Blender 2.66 Released 158
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."
Sweet! (Score:2)
Lots of nice new little features!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Maya = Closed Source software from Autodesk
Blender = Open Source software
You are comparing orange to apple, two different things...
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Wait a second. You have something good to say about blender's UI?
It sucks balls. Big wet donkey balls.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 deve
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 cre
Re: (Score:3)
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 w
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re:Sometimes open source loses ... (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
People who have $3k to spend on a 3D package != people who don't have $3k to spend on a 3D package.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:1)
I'll consider using Maya when they give it away for free including its source code.
Re: (Score:2)
I think they're doing just fine without your patronage.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
What are you? Some kind of Rocket MAN... burning out your fuse up here alone?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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,
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Usability (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 [wings3d.com] or similar (Mirai, Nendo) for a usable interface.
Re: (Score:1)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 an
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just saying "things could be better" doesn't get anyone anywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
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 th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, in both software UI design and technical writing the first things to do is perform an analysis to answer things like:
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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"
Re: (Score:2)
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
When you have a hammer ... (Score:2)
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 b
Re: (Score:2)
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 desig
Re: (Score:2)
Epic fail. You've got nothing but ignorance, insults and a thin skin.
Re: (Score:2)
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 "thi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Seriously, I am only saying this:
>Implying Blender has a bad UI
Re: (Score:2)
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 soft
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 co
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Usability (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. Nevermind that they overhauled the UI between 2.4 and 2.6, throwing just about everything away in the process.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re:Usability (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 gen
Re: (Score:2)
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 Ba
Re: (Score:2)
If i can get "buy in" (Score:2)
You don't have any of the needed skills do you???
Re: (Score:2)
Then swap them (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
UI (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
how bout them changelogs? (Score:4, Informative)
How about linking to the changelog [blender.org] instead of directly to the download page? Or even better, both?
That's great and all... (Score:5, Funny)
...but will it blend?
Regarding the UI (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
OSS graphics tools (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Please specify why the Maya UI is easier to use (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
Here you go. http://wiki.cgsociety.org/index.php/Comparison_of_3d_tools [cgsociety.org]
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 [blender.org]
Blender is FREE (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 re
2.66? (Score:2)
Hah, 2.66a will be out in a day or so. :)