Autodesk Softimage Mod Tool brings the rageface
-
@PSWorx said:
@blakeyrat said:
Ever notice it's always 1000 years? Never, say, 814 years? Or 1423 years? One of the few cliches Friendship Is Magic didn't lampshade.
I guess even omnipotent god-queens prefer numbers that are easily to be remembered and sound reasonably dramatic. Though if they adapt the show to the new target demographic, the next banishment will probably last for 1024 years.What I find interesting is that in the opening narration Celestia says that Luna was banished permanently. Which raises the question: who engineered Luna's escape and why did he wait 1000 years?
-
@Master Chief said:
3ds Max is not an easy to use program.
Duh. Isn't that exactly what we're talking about?
@Master Chief said:
I think their time was better spent making it completely customizable than making one scheme that only 80% of users prefer (and that number is VERY subjective.)
"Think" is bullshit. They need to research and know. You don't build software by pulling shit out of your ass and declaring it "what the users prefer".
@Master Chief said:
How can you get more usable than something you yourself put together?
Are you for real?
@Master Chief said:
And you sound like someone who has never used 3D software in your life, which is supported by you thinking Sketchup was good for anything on an Xbox.
... huh?
@Master Chief said:
You know nothing about this subject.
I like to think I know something about usability. I demonstrably know more than you, since you seem to think that it's some weird vague subjective thing instead of measurable.
He gets more and more crazy as his delusions are torn-down around him. He's cornered now, and acting scared-- the comebacks are all "you're an idiot" because he's stopped trying to actually defend the product. Somewhere in his heart of hearts, he knows it's shit. He's not to the point yet where he can admit to it, but... but he knows.
-
@PSWorx said:
@Cad Delworth said:
That 'My Little Pony' window worries me, though: I never realised until now that Blakey is actually a 9 year old girl with a potty mouth. Either that, or he's VERY gay.
We had about 4 or 5 MLP derails during the last weeks and at least two threads dedicated solely to them and you're noticing that NOW?
Given that (I'm pleased to say!) I have no real knowledge of My Little Pony: yes.
-
@nexekho said:
Again, what kind of rig can run a suite that uses 540 bloody megabytes of RAM to display a blank scene but not handle a few megabytes of VRAM use?Animators generally prefer low quality bitmaps in their scenes because it allows animation to run smoother. People who work on levels and terrain prefer low quality because of the huge amount of polygons they're working with. Of course most of these people are using this program as a tool, not a toy.
Also, I feel I should point out again that changing the default setting literally takes 10 seconds. If you're slow.
-
Look Blakey it's been fun, but you're going in circles. You don't know shit about what you're talking about, just man up and walk away.
-
No, blakey, this is not Lotus Notes, this is FOSS all over again
It goes like this
[Deluded user] The program is awesome
[Realistic person] The UI looks like crap
[Deluded person] Looks fine to me
[Realistic person] The still UI looks like crap
[Deluded person] But that is the default UI, you can personalize it to fit your needs
[Realistic person] Then the default UI looks like crap and the people who made it should do usability testing to find a better UI
[Deluded person] But that cost money that is best saved for other stuff
[Realistic person] Usability is important, it will make that product more profitable
[Deluded person] If you can do this you are a moron and should not use that product
[Realistic person] A expensive product such as this should have a decent UI.
I expect they will be adding a CLI only mode, any day now
-
Master Chief is the prototypical user-hostile developer. No point in arguing with him, because you're just too dumb to appreciate his technical aptitude. I mean, just look at the guy's signature. Absurd.
-
@Master Chief said:
Animators generally prefer low quality bitmaps in their scenes because it allows animation to run smoother.
Texture resolution has almost zero impact on performance. We limit their size because VRAM is limited, not texel rate (which is matched with pixel fillrate)
-
@Master Chief said:
@nexekho said:
Again, what kind of rig can run a suite that uses 540 bloody megabytes of RAM to display a blank scene but not handle a few megabytes of VRAM use?Animators generally prefer low quality bitmaps in their scenes because it allows animation to run smoother. People who work on levels and terrain prefer low quality because of the huge amount of polygons they're working with. Of course most of these people are using this program as a tool, not a toy.
Also, I feel I should point out again that changing the default setting literally takes 10 seconds. If you're slow.
I like to use low quality *everything* just so I can feel superior.
-
@serguey123 said:
No, blakey, this is not Lotus Notes, this is FOSS all over again
Your (excellent) summation applies to Lotus Notes debaters too. With the addition of "your administrator set it up wrong!!" as a counter-argument at some point.
-
@blakeyrat said:
Try watching an episode, maybe it'll melt the ice in your heart. So there.
I'll stick to American Dad!, Family Guy, Monkey Dust, The Mr. Hell Show, and Modern Toss. (Admittely, that last one isn't 100% animation.)
-
Looks like Livestream finally died, after 24 hours straight of broadcasting a frozen progress bar.
-
@blakeyrat said:
Try watching an episode, maybe it'll melt the ice in your heart. So there.
I tried. I couldn't endure it for more than 30 seconds. I prefer ice in the heart.
-
@nexekho said:
And that's before I even touch on things like texture size being limited to sub-PS2 standards out of the box for seemingly no reason.
@Master Chief said:
- Texture restriction: Horse. Shit. I routinely use my largest textures (planet surfaces) which are 4096 standard. There are no restrictions that I've ever seen, apart from when you use displacement mapping.
@nexekho said:
-The texture restriction is to 256x256 by default out of the box and it likes to reset when a new scene is made. I'm sorry, if you're telling me this isn't true, you're the one who doesn't know what they're talking about. On the 3D course I took this was one of the most frequently asked questions on the forums. Here's a screenshot of the buried setting and its absurd default setting as you are selectively forgetting it.@Master Chief said:
As to nexekho's complaints, they are mostly completely false, and the ones that aren't completely false are complaints about, again, the default UI. My installation does not "lose" it's paths, it doesn't limit my textures, or anything else. Maybe he ought to try reinstalling it, his copy is obviously extremely jacked up. Some new memory probably wouldn't hurt either.
@nexekho said:
@Master Chief said:
Maybe he ought to try reinstalling it
Maybe you should stop talking shit? I'm sorry, really sorry, but you have to be the most annoying Autodesk fanboy I've ever encountered. I am not the only person having these issues! OH LOOK LOTS OF PEOPLE HAVING TEXTURE SIZE LIMIT PROBLEMS
Google the other problems yourself, I'm not wasting my time.@Master Chief said:
The very first damn result has a solution you idiot.
@nexekho said:
The problem was never that it can't be solved, it's that a thousand pound modelling suite sold in 2011 is coming equipped for modelling Playstation era stuff and reverts to that setting on creating a new scene. I ask, what is the point of limiting the texture size and why is it default in 2011? On what kind of system that can run the Max 2011 suite is texture size going to be a problem, ever.
So to sum up:
The software DOES limit the texture size out of the box.
-
-
@dhromed said:
Whatever "Background Texture Size" or "Download Texture Size" does. (Whichever one they were arguing about.)@Sutherlands said:
The software DOES limit the texture size out of the box.
Define "limit".
-
Define "limit".
If you put a 1024x1024 texture in you'll get a 256x256 on screen by default settings. It'll downscale your texture to 256x256. (or drop the above mip levels depending upon implementation)
-
@nexekho said:
Define "limit".
If you put a 1024x1024 texture in you'll get a 256x256 on screen by default settings. It'll downscale your texture to 256x256. (or drop the above mip levels depending upon implementation)
But the setting affects only the size of the texture in workspace's preview, not the final render... what's your problem again?
-
@serguey123 said:
No, blakey, this is not Lotus Notes, this is FOSS all over again
It goes like this
[Deluded user] The program is awesome
[Realistic person] The UI looks like crap
[Deluded person] Looks fine to me
[Realistic person] The still UI looks like crap
[Deluded person] But that is the default UI, you can personalize it to fit your needs
[Realistic person] Then the default UI looks like crap and the people who made it should do usability testing to find a better UI
[Deluded person] But that cost money that is best saved for other stuff
[Realistic person] Usability is important, it will make that product more profitable
[Deluded person] If you can do this you are a moron and should not use that product
[Realistic person] A expensive product such as this should have a decent UI.
I expect they will be adding a CLI only mode, any day now
Huhwha? "FOSS" != "a expensive product". Also, CLI modes are much faster if you have a piece of software that you are very familiar with and know exactly what you want to do. I use Excel every day and do as much as I can with the keyboard. Also, vim.
-
@jamesn said:
Huhwha? "FOSS" != "a expensive product".
He was saying that Master Chief was following the FOSS argument tactic, then giving examples. Pedantic dickweedery? Or misunderstanding?
@jamesn said:
Also, CLI modes are much faster if you have a piece of software that you are very familiar with and know exactly what you want to do.
Correction: you perceive it to be faster. Whether it's actually faster or not depends on the application. (Excel is probably genuinely faster when using a keyboard only. But don't make the mistake of assuming this applies to all applications!)
-
@nexekho said:
Wow, I finally found a 3D application with a worse looking UI than Blender pre 2.5.
IMO, it looks exactly like Blender. (Which manages to draw its own OGL menus instead of using the platform native menus, and then the mouse over lags like my box was a 386 with no graphics acceleration)
@blakeyrat said:
This is a program that refuses to install in Program Files We've broken the WTF barrier here. (Is it the space? I bet it's the space. Let's try changing the path to "C:\Mymomchangesmydiapers\" Hey look at that, it works!)
It says so right in the message box!
That being said, I recently had to install a $8k+ Autodesk suite whose aptly named "Autodesk Inventor 2012 Professional Ultimate Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious Design Suite x64 Win7 Eng" WinRar self-extracter wanted to install to C:\Autodesk. Of course, I changed that to a folder on my desktop (or somewhere user writable like that), because I wanted to delete the temp files after installing anyways. And then, after the real installer let me choose a ton of options, it told me that it cannot be run from a directory whose path name is longer than 78 characters. What the hell?? Well, thanks for the ridiculously long archive name.
-
@topspin said:
@blakeyrat said:
This is a program that refuses to install in Program Files We've broken the WTF barrier here. (Is it the space? I bet it's the space. Let's try changing the path to "C:\Mymomchangesmydiapers" Hey look at that, it works!)
It says so right in the message box!
You're better at reading confused, broken English than I am. I assumed it meant it didn't support the disk space in the destination folder. (Note it says "in the destination folder" not "in the destination folder path".) I re-checked to ensure the installer had Admin permissions, but I didn't include that in my little overview. Only after posting this thread did I figure out what the hell the message in the dialog box meant.
-
@blakeyrat said:
You're better at reading confused, broken English than I am.
The advantage of being ESL speaker? ;-)
-
@Sutherlands said:
So to sum up:
The software DOES limit the texture size out of the box.For it's own display purposes. When you render a scene or export it, the texture used is certainly not limited to 256. And anyone who insists it is has not learned how to use this program properly. And even in its own display options you can set it to be higher if that's what you want.
That is what you get; choices.
-
@Master Chief said:
For it's own display purposes. When you render a scene or export it, the texture used is certainly not limited to 256. And anyone who insists it is has not learned how to use this program properly. And even in its own display options you can set it to be higher if that's what you want.
That is what you get; choices.
So to sum up:
The software DOES limit the texture size out of the box.
-
@Sutherlands said:
@Master Chief said:
For it's own display purposes. When you render a scene or export it, the texture used is certainly not limited to 256. And anyone who insists it is has not learned how to use this program properly. And even in its own display options you can set it to be higher if that's what you want.
That is what you get; choices.
So to sum up:
The software DOES limit the texture size out of the box.From a pedantic dickweed view, yes. Just like MS Word limits you to size 11 font, and Powerpoint limits you to one slide, and Outlook limits you to one email account...
-
The Livestream miraculously fixed itself about 2 hours ago, but after 29 hours I'm bringing the experiment to an end and killing the installer. Thanks for participating! Unless you didn't. Then fuck you.
-
@Master Chief said:
I guess if you explicitly added text that was > 11 font size, and it brought it down to 11 font size, that would be an apt analogy. But...From a pedantic dickweed view, yes. Just like MS Word limits you to size 11 font, and Powerpoint limits you to one slide, and Outlook limits you to one email account...
-
Wow this program is... something else.
I'm trying to wrap an image around a sphere. I can't think of a more simple use-case. I managed to draw a sphere, I think?, but I couldn't figure out how to apply an image. So I found a tutorial and managed to get as far as "open the image property page" before becoming insanely confused. I don't know what a property page is, or how to open one, and the tutorial apparently thought this was so obvious it didn't need a screenshot... so. Yeah.
Is there any non-WTF way to make a fucking textured sphere and import it into XNA?
-
Well it depends on what kind of image you have and how exactly you want it mapped. It is a problem map designers have faced for quite a long time. How do you make a 2D image that represents a 3D globe?
http://www.google.com/search?q=world+map&tbm=isch is just one possibility.
Another (used for the original Xbox dashboard) would be to use a cylindrical mapping, with the texture on the cap of the cylinder projected down onto the sphere's surface.
You can also make a uvmap specific to the object (that gets fun!) and is generally how most objects get textured. Only in minecraft can you get away with texturing things with neat little squares.
One thing I've learned from working with 3D software for the past 20 years is that nothing is ever simple. There are 50 ways to do anything, figuring out which way fits the current situation requires experience. If you don't have it yourself, borrow. Plenty of places offer tutorials, 3dluvr has always been my first stop when learning 3DSMax, Blender, Maya, or any other tool, and especially for learning new techniques. The reason for limiting texture size in the viewport isn't anything to do with vram, or texture fill rates. Theres more rendering backends than just opengl or directx. When you have to wait for the entire scene to re-render everytime you change a modifier value, complexity becomes important. This is also why many modifiers operate in low quality mode when previewing, and have a separate quality setting for final rendering. Don't assume that your videocard can do everything a software renderer can.
And as far as your comment about them using a CLI, there *IS* a cli in most autodesk products, its just above that little message box you highlighted as "place where errors show up". Ask an architect how often they use the cli in autocad, many will tell you they would commit suicide if they didn't have it at their disposal.
-
@GrizzlyAdams said:
You can also make a uvmap specific to the object (that gets fun!) and is generally how most objects get textured.
That's what I'm trying to do. I actually managed to successfully do this in SoftImage (on the "Control-7" window, whatever the fuck that is), but as soon as I closed the window, the texture disappeared. I couldn't figure out how to get it to "stick"-- there's no "apply" or "save changes" or anything similar in the window.
In my case, the UV map is just a grid with triangles sticking up. For a sphere, the UV map is super-simple... I just can't get the fucker to apply it to the sphere.
@GrizzlyAdams said:
One thing I've learned from working with 3D software for the past 20 years is that nothing is ever simple.
No. The task I want to do is extremely simple. I managed it in SketchUp in about an hour, and that accounts for the fact that SketchUp doesn't even officially support UV mapping. Also the way to create a sphere in SketchUp is kind of funky because it's designed for architecture.
While you're right that it's a complex task, it's made 50 times worse by having such a terrible UI wrapped around it. There are a lot of complex tasks made easy by software.
@GrizzlyAdams said:
Ask an architect how often they use the cli in autocad, many will tell you they would commit suicide if they didn't have it at their disposal.
If I had to use AutoCad, I also would contemplate suicide every day.
Goddamned. There's a huge market here waiting to be conquered by a software company that can maybe write useful software. We're well past the dancing bear stage in this industry, yes? If Microsoft got the Office team to build a 3D modeler tomorrow, fucking SoftImage would be dead in a month. Or Apple. Or if Google added a couple features to SketchUp and made sure the file export worked correctly, at this point, SketchUp, despite its own UI hiccups, is by far my favorite. Even SoftImage isn't beyond repair-- if they spent a couple of release on it (and gave a shit), they could whip this thing into shape no problem.
Why don't people demand better? God. Software users are like the workers from Metropolis.
-
@blakeyrat said:
Goddamned. There's a huge market here waiting to be conquered by a software company that can maybe write useful software. We're well past the dancing bear stage in this industry, yes? If Microsoft got the Office team to build a 3D modeler tomorrow, fucking SoftImage would be dead in a month. Or Apple. Or if Google added a couple features to SketchUp and made sure the file export worked correctly, at this point, SketchUp, despite its own UI hiccups, is by far my favorite. Even SoftImage isn't beyond repair-- if they spent a couple of release on it (and gave a shit), they could whip this thing into shape no problem.
Highly doubtful, just look at Apple's first attempts at video editing in FinalCutPro, horrible steaming pile. It took them years to get more adoption than Avid. Microsoft couldn't even get close to making a usable 3D modeling package, and they know it. Why do you think they recommend tools from autodesk, nvidia, etc ? They know their strengths and what to avoid. Google? Sketchup is far from professional grade, Google only bought it because of Google Earth and wanting people to make buildings to populate the landscape.
You keep complaining about the tools, but you can't just pickup a music package and expect to write a symphony. Doesn't matter how much a tool costs or how intuitive it is, if you don't learn to use it you will be useless with it. Stop blaming the tools and knuckle down. If you want something to complain about, look at http://adobegripes.tumblr.com/ Tons of fodder there for the picking. Don't fault someone who is doing it right. 3DSMax wouldn't exist today if artists didn't like it.
-
@Master Chief said:
Outlook limits you to one email account...
They finally fixed that in Outlook 2010 (but you still need to add further accounts through Control Panel -> Mail and not through Outlook itself).
-
@GrizzlyAdams said:
Highly doubtful, just look at Apple's first attempts at video editing in FinalCutPro, horrible steaming pile. It took them years to get more adoption than Avid. Microsoft couldn't even get close to making a usable 3D modeling package, and they know it. Why do you think they recommend tools from autodesk, nvidia, etc ? They know their strengths and what to avoid. Google? Sketchup is far from professional grade, Google only bought it because of Google Earth and wanting people to make buildings to populate the landscape.
You keep complaining about the tools, but you can't just pickup a music package and expect to write a symphony. Doesn't matter how much a tool costs or how intuitive it is, if you don't learn to use it you will be useless with it. Stop blaming the tools and knuckle down. If you want something to complain about, look at http://adobegripes.tumblr.com/ Tons of fodder there for the picking. Don't fault someone who is doing it right. 3DSMax wouldn't exist today if artists didn't like it.
Eh, you're new here (at least posting-wise). Blakey likes to vent his frustrations on these boards, especially when it comes to UI's (OSS is another one of his favorite gripes). You learn to either take him with a grain of salt, or troll him for amusement. At least, that's what *I've* learned. :)
-
@blakeyrat said:
No. The task I want to do is extremely simple. I managed it in SketchUp in about an hour, and that accounts for the fact that SketchUp doesn't even officially support UV mapping. Also the way to create a sphere in SketchUp is kind of funky because it's designed for architecture.
If it has textures, it has UV mapping. You can't have one without the other. It's just using a pre-made UV map someone at Google made in a real 3D suite.
@blakeyrat said:
While you're right that it's a complex task, it's made 50 times worse by having such a terrible UI wrapped around it. There are a lot of complex tasks made easy by software.
Blakey you're confusing UI with premade stuff in a 3D program designed to be used by people who have no idea how to make things in a 3D program. Sketchup makes assumptions about what you're trying to do, and that control is what you lose using tools like it. That's why I said 3ds Max is a tool for people who know how to use it, and Sketchup is a toy for people who want to make stuff for Google Earth.
@blakeyrat said:
If I had to use AutoCad, I also would contemplate suicide every day.
Goddamned. There's a huge market here waiting to be conquered by a software company that can maybe write useful software. We're well past the dancing bear stage in this industry, yes? If Microsoft got the Office team to build a 3D modeler tomorrow, fucking SoftImage would be dead in a month. Or Apple. Or if Google added a couple features to SketchUp and made sure the file export worked correctly, at this point, SketchUp, despite its own UI hiccups, is by far my favorite. Even SoftImage isn't beyond repair-- if they spent a couple of release on it (and gave a shit), they could whip this thing into shape no problem.
Why don't people demand better? God. Software users are like the workers from Metropolis.
Autocad is an incredibly powerful engineering tool. You cannot simply slap a new UI over it and have it suddenly be Microsoft Invent. And it's clear that your favorite would be Sketchup, because again, you don't know what you're doing, and that's not an insult, it's a fact. I took several classes and have had several years now perfecting my skills in 3ds Max. To me, something like Sketchup is painful to use, because it's so restrictive.
As to your continual insistence that 3ds Max is crap, it's continued success and usage in industry would seem to point otherwise. Your example, Lotus Notes, is practically dead in the business world, yet 3ds Max, being almost as old, is practically a standard, and with it's close sister Maya nearly dominate the entire market.
-
@dohpaz42 said:
Eh, you're new here (at least posting-wise). Blakey likes to vent his frustrations on these boards, especially when it comes to UI's (OSS is another one of his favorite gripes). You learn to either take him with a grain of salt, or troll him for amusement. At least, that's what *I've* learned. :)
It is pretty damn fun watching him fume. He's so out of his depth here though, it's almost too easy to point out his logical errors.
-
@ender said:
@Master Chief said:
Outlook limits you to one email account...
They finally fixed that in Outlook 2010 (but you still need to add further accounts through Control Panel -> Mail and not through Outlook itself).Ugh, seriously? Glad I stuck with 07.
-
@Sutherlands said:
@Master Chief said:
I guess if you explicitly added text that was > 11 font size, and it brought it down to 11 font size, that would be an apt analogy. But...From a pedantic dickweed view, yes. Just like MS Word limits you to size 11 font, and Powerpoint limits you to one slide, and Outlook limits you to one email account...
More like if you zoomed out until 72 font looked like 11 and complained about that. I'd try to explain this again but seriously, I've said it like five times now. If you don't understand yet, you're either not trying, or just plain stupid.
-
@Master Chief said:
As to your continual insistence that 3ds Max is crap, it's continued success and usage in industry would seem to point otherwise.
Because it has the features. Certainly not because people are raving about its UI. Same thing for XSI and its predecessor Softimage. Whereas XSI has some sort of graphical style, the original Softimage had the worst motherfucking rotten moldy cunt of a UI known to man*, but it packed all the features, and was therefore successful. Deservedly so, I think, because the features were actually quite good. In the short time I worked with it, I couldn't decideif I hated or loved it. It was like having a really, really ugly friend but he's totally cool and knows all the stuff and helps you with your homework.
Maya does quite a bit better in the UI department, as does Cinema4D.
Then there's Carrara which.... I dunno. It tries to be Bryce on steroids but I think it kind of doesn't work like that. The polymodeler is crazy good though.
*) it was basically the 3D equivalent of VIM. Don't expect to be able to do anything at all unless you have a tutor instructing you how to create a single cube; let alone extrude one of its faces and get to work whipping up some swaggy subD surface model.
-
@Master Chief said:
If it has textures, it has UV mapping.
Nope, it has textures, but it can only apply them to single faces. Try it. It's free. The workaround is to apply your texture, export your object into a .obj file (I have a plugin that does this), use a stand-alone UV mapper, then re-import, then alter the texture to have an image that fits the UV map from the stand-alone tool. Once I found the plug-in the process was easy. Problem is-- none of the exporter plugins export it correctly.
@Master Chief said:
Blakey you're confusing UI with premade stuff in a 3D program designed to be used by people who have no idea how to make things in a 3D program.
... what?
Half the stuff you type here, I can't make heads or tails of. Are you seriously suggesting I'm confusing UI with clip-art?
@Master Chief said:
And it's clear that your favorite would be Sketchup, because again, you don't know what you're doing, and that's not an insult, it's a fact.
Why is that relevant? Stop saying that, unless you can tell me why it matters.
If I'm doing a simple task, it should be simple to do. If I was doing a complex task, then I'd fully expect it to take some learning-- wrapping a texture around a sphere is something I fucking wrote the code myself for on Quadra 610 in high school. It's something I could do in POV-Ray (a program which has, I remind you, no GUI at all) in significantly less time. Why is it so hard to do in SoftImage?
@Master Chief said:
As to your continual insistence that 3ds Max is crap, it's continued success and usage in industry would seem to point otherwise.
Success and "being crap" are not mutually-exclusive. See: McDonalds.
@Master Chief said:
Your example, Lotus Notes, is practically dead in the business world
You have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Notes has about 37.7 share (sorry, those are the most current numbers I can find.)
@Master Chief said:
yet 3ds Max, being almost as old, is practically a standard, and with it's close sister Maya nearly dominate the entire market.
... oookay?
But I'm talking about SoftImage. For all I know, 3ds Max is a great program, and I'd have completed my task in no time at all in it. So... congratulations on following the thread, I guess?
-
@GrizzlyAdams said:
Highly doubtful, just look at Apple's first attempts at video editing in FinalCutPro, horrible steaming pile. It took them years to get more adoption than Avid.
Well, "Apple" was maybe optimistic. But I still think Microsoft could, just ignore their version 1 attempt at it-- frankly, they couldn't possibly do worse than SoftImage.
Fuck, if I had $5 million, I'd put together a team and make it my fucking self.
@GrizzlyAdams said:
You keep complaining about the tools, but you can't just pickup a music package and expect to write a symphony.
No, but if I wanted to do a simple task, like transcribe "Three Blind Mice", I'd be able to do that with no problem at all, with only rudimentary knowledge of music notation. Obviously, to create great 3D art, I'd have to spend years studying and practicing it. Duh. That has nothing to do with the quality of the software.
@GrizzlyAdams said:
Doesn't matter how much a tool costs or how intuitive it is, if you don't learn to use it you will be useless with it.
Since "how intuitive it is" affects how quickly I can learn and be useful, then it does matter.
@GrizzlyAdams said:
If you want something to complain about, look at http://adobegripes.tumblr.com/
Yeah I have that guy on my RSS. He does good work. But... how is that relevant to this conversation?
@GrizzlyAdams said:
3DSMax wouldn't exist today if artists didn't like it.
Master Chief's example Lotus Notes exists, and barely anybody likes it. Why? Answer that question and you will have gained wisdom, padawan.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@Master Chief said:
If it has textures, it has UV mapping.
Nope, it has textures, but it can only apply them to single faces.
I guess Sketchup by necessity uses UV mapping behind the scenes but just exposes no interface for it?
-
@dhromed said:
@blakeyrat said:
@Master Chief said:
I guess Sketchup by necessity uses UV mapping behind the scenes but just exposes no interface for it?If it has textures, it has UV mapping.
Nope, it has textures, but it can only apply them to single faces.
If you draw a sphere, and assign a texture to it, a tiny copy of the texture appears in every face of the sphere. From my understanding of the term, that isn't UV mapping, that's just putting a copy of the same texture on every face of the sphere. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong-- as Master Chief is fond of saying, I'm not expert in the field.
None of this is helping solve my problem though. Maybe I'll make a really accurate homage to AstroChase 3D and use 2.5D.
-
@Master Chief said:
Ugh, seriously? Glad I stuck with 07.
I was talking specifically about Exchange accounts, which are limited to 1 per profile on 2007 and older.
-
@dhromed said:
@Master Chief said:
As to your continual insistence that 3ds Max is crap, it's continued success and usage in industry would seem to point otherwise.
Because it has the features. Certainly not because people are raving about its UI. Same thing for XSI and its predecessor Softimage. Whereas XSI has some sort of graphical style, the original Softimage had the worst motherfucking rotten moldy cunt of a UI known to man*, but it packed all the features, and was therefore successful. Deservedly so, I think, because the features were actually quite good. In the short time I worked with it, I couldn't decideif I hated or loved it. It was like having a really, really ugly friend but he's totally cool and knows all the stuff and helps you with your homework.
Maya does quite a bit better in the UI department, as does Cinema4D.
Then there's Carrara which.... I dunno. It tries to be Bryce on steroids but I think it kind of doesn't work like that. The polymodeler is crazy good though.
*) it was basically the 3D equivalent of VIM. Don't expect to be able to do anything at all unless you have a tutor instructing you how to create a single cube; let alone extrude one of its faces and get to work whipping up some swaggy subD surface model.
And notice the pattern, that even though Maya's UI is more user friendly, it's also not quite as powerful. 3ds's feature set is incredibly rich, it's a very, very flexible program in terms of what you want to use it for, from game development, to special effects, to physics.
Is Cinema4D around yet? I haven't heard anything from that company in quite awhile.
-
@blakeyrat said:
Nope, it has textures, but it can only apply them to single faces. Try it. It's free. The workaround is to apply your texture, export your object into a .obj file (I have a plugin that does this), use a stand-alone UV mapper, then re-import, then alter the texture to have an image that fits the UV map from the stand-alone tool. Once I found the plug-in the process was easy. Problem is-- none of the exporter plugins export it correctly.
Then it's using what 3ds would call "faces" in the UV editor. Then you're using a different program to alter the UV map. In other words, you're doing in two programs with multiple imports and exports what I do in one with just a few clicks.
@blakeyrat said:
... what?
Half the stuff you type here, I can't make heads or tails of. Are you seriously suggesting I'm confusing UI with clip-art?
Yes. Your lack of knowledge is hampering your ability to understand it, but yes, that is essentially it.
@blakeyrat said:
Why is that relevant? Stop saying that, unless you can tell me why it matters.
Because you're bumbling around in Paint and calling me a moron for using Photoshop.
@blakeyrat said:
If I'm doing a simple task, it should be simple to do. If I was doing a complex task, then I'd fully expect it to take some learning-- wrapping a texture around a sphere is something I fucking wrote the code myself for on Quadra 610 in high school. It's something I could do in POV-Ray (a program which has, I remind you, no GUI at all) in significantly less time. Why is it so hard to do in SoftImage?
Because Softimage is crap. It's a dialed back 3ds Max, similar to what gmax used to be. I was never once defending Softimage.
-
@Master Chief said:
@dhromed said:
@Master Chief said:
As to your continual insistence that 3ds Max is crap, it's continued success and usage in industry would seem to point otherwise.
Because it has the features. Certainly not because people are raving about its UI. Same thing for XSI and its predecessor Softimage. Whereas XSI has some sort of graphical style, the original Softimage had the worst motherfucking rotten moldy cunt of a UI known to man*, but it packed all the features, and was therefore successful. Deservedly so, I think, because the features were actually quite good. In the short time I worked with it, I couldn't decideif I hated or loved it. It was like having a really, really ugly friend but he's totally cool and knows all the stuff and helps you with your homework.
Maya does quite a bit better in the UI department, as does Cinema4D.
Then there's Carrara which.... I dunno. It tries to be Bryce on steroids but I think it kind of doesn't work like that. The polymodeler is crazy good though.
*) it was basically the 3D equivalent of VIM. Don't expect to be able to do anything at all unless you have a tutor instructing you how to create a single cube; let alone extrude one of its faces and get to work whipping up some swaggy subD surface model.
And notice the pattern, that even though Maya's UI is more user friendly, it's also not quite as powerful. 3ds's feature set is incredibly rich, it's a very, very flexible program in terms of what you want to use it for, from game development, to special effects, to physics.
Is Cinema4D around yet? I haven't heard anything from that company in quite awhile.
Wait.... so you are basically saying that in order for a program to be feature rich, flexible and powerful, it needs a shitty UI? The idea of having both is outlandish to you?
-
@serguey123 said:
Wait.... so you are basically saying that in order for a program to be feature rich, flexible and powerful, it needs a shitty UI? The idea of having both is outlandish to you?
I'm going to start making a "Rules Of the DailyWTF Forums" list I can keep around and cite in situations like this. Like, one of the rules would be, "DailyWTF posters do not understand the concept of 'ideal'". Or the economy one, "posters do not understand economics, and have no idea how much labor costs."
Another, based on this thread, would be, "DailyWTF posters have issues with the concept of 'mutual exclusion'. They frequently speak of two non-exclusive items as if they were mutually-exclusive"
In this thread alone, Master Chief has unilaterally declared that it's impossible for a product to be both bad and popular. And now, it's impossible for a product to be both powerful and easy-to-use. Bullshit on both.
These products are hard-to-use because their developers do not give a shit about usability. That's the only reason.
-
@Master Chief said:
@blakeyrat said:
... what?
Half the stuff you type here, I can't make heads or tails of. Are you seriously suggesting I'm confusing UI with clip-art?
Yes. Your lack of knowledge is hampering your ability to understand it, but yes, that is essentially it.
What knowledge am I lacking that's preventing me from UV Mapping a sphere?
-
@blakeyrat said:
These products are hard-to-use because their developers do not give a shit about usability. That's the only reason.
Where's your sense of imagination? I see a vast conspiracy where the developers work hand-in-hand with "graphics professionals" to create impossible UIs and prevent the layman from ever becoming adept at even simple graphics work, thus guaranteeing steady employment for pierced-lip hipster d-bags all over the world.
Or, more likely: a lot of these products have a core user community that's been with them since version 1, and if it ever starts to feel non-shitty, it will seem less "professional grade" and said users will have a conniption because the product is being "dumbed down."
