blender vs 3dmax

[PeterNewman]

Ah, the good old "intuitive == the way MS does it" argument (although its been changed to "other modelling programs" here). Same argument I had from a friend about Firefox, beleive it or not. It wasn't intuitive enough. You might as well say "Apple's interface isn't intuitive".

Which your not saying, but hopefully you get my point. The way your used to is not always the best way. As long as its consistant, in itself, then I think it could be considered intuitive. I've never used Blender, but I certainly dont find Max intuitive! (And what the heck is with those click-and-drag drop-downs, gimmie a scroll box! )

[bana]

Like I said, it doesn't matter how powerful an interface may be, being unintuitive will hinder its adoption. Look at how many people don't use vi because they would have to learn how first. Vi has an excellent and very powerful interface, and I cannot live without it. However, it is most certainly not an intuitive interface. If people spent the time to learn some things, they might be better off in the long run, but not everyone wants to spend the time. That's their choice, not everyone has to use the same tools.

Boy, lots of hair splitting going on here

A distinction must be made between unintuitive, and unique. I think MacOSX has one of the most unique UI's of any operating system. I find it very difficult simply because of its variance from the norm (what I am USED to). The same applys to Blender IMO in that it is a very unique, and unfamiliar way of operating. This is to say nothing of its intuitiveness, which is almost impossible to judge as we are all biased in some regards to look at something one way.

The same thing happened when I learned Gnome over Windows: I was trying to do everything the "Windows" way and often found myself up a creek. "It seems so hard" is what I would say to myself, until I slowly began learning the linux methods of accomplishing the same tasks. After much thought (and learning most the things that did stump me) I have come to believe that the Linux way is more efficient in the long run, yet I refuse to give a declaration on its intuitive value because I am so jaded that it would be meaningless.

And intuitiveness is not always desireable. How intuitive is writing? Do we come out of the womb righting a TODO list or mission statement? No, it must be taught through years of repitition and practice yet look what benefits it brings upon us all

Of course I wouldn't want to spend years learning any program, but you get my point.

<edit> dang you beat me by 1 second! </edit>

[genericplayer]

No, I think you are both reading into my statements what you want to see. I never learned any modelling program, I am not a modeller, I have absolutely no artistic talent whatsoever. I am not saying blender is unintuitive because its not like something else, I am not used to anything else. I have tried a few modelling programs for making crappy coder models for testing with, and found blender to be the hardest to get started doing anything in. Several other people I have spoken to have had similar experiences.

Like I said before, I am just answering the question "why do people not use blender?". I am not saying blender should change, or that its interface is bad, or that there is anything wrong with it at all. See my vi analogy, sometimes an unintuitive interface makes a much more powerful interface. But it also means fewer people will take the time to learn it. That's not bad, its good to have the choice between different tools, just don't be suprised that some people choose a different tool.

[bana]

Okay I can agree with you on that point. Now for the sake of creative suppositions: what would be the best way to resolve this issue for the devs of blender (or any program)?

Obviously there is a conflict of interest between some features of UI's designed for the initiate, and those for streamlined advanced workflow. You could simply compromise and put all features at the midway point, or perhaps there is a way to make a beginners interface that would overlay the advanced interface and you could gradually turn off features of the UI as you came to get used to not needing them. This would require a system of positive reinforcement though or otherwise you would turn off the begginer Cube tool and keep looking for the big Cube button (when it is no longer there) so this would mean learning two interfaces... Perhaps one could somehow be nested within the other IE: the big cube button would have a picture of a big cube, the text of "Cube" and also a picture (or shorthand) of the command used to make a cube in the advanced interface..

Hmmm...

[Jerky]

Actually, Blender's ui IS very intuitive. It just doesnt look like it at first because it is NOT conventional.

You are contradicting yourself. The very definition of intuitive is that you get it at first without having to learn it. It behaves the way people expect it to. I am not saying blenders interface is *bad*, I don't do modelling besides basic filler crap to use during development, so I am really not qualified to say if its good or bad. But I can say that it isn't intuitive. Without any training or time spent learning, I can do simple junk models in 3dsmax, but I have to spend time learning how to do even the simplest things in blender.

Also, I am not saying that blender should change its interface, I don't know enough to say one way or the other. Some times things need to be less intuitive to be more powerful, and you just need to take the time to learn. But most people don't take the time to learn, they want to just start doing, so I do think this is one of the reasons blender is used less often.

Sorry to burst your bubble bud, but I do NOT contradict myself here. If I did, then something being 'conventional' would always be 'intuitive'. And this is NOT the case. What I am saying here is that Blender's interface is intuitive when you dont compare it to other modeling programs. It is only because you (or others) have already used other modeling programs that you have a hard time learning Blender. You are right that 'intuitive' means that something is 'easy to learn'. It does not, however, mean that it should behave the way people expect it to. There is a lot of crap in the world, that people are used to, so it behaves exactly the way they expect it to. This does not make these things intuitive. It is not Blender's fault that people use pirated software before trying Blender. If they had not, then they would not have had that expectation, when first trying Blender, that made them want/expect it to behave like other modeling programs. You also admit that you are not knowledgable enough to make a real judgement call on the situation. Make sure that you make it obvious to readers that you are stating an uneducated opinion, because that is exactly what your posts have been. This thread is about 3dsmax vs Blender, so, if you want to be helpful, state specifics and facts. Tell us why you do not think the interface is intuitive. Then, someone can read this thread and form their own opinion on the subject.

[IoN_PuLse]

Well the word intuitive means:

# Of, relating to, or arising from intuition.
# Known or perceived through intuition.

So in a way Blender isn't logically intuitive, unless you are used to a GUI that is designed in that manner. However it does qualify to be intuitive because the entire GUI is based on several principles, so when you know those the rest of the interface is revealed in an intuition-like fashion.

If I was to say that Blender isn't intuitive I would have to also say that 3dsmax is as well, since I have (tried) to use it and felt the interface was horribly confusing. Maya was a little more managable, but judging how both of those products are hugely popular and widespread in the industry it leads me to the conclusion that it's up to the user.

[genericplayer]

Okay I can agree with you on that point. Now for the sake of creative suppositions: what would be the best way to resolve this issue for the devs of blender (or any program)?

Its a difficult issue. I can only really speak in general terms of any program that trades intuitiveness for power, since I don't really know any modelling programs well. I think if you try to change the interface to make it more intuitive, you will alienate your hard core users who took the time to learn, and like the interface the way it is.

But, I think if you are careful, you can probably make it easier for people to get started, and still leave the power there. Your example of having a cube button, but also have it show the command for that underneath, or when you hover over it or something is the right idea I think. Back to the vi analogy, vim does something like this, the menu has say, "select all" and then beside it, it tells you "ggVG" is how you select all. Its a resonable compromise that makes it easier for new users, but still leaves all the power there for advanced users. Although in this case its not the best example, since it should say "ggVG$", but its the right idea.

IoN_PuLse:
Logical and intuitive are not the same thing. Forgive the constant vi analogies, but I am a hardcore vi user, and not a hardcore modeller . Vi is very logical, you can extend commands in very logical ways, so once you learn the basics, you can do very powerful things easily. Like if you learn that dj is for deleting one line down, then you can use d5j to delete 5 lines down. And if you learn w moves from word to word, then logically d5w would delete 5 words. That's very logical, and a great interface actually, but its certainly not intuitive. Nobody sits down having never used vi before, and guesses that d5j is probably how you would delete 5 lines down. You have to learn the unintuitive interface, but then once you do, its logical and consistant, so you can move from basic to advanced very quickly, and have a very powerful tool. I'm certainly willing to assume this is the case with blender, it may be very logical and consistant, and a great interface, but that doesn't make it intuitive.

Jerky:
You are simply ignoring what I am saying because you want to argue. That is not productive, and doesn't help anyone. I made it very clear that I have not learned another modelling tool, and this has nothing to do with conventional wisdom or what I am used to. If you want to argue against someone who thinks blender sucks because they are used to 3dsmax, then go find someone who thinks that, because I am not that person, and I am not interested in arguing with you about it just because you want to defend something so badly, that you don't care that its not being attacked.

[sinbad]

Play nice, everyone

I think Blender's interface is one of those 'entrenched opinions' things. I've tried to use Blender before and admit to being instantly confused, in particular by the mouse gestures that I inadvertently did because I was expecting dragging behaviour to do something other than it did. I've never been a modeller, but I've used a lot of modelling tools, and Blender's departure from 'normal' expectations does present a barrier to new users. You can argue that such 'norms' are wrong or less efficient, but that doesn't make them go away - people have experiences that colour their expectations, and if you can't convince people fast that the other way is better, you've lost them.

Personally I think Blender needs an inbuilt, interactive 10-20 minute orientation the first time you fire it up. I've repeatedly heard how easy and powerful it is once you learn it, and I believe that - I've just never got to that stage myself because I'm a very light user of modelling tools and I frankly can't be arsed. However, if when I fired it up the fundamentals were quickly explained to me; these fundamentals that I'm told permeate the whole product, that might be kick-start enough to make me invest more time. As it is, I spent half an hour trying to figure out what the hell was happening when I clicked / dragged / pressed keys and lost patience with it. That first few minutes is crucial to converting new users, IMO.

If Blender has this already (I haven't tried it for a while), cool!

[bal]

Blender of course lacks some features compard to the "big ones" but it's amazing (being OSS). I know, its interface is rather confusing when you fire it up for the first time. But please take half an hour to learn the basics (moving, scaling, rotating, selecting vertices, etc.), you won't regret it. Once you've done that you'll realise how damn fast you can do things with this splendid interface. If you're used to a Windows-interface (like I was too once) it feels a bit odd, I can understand that . The mouse-keyboard way of doing things (not with menus and popup boxes but with shortcuts) speeds up the modelling bigtime. E.g.: moving vertices is just: B (box select, select them by clicking and dragging a box around them), G (grab), move and click to apply.

[IoN_PuLse]

Genericplayer: That's not what I meant when I said logically intuitive...here is what I meant to say:

So in a way Blender isn't intuitive, unless you are used to a GUI that is designed in that manner.

[sinbad]

the modelling bigtime. E.g.: moving vertices is just: B (box select, select them by clicking and dragging a box around them), G (grab), move and click to apply.

XSI has a similar system of key shortcuts and key/mouse combinations and actually has a very 'non windows' look. But it doesn't force you to use the shortcuts to start off with, you can get to everything through a really intuitive set of panels (modelling, animation, rendering) which everything sort of 'flows off' in menus, so you can explore. Thus you can learn the fast shortcuts as you go - and yeah, when you know them it's a lot faster than using the menus. It also has handy reference bar down the bottom - whatever mode you're in, the most useful shortcut keys related to the context are shown at the bottom with a couple of keywords about what they do. You learn the fast shortcuts incrementally that way, it's very nice. It's little things like that that make tools easier to get into, rather than putting you at the bottom of a near-vertical learning curve - maybe the curve doesn't go that high, but it doesn't necessarily look that way from the bottom.

[ThoamsC]

the modelling bigtime. E.g.: moving vertices is just: B (box select, select them by clicking and dragging a box around them), G (grab), move and click to apply.

XSI has a similar system of key shortcuts and key/mouse combinations and actually has a very 'non windows' look. But it doesn't force you to use the shortcuts to start off with, you can get to everything through a really intuitive set of panels (modelling, animation, rendering) which everything sort of 'flows off' in menus, so you can explore. Thus you can learn the fast shortcuts as you go - and yeah, when you know them it's a lot faster than using the menus. It also has handy reference bar down the bottom - whatever mode you're in, the most useful shortcut keys related to the context are shown at the bottom with a couple of keywords about what they do. You learn the fast shortcuts incrementally that way, it's very nice. It's little things like that that make tools easier to get into, rather than putting you at the bottom of a near-vertical learning curve - maybe the curve doesn't go that high, but it doesn't necessarily look that way from the bottom.

------------
totally understandable...actually blender 2.36 does have something similar in the form of :
--Main Menu-------------------------------------------------HELP--- <<<

clicking on HELP does have the following:

about
getting started ( with relevant key info etc.etc.)
hotkeys
manual
pyton scritping
release notes
scripts help browser
Tutorials < )) ( the new Video TUTS are incredible! )

and of course if you haven't already..you reeeeealy need to checkout the 'Gallery' at: blender3d.org

)

happy blendering everyone ))

cheers
TC
------

[Jerky]

Like I said before, the video tutorials are a must! For anyone who wants to give it a try, but only a 30-minutes-or-bust try (meaning I will try it for 30 minutes and if I am not impressed I will never touch it again), they need to do at least the 2 interface video tutorials. Those alone will at least get people playing with things.

[sinbad]

Like I said before, the video tutorials are a must! For anyone who wants to give it a try, but only a 30-minutes-or-bust try (meaning I will try it for 30 minutes and if I am not impressed I will never touch it again), they need to do at least the 2 interface video tutorials. Those alone will at least get people playing with things.

Oo, I somehow completely missed that. That's definitely of interest to me.

[xavier]

If you are not able to pick up a legit commercial suite, you are not forced to use Blender. Like anything else, there are many other options: Wings3D, K-3D, Milkshape, etc. Hell, you could probably even use Moray (http://www.stmuc.com/moray/) to knock something out if you had to, but I doubt you'll get Ogre export with that (same with K-3D).

But none of the above means that any of the mentioned packages are useless; in fact, most of them are just as sophisticated as Blender and its commercial contemporaries.

[makeshiftwings]

I'm going to have to jump in and say that the Blender interface makes me want to run from the room screaming every time I see it. Though I guess you can argue that "intuitive" is an opinion, to me, Blender is definitely not at all intuitive.

I am much more a programmer than a modeller, but I have done a little 3d modelling. I've been trying to learn Blender on and off for about 3 years, and have had no success. I still get confused all the time, and every time I learn something, it seems that it gets changes in a later version of Blender. Over those 3 years, I've managed to learn the basics of 3DSMax, Maya, Cinema4D, ZBrush, Wings3D, and Milkshape, all of which came more or less "intuitively" to me, and all of which have many things in common.

Plus, the development community seems very entrenched in the idea that their user interface is supreme, and will not make changes that are similar to the "lesser" apps out there. I've been whining for years trying to get them to fix Turntable view mode or add a new one to make it work like the view mode of every other 3D app I've ever used (rotate around the focused object without tumbling the camera on its axis), but I only get snide remarks about how if I'd just stick with Blender's crazy lopsided camera views, I would learn to love them. After three years of trying to learn to love Blender, I think I'm safe in saying that it will never happen unless they make some big UI changes.

[innovati]

This is turning into a GIMp vs. Photoshop debate or a windows vs. linux debate...where both sides point fingers and call names.....point out the differentces instead of realizing that both do similar things, in perhaps a different manner, and at a different price.

What I think:

Looking back over the histroy of opensource software, we see that whenever a program was not available, the community rose up as a whole and all contributed until a suitable tool was acheived.

Back in the early days of Linux, they needed a widget-independant bitmap editing tool...no suitable tool was found, so they started a project called the GNU image manipulation project, originally meant to be a bitmap editor. now we know it as the GIMP, one of the leading image manipulation programs out there.

Blender was made by a european comany who couldn't find what they were looking for commercially, and couldn't afford the sofwatre that could do it. they overcame this obstacle by creating a program to do what they needed. They called it Blender.

Now, it's obvious that the companies who make commercial apps want you to buy theirs, they can't eliminate the open-source product, but they canuse FUD as a weapon. Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. As long as you think you neeeeed their product, or you beleive "The whole industry uses it!", you hav lost all sense of objectivity. There are other applications that people in the industry use apart from the two in question. Example: If i'm trying to decide whether to use OpenOffice of MS office, and i think the whole world uses MS office, then who uses Corel Wordperfect?

The one thing the FUD does is cause Division amongst the contributors, hence stopping development of the program, then once that has stopped, all the lies about it not working or being years behind become true. It become a self-fulfilling prophecy!

We have an excellent application called Blender, and the only reason it isn't years ahead of the competition, is because you haven't contribted your part.

Excuse me for being so blunt, but if I need an organic modelling program (which I do), instead of buying Zbrush (which I can't afford), and instead of pirating it (which is illegal and unethical) I must create the tool with the help of other like-minded individuals in the comunity (which I am).

The goals of open-source are: compatibility, efficiency, and freedom. To intentionally break compatibility with 3DS Max would be anti-open-source, we must recognize that personal feelings don't determine ethics (humanists will have a tough time with that one), but, we must also whereever possible make tools for those where it would be impossible to get proper tools. young teens may make as good models as somebody your age, but they don't have the money you do. People in poorer countries than you don't have the money either. To see a need and not fill it is anti-open-source.

so the debate isn't really "which is better or better to use with OGRE: Blender or 3DS Max", but really: "why haven't we fixed the problems with Blender that keep 3DS Max better than it? Why haven't we made the tools we need instead of buying (pirating) them when we are so able to do it?"

[nfz]

innovati: agree 100%.

[Clay]

We have an excellent application called Blender, and the only reason it isn't years ahead of the competition, is because you haven't contribted your part.

Almost, but not in every situation. Lets say I spend my time working on a problem, especially something big like Blender's interface (again, just an example, but a large one). I submit a patch to Blender and it's rejected for whatever reason (right or wrong on the maintainer's part). But if the patch would have put the product beyond what it currently is then I have done my part, and the maintainers have done theirs (no matter if the decision was right, they did do their job).

I could go a step further and fork the project, and if the change I proposed is good enough I might succeed in taking some of the developer base and create open-source competition, which is probably not a good thing since instead of having X developers working on one tool, you have those developers split between two competing projects. This could ultimately hurt both projects if more people are not attracted to work on it.

so the debate isn't really "which is better or better to use with OGRE: Blender or 3DS Max", but really: "why haven't we fixed the problems with Blender that keep 3DS Max better than it? Why haven't we made the tools we need instead of buying (pirating) them when we are so able to do it?"

I agree, but again you have to deal with maintainers that control the source code. Sometimes they make the wrong decision, and sometimes they make the right decision and it still comes back to bite them.

---

I'm not really disagreeing with your points, I 90% agree with what you say, but I just don't think that things are that black and white. A lot of things, especially in the open source community, live comfortably in that grey area inbetween.

This is turning into a GIMp vs. Photoshop debate or a windows vs. linux debate...where both sides point fingers and call names

Yeah it is, and it's unfortunent that these discussions often break down into these kinds of arguments, when both sides can learn a lot from each other.

A large amount of industry professionals perfer photoshop and 3DS/maya over open source versions (even after giving them a fair shot). I'm not saying that they are right or wrong, or that their reasoning is flawed or valid. The only thing I would challenge is the common knee-jerk reaction in the open source community that these professionals are simply responding because of FUD or industry pressure.

A lot of times too much ego is involved. If I said to a developer, "X doesn't work as well in your program than it does in your commercial competiter's program", he could take it multiple ways. Too often the responce is "well, it's open source, you have to take what you get unless you want to fix it and submit a patch yourself" or "feature X works fine, you are just not used to it" (without actually trying to understand what is different or incomplete or what-have-you).

It takes a very big person to say 'ok, why do you say that, and how could I fix it' rather than reject it for ego or laziness reasons. It does happen that the person suggesting the change is genuinely "wrong" (or at least thier suggestion just wouldn't work in the context), but I fear that the other side of it is what happens too often. I would again point to the number of professionals that use photoshop and maya over the free alternatives. I'm sure you are right about a lot of them only using it because of fud, and other reasons like that. However some of these users have to be on to something, and while we shouldn't run out and make a photoshop/maya clone, I think giving them a fair listen is what we should do to make open source products better.

More than that, I think that we as a community need to put less ego and more craftsmanship into everything we do. If we do that within a good ethical framwork, I don't see how we can go wrong with what we create.

I think that's good advice no matter what field of discipline you are in.

[makeshiftwings]

Now, it's obvious that the companies who make commercial apps want you to buy theirs, they can't eliminate the open-source product, but they canuse FUD as a weapon. Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. As long as you think you neeeeed their product, or you beleive "The whole industry uses it!", you hav lost all sense of objectivity. There are other applications that people in the industry use apart from the two in question. Example: If i'm trying to decide whether to use OpenOffice of MS office, and i think the whole world uses MS office, then who uses Corel Wordperfect?

I disagree. I don't think any of the applications mentioned sell well solely because people are afraid of change; it's because they're actually pretty good applications. The fact that a whole bunch of other people use it is an added bonus, but the main reason you use an application is because you like it. Also, using an application that everyone else uses isn't just because you're trying to be part of the crowd, it's because if you do all your documents in Word and your spreadsheets in Excel, you know that the rest of the company can read them, as well as all of your clients. And it is a fact, not superstition, that far, far more Windows users use Office than OpenOffice.

We have an excellent application called Blender, and the only reason it isn't years ahead of the competition, is because you haven't contribted your part.

Again, this isn't true, as the above poster said. I, and others, have tried for years to get Blender devs to change the interface, but they won't do it, because they think theirs is better. That's their opinion and they're welcome to it. But if I submitted a patch, they wouldn't take it. The only thing I could do is make my own version. And I don't feel like I "need" to create an open source clone of every single application I use out of some obligation to the open source community. I'll pay for an app if I like it; I'd rather pay for something I need right away than spend years making an open source 3DSMax.

Excuse me for being so blunt, but if I need an organic modelling program (which I do), instead of buying Zbrush (which I can't afford), and instead of pirating it (which is illegal and unethical) I must create the tool with the help of other like-minded individuals in the comunity (which I am).

I've always been of the school of thought that open source is free as in "free speech", not "free beer". If you're making a clone of Zbrush just because you don't want to pay for Zbrush, you're wasting your time. In the amount of time it takes you to develop it, you could have just got a job at McDonalds and saved up enough to buy it. If you're making it because you honestly believe that the source needs to be open, as in readable and modifiable by others, not just free of charge, because it will advance organic modeling as a whole, then that's great. But you seem to be saying that I should like Blender just because it costs $0, and that's not good enough for me.

The goals of open-source are: compatibility, efficiency, and freedom. To intentionally break compatibility with 3DS Max would be anti-open-source, we must recognize that personal feelings don't determine ethics (humanists will have a tough time with that one), but, we must also whereever possible make tools for those where it would be impossible to get proper tools. young teens may make as good models as somebody your age, but they don't have the money you do. People in poorer countries than you don't have the money either. To see a need and not fill it is anti-open-source.

The goal of open source is not to drive all programmers out of business and give everything away for free. That's the goal of warez. Open source is about having source code open so that others can learn from it and modify it. The fact that you don't pay for it is a bonus. Linux was not made to help poor teenagers get a free OS; it was made because there is a benefit to having thousands of eyes looking at the code and finding vulnerabilities and areas where it can be improved, as well as giving users the option to modify things for their own use.

so the debate isn't really "which is better or better to use with OGRE: Blender or 3DS Max", but really: "why haven't we fixed the problems with Blender that keep 3DS Max better than it? Why haven't we made the tools we need instead of buying (pirating) them when we are so able to do it?"

Because, there's nothing inherently evil about paying for something you enjoy. I suppose to a degree there's the evil of capitalism but that's a whole different subject entirely. Unless you're saying that paying for anything is wrong and everything in the world should be free, then it's not wrong to pay for a good application. I, and many other people, don't use open source just because we can't afford to buy things (I can); we use it because it allows us to work with others and create something with many contributors across the world, and still be allowed to modify that work for our own ends.

[RoundSparrow]

Because, there's nothing inherently evil about paying for something you enjoy. I suppose to a degree there's the evil of capitalism but that's a whole different subject entirely. Unless you're saying that paying for anything is wrong and everything in the world should be free, then it's not wrong to pay for a good application. I, and many other people, don't use open source just because we can't afford to buy things (I can); we use it because it allows us to work with others and create something with many contributors across the world, and still be allowed to modify that work for our own ends.

I entirely agree. In fact, some here may notice that I've been offering (low-paying) jobs or rewards for Ogre tutorials and demo projects

Why? Because I have money and CAN afford to pay for 3DS Max and a $3000 game engine. But I don't want to be locked in... even though my game will ultimatly be closed source... I have to consider the long-term investment... what happens when my max files are 4 years old? What if later I decide to sell my source code to another company, they will have to also pay for the Max license... and working with contract artists, how can I be sure they aren't breaking the law with illegal copies?

Right now I'm trying to find somone who is willing to start from scatch (1 poly) and convert a model from 3DS Max to Blender. I don't want to invest in these tools that will ultimatly hurt me. (I have a 16 hour video showing how every operation was done in Max, I want a very similar yet not absolutely identical model in Blender.) This is not the quickest way to get the job done... My point is that even those of us with commerical interest (who intend to earn money using Blender and Ogre) can also support the community (and those doing entirely free/open projects). The price of Ogre and Blender is not the only factor in selection.

[lgoss007]

And it is a fact, not superstition, that far, far more Windows users use Office than OpenOffice.

This is sad but true. Sad because it limits the number of people who can read and open your documents.

I, and others, have tried for years to get Blender devs to change the interface, but they won't do it, because they think theirs is better.

Again sad but true. The gimp interface drives me crazy as I dislike all of the seperate windows. Sometimes when developers are used to working a certain way on their platform they think only of the way that they use programs, but I find different users work different ways. Sometimes they just need to learn a new way, sometimes the developers need to be open to changing their ways (or at least support alternatives).

I'd rather pay for something I need right away than spend years making an open source 3DSMax.

I'd rather pay for an app if it was better too, but for hobby or independant developers this is not always feasable. And a lot of times commercial apps only tailor to commercial companies (since that's where the money is), so app's are too expensive for many users.

Open source is about having source code open so that others can learn from it and modify it.

Yes but I think there is another reason that I chose open source (and why I use Linux). This is why...

But I don't want to be locked in...

Which is the biggest problem I have with Microsoft, Word, and other proprietary software. The software itself is fine closed (maybe), but what usually comes along with that is closed formats and lack of standards (Microsofts Java, non-standard web pages, etc.). Because of this I moved to Linux to support standards and open formats. If a lot of people say, "well most people use Word so that's what I'll use", it only magnifies the problem and continues to make it difficult to communicate. If everyone would move to open formats and stick to standards, life would be so much more simpler for developers and users.

Well that's my rant.

[innovati]

MakeshiftWings said:

I disagree. I don't think any of the applications mentioned sell well solely because people are afraid of change; it's because they're actually pretty good applications.

We could debate about the definition of what makes a 'pretty good application' forever, because each person has their own definition and preferences, but what we can look at, instead of copmaring it against a copmetitor, is copmaring it against itself. Does MSoffice (just an example) maintain compatibility with other office suites that are out there? Does MS office have the features I need to do what I need to do? Does MS office support any operating system changes or hardware changes I may make during the period before I upgrade next? Does MS office have the support I need? Does MS office do what it says it does? Is it stable? How does it affect the other programs on my hard-drive? Is it prone to security vulnerabilities or exploits on the nature of the tasks it accompishes?

The main thing is that if more than one program does this, but one gives you more freedom (feature-wise, money-wise, time-wise, legally....) you have to count the costs. One thing about most open-source software is that it is usually free-as-in-beer as well as being free-as-in-freedom. This still may not be enough savings to persuade you to use it, but for most of us, money does count, and we are willing to put up with a lot to save a buck! (sure says something about western society eh?)

As for your reference to FUD not being a viable weapon against open-source, I have a link for you: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsservers ... fault.mspx

If you're making a clone of Zbrush just because you don't want to pay for Zbrush, you're wasting your time.

As for my application, I did state I needed an organic modelling program, not Zbrush. Can I not make an organic modelling program without being a Zbrush clone? This line of thought disturbs me as it is the thought process that companies who DO spread FUD want you to think. If I need an operating system, (do you also define operating systems by the most popular? which would then be Win98?) to get anything other than the most popular or to make my own would be ripping it off?!? This is how Microsoft is trying to condition the US justice department to think so it can enforce software patents - this is FUD in action people. I planned a program called Gbrush, using the GIMP to paint a heightmap directly on the surface of a model in our Blender fork (which will be a modelling app with a new interface that uses OGRE natively as it's engine, and has ODE and other libraries as native plugins) so we can not only make organic models, but also let it do it on 'autopilot' with pre-determined scripts. Unless I get a commercial exploitation licence for the Zbrush code, and make it cross-platform, then add it to our blender fork (which would be outrageously expensive, difficult and time-consuming) I cannot use Zbrush, and while you're trying to comprehend that one, figure out how many hours I'd have to work at McDonalds to pay for that licence. I need a free organic modellor, and no, it won't be a Zbrush clone, it won't even have the same mission or scope as Zbrush!

The goal of open source is not to drive all programmers out of business and give everything away for free. That's the goal of warez. Open source is about having source code open so that others can learn from it and modify it. The fact that you don't pay for it is a bonus. Linux was not made to help poor teenagers get a free OS; it was made because there is a benefit to having thousands of eyes looking at the code and finding vulnerabilities and areas where it can be improved, as well as giving users the option to modify things for their own use.

I stated the goal of open-source, and as far as I can recall I said it was: compatibility, efficiency, and freedom, not to drive all programmers out of business and give everything away for free.....maybe you got confused there. I feel that when change comes along, those who embrace it flourish, and those who resist it fail. Example: since iDsoftware began releasing their old engines under open-source, they haven't gained anything off of it, but it made the open-source community friendly toward them. They did the whole community a favor, as well as making the community want to embrace them back. They sell commercial product, although I work on a game called Nexuiz, based on the Darkplaces engine (a quake1 engine mod) that has superiour graphics than iDsoftware's current engine. Yet iDsoftware is flourishing. How many anti-open-source companies have gone bankrupt in the past 10 years?

Also, the goal of Linux was not to give teens a free OS, but that is certainly one the of side-effects. Do you know what the goal of Linux really was? Had you known, I doubt you would have brought it up. And for the "thousands of eyes looking at the source code" thing....it's enough to make any developper sick. That sounds like a scam, it's impossible that every project has more than 1000 programmers (they each have 2 eyes assuming they are normal human beings, although it's quite possible that some may be blind in one eye, forcing the number higher still) looking at the source code to each and every open-source program!

Because, there's nothing inherently evil about paying for something you enjoy. I suppose to a degree there's the evil of capitalism but that's a whole different subject entirely. Unless you're saying that paying for anything is wrong and everything in the world should be free, then it's not wrong to pay for a good application. I, and many other people, don't use open source just because we can't afford to buy things (I can); we use it because it allows us to work with others and create something with many contributors across the world, and still be allowed to modify that work for our own ends.

Well well, I fully support the idea of monetarily supporting open-source software, and verbally encourage others to do it. But alas, I am short of money, but respecting the great software that I have received almost free, I make sure to use the talents I have to give back into the community in whatever way I can (Nexuiz, SymphonyOS, Mockup, Final Dawn, OpenLP, Gbrush, Evening...). I strongly feel that it is our duty, if we find a program that we like, to contribute - maybe that's just me.

Now, on to lgoss007:

And it is a fact, not superstition, that far, far more Windows users use Office than OpenOffice.

This is sad but true. Sad because it limits the number of people who can read and open your documents.

Well, since MS office has been the standard, we commonly accept the .DOC file extension as the standard right? But wait, if we turn back the pages of history and go back into the days before Win95...we see that it wasn't Microsoft who invented the .DOC filter - it was WordPerfect! This is another case of embrace-and-extend, a game that Microsoft is good at, look at what they did to Caldera-DOS, or Sun Java, VRML, the XML SVG standard, or HTML in their Frontpageand Internet Explorer programs, the FAT filesystem....the list goes on and on!

We can see that for compatibility, Microsoft is extremely against anything of the sort!

I, and others, have tried for years to get Blender devs to change the interface, but they won't do it, because they think theirs is better.

By tried do you mean whine? The whole Blender interface is foreign to me, I learned using 3DS Max's interface and still can't quite grasp Blender's yet, but is it not easily scriptable in python? Different blender plugins have their own interfaces, so theoretically it shouldn't be to hard to make an interface plugin and continually update it with each new release.



I think that pretty sums up the rebuttle to all of your rebuttles that didn't quite track, excellent input Clay, that's where my heart lies too, but sometimes that extra torque is required to convict some people who know they should be doing something but aren't ready yet.

I think that all this energy would be better spent diverted into a: 3DS Max or Blender? Why can't we add better support for both natively in OGRE. This is where the problem gets a little stickyer though, as much as you can add support for 3DS Max's formats, because it is not free, it can never have as tight an integration as the product which is completely open-source, that has been proven and is plain obvious. In Blender you can integrate OGRE as the engine for the program.

Now looking back on my project, I fear that what I'm doing (making a blender fork using OGRE as the engine, with integrated modular plugins like ODE, OpenAL) others will label a clone or a Softimage ripoff, but as I have never seen it or used it in my life, that's quite the accusation from somebody who doesn't want to take the time to listen.

Many within the open-source community label Linspire a windows ripoff or a mac ripoff, and refuse to lend any monetary support, yet they are a huge player when it come to financial support for open-source development. If you have heard or labelled Linspire, check out this website, I think you'll be surprised what open-source programs they are involved in, and what conferences they have hosted or funded. If you use one of these programs, you have to thank in part Linspire Inc. for bringing it to you: http://info.linspire.com/opensource/

Next time, look and listen before calling names or debating this program over that one.

[machinimist]

look what is in one of the latest blender builds:



transform widgets!

so the developers are working on making blender more accessible...

[LordMyth]

Didn't read any further yet, but innovati explained perfectly well what I have been trying to say to many people. Too many people are mislead by thinkings as 'everybody uses it', I even think this is why so less people want to try linux...