercial and opensource. software in the past 20 years of my career. Blender offers tbe best interface EVER, but you have to get used to it like any new user interface. You can't expect to enter in an airplane cockpit and start flying just by randomly clicking around.
Once you blend your mind around it makes sense and you wish every software had the same UI paradigm, I never been so productive but It takes time and dedication and it pays off considering it has some unique features all in one single neat package.
Which other software you know off where you can customize the UI just by right clicking in the panel and run your own python script?
Also consider that 3d ain't easy to grasp but the blender community offers greats tutorials like no other but infos are a bit spread around several sites. Besides all this, the people I met behind the foundation are special and deserve a big kudos
Eli
(Italy)

2.66?

[sa1lnr]

Hah, 2.66a will be out in a day or so. :)

Display Support?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand supporting high pixel density displays. What are you changing in a program's software to make it work better on a higher resolution display? How could a larger screen not be supported?

Re:Display Support?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand supporting high pixel density displays. What are you changing in a program's software to make it work better on a higher resolution display? How could a larger screen not be supported?

Icons and other screen features such as text and buttons needs to be scaled - icons that used to be 64x64 may have to be repainted at 256x256 on a high density display. For historical reasons, icons are stored as bitmaps.

If i can get "buy in"

[RobertLTux]

You don't have any of the needed skills do you???

Re:If i can get "buy in"

[SplashMyBandit]

Lol. Actually I'm a practicing software developer and technical writer trained in the Information Mapping methodology. I'm not a Blender expert, more of a casual user, but am working on an cross-platform OpenGL+Java jet combat flight simulator in my spare time. So I have the skillz but unfortunately not the time. If I wasn't already committed to getting my sim out the door I'd be helping you for sure. I'm a big believer that good documentation can do a great deal to help users cope with even Blender's poor UI (and I strive to create great documentation myself). Sorry I can't help directly - I'm just too damn excited about my sim to set it aside. I do think your project is a fantastic idea, and I wish you the best of luck with it - it is sorely needed.

When you have a hammer ...

[dbIII]

So am I right to believe that you consider the Blender UI the height of perfection

Why are you pretending to be stupid? Also why are you pretending to lack the social skills to understand when you are being quite obviously intentionally insulting? I'm simply pointing out that it's not the "best example of how not to design a UI" (did you really expect such juvenile bullshit to remain unquestioned?) and you haven't come up with a concrete suggestion to improve it that hasn't already been tried and failed before in other applications before. If it's so bad as you suggest it should be easy shouldn't it?
Your accusation of a lack of imagination when we are still discussing your suggestions is an especially misleading insult. How would you even know?

I'm guessing you don't do software development for a living, yes?

I worked for quite a while as an engineer using CAD and FEA but have also written some software, which is why I can laugh at your misguided suggestion in another post that a 3D modelling package should have an interface like an IDE. Sorry, the workflows are just so wildly different that it's even less like a usable environment than desktop publishing would be. The closest thing would be like labview and even that sort of interface would translate very badly (also that's a far worse interface then blender even for what it's intended purpose). The hammer of an IDE is a poor fit even if you think 3D solid modelling and everything else blender does (which I know less about) looks like a nail.

Re:When you have a hammer ...

[SplashMyBandit]

I worked for quite a while as an engineer using CAD and FEA but have also written some software, which is why I can laugh at your misguided suggestion in another post that a 3D modelling package should have an interface like an IDE.

The workflow for 3D is indeed different than an IDE. My point was that a modern IDE actually has a more complex set of tasks than 3D modelling, yet IDEs are far more discoverable and consistent. I did not say that Blender should fit the IDE document model - although it is a less bad fit than you think (Blender actually has such a model, except that the panes are reversed in most views with the document view to left and the "project" view [the scene] to the right; Blender and an IDE are much closer in design than you think, if you care to look). Blender has the right elements there, they just need to be re-organized into the way people work (the Information Mapping I've mentioned is based on psychological research of how people learn).

I'm simply pointing out that it's not the "best example of how not to design a UI" (did you really expect such juvenile bullshit to remain unquestioned?)

Ok, we have your opinion. Then we have my opinion, in which I'm joined by very many others (as a quick Google search will attest to). We'll have to leave it as a difference of opinion then.

and you haven't come up with a concrete suggestion to improve it that hasn't already been tried and failed before in other applications before.

Actually, almost all large modern applications largely follow the design principles I mentioned. This is what makes Blender stand out. Now, one could be of the opinion that working in 3D is somehow "special" so the usual user interface rules don't apply. This is wrong, IMHO. Again, I say this as a practicing modern software developer who has actually built a small 3D modelling application (increasing the number of features does not change the design aspects I'm talking about).

Also why are you pretending to lack the social skills to understand when you are being quite obviously intentionally insulting?

Well, I'm countering your arrogant statements with an equal level of vitriol. Wake up to the fact that you started it. You initiated the tone by throwing a completely ignorant insult about and haven't stopped since then. Now you take umbrage that someone has now reflected your conceit and arrogance with equal measure. Well, perhaps you ought not to lead your discussions with fact-free insults when you know nothing about the person you are addressing. Other commentators have also rightly pointed out that your leading post started in an unnecessarily hostile manner. So take a look in the mirror - if you want civil discussions on the Internet then *you* should not lead your counter-comment by being a jerk. I'm fully prepared to stop trading barbs if you are prepared to calm down.

Finally, if you want to dismiss my suggestions then it is fine. If you have done a Google search about user's experience with the UI it is clear they have very many gripes. While you can dismiss some of these gripes as "kids" (as if being a n00b was some kind of crime) who don't want to make an effort, many of these comments are from people who have used Blender a lot, are productive, but can still think of ways where Blender could be more consistent or ease use (eg. allow better use of muscle memory). I'm sure you have a few improvements you can think of, yes?

Here's an exercise for you. Please tell point to the Blender documentation that shows how to edit the normals of a mesh? What about how to adjust the normals of a mesh so they point outward (without using the accelerator key combo CTRL N when in the correct mode). These are exceedingly common operations, yet Blender does a poor job of showing users what functionality is available (in contrast, IDEs show everything you can do, even if new users don't understand what it all means). Which means it has a poor UI, and this UI should not be used as an example for building other software (I certainly avoided its model when building my own 3D tool).

Re:When you have a hammer ...

[dbIII]

My point was that a modern IDE actually has a more complex set of tasks than 3D modelling

Epic fail. You've got nothing but ignorance, insults and a thin skin.

Re:When you have a hammer ...

[SplashMyBandit]

Epic fail. You've got nothing but ignorance, insults and a thin skin.

Ah, coming out swinging just like your first post. No constructive comments, just more reactionary statements that "the existing way is the best way". Actually I don't have a thin skin at all. Your opinion means nothing to me, since it is pretty clear you don't understand the principles of UI design (except as a user) and learning psychology at all - you simply haven't made a cogent argument as to why Blender's UI is so superior that the arguments of the community can be dismissed. Note, with regard to "thin skin" I was just trying to hold up a mirror so you could become at least a little self-aware of how obnoxious you were right out of the gate (as I have said numerous times, other Slashdotters also noticed this jerk-esque behaviour in your posts, especially the unwarranted and incorrect assumption of your first sentences). Sadly, you didn't take the hint and calm down to discuss your objections in detail and rationally (as I said, I was fully prepared to listen). I'm glad I don't have to work or live with you, and I'm sure I'm not alone there.

Blatantly incidentally insulting someone with your first statements, carrying on with curses, and then complaining they have a "think skin" shows a pretty munted view of how discussion works on a public forum. It's like a rapist complaining that a women asked for it because she chose a certain style of dress. I did not ask you to insult me, I defended myself from some random jerkoff on the internet who made assertions without any shreds of proof, better suggestions, or sensible counter-comment. So please get a grip dude. Some people would call you a troll. I wouldn't go that far, but your offensive posture and bad temper could well put you lurking under the bridge with some kind of mental malaise for sure.

Ah, you can't have used a modern IDE with lots of plugins (just like 3D tools have lots of plugins) on a huge project (several hundred thousand lines, with lots of different types of code that require different sets of plugins and tools). Remember, while I try not to use Blender often, I do use it for tasks that I can't be bothered writing OpenGL or format manipulation algorithm for - while I use several modern IDEs and a bunch of plugins every single day (depending on whether I'm doing work for a client or my own work). It appears you haven't done any recent large-scale software development or you wouldn't use "epic fail" to disguise the ignorance or your assertion, rather than constructing an argument such as a point-by-point rebuttal.

But let's agree to disagree so we don't waste any more time.

Re:When you have a hammer ...

[dbIII]

Look, you demonstrated with that portion I quoted that you cannot grasp the subject matter so there's no point rambling about rapists or whatever. Most of what you've written has nothing at all to do with your insults about the GUI.

Re:When you have a hammer ...

[SplashMyBandit]

Thanks for commenting.