interface

The interface, modeling, 3d editing tools, import/export, feature requests, etc

Moderators: jesterKing, stiv

lukep
Posts: 0
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2004 1:39 pm

Post by lukep » Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:00 am

wont comment more on Raskin views. Archy is a horse of a very different color than the "Human Interface".

Blender was designed around principles of the latter, and those still stand 20 years later.
Antlab wrote:Hi Lukep.

Sincerely I don't see the strict relationship between graphical interface and tool/action oriented paradigms. I understand what you say about the working model of Blender, but this is not directly related to how the different commands and options are showed on the screen. IMO a simple and clean use of tabs, boxes, icons, expandable menus could maintain the same working model, but making the workflow easier for a lot of people (and less intimidating for new users, and more "standard" for professionals like Sabrina's colleagues).
Antonino
simply take translation icon :

As said before blender way is select first, then do action (action-oriented).

that is what you get with G key, click to finish
that is what you get too with gesture, click to finish.

the manipulator widget work the same except it is a long-click drag.
that is a first discrepancy.

the new ndof device work similar

want rotation ? same action with R and different gesture

Now how the translation icon in a separate view would work ?

select the tool, select objects, then what ? long-click drag ?

you have both discrepancy with the shorcut and the manipulator.
And this is very bad.

Worse, the icon being in a different view by definition, you lose context information, and you can even lose focus.

In a tool oriented software this work because each tool invokes its modal state, which is exactly what we dont want in blender.

We want to keep blender strengths, and one is the efficient workflow, so the key driven interface will stay the main one. Any widget and UI cues added must then be compatible.

Icons in the header part of 3dview are a possibility, but there is already the manipulator ones and it starts to be crowded there. Maybe if we can merge the 2.

Now situation is a bit confuse because with time, some tool-oriented modes crept in blender.

In conclusion, rewamping the interface yes, but not at the price of current ways.

kAinStein
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2002 3:08 pm

Post by kAinStein » Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:18 am

lukep wrote:wont comment more on Raskin views. Archy is a horse of a very different color than the "Human Interface".

Blender was designed around principles of the latter, and those still stand 20 years later.
True. Archy is not the Humane Interface. But some principles Archy uses are present in Blender - be it identic or very similar. Take the splitting of the screen, using the keyboard as main command device or the fact that the UI stays persistent in a .blend. But there's more in Blender of Raskin's ideas: Take the possibility to pan and zoom the GUI as an example. And there's more.

GDP_Sabrina
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 9:50 pm

Post by GDP_Sabrina » Mon Aug 13, 2007 9:13 am

kAinStein wrote:Take the possibility to pan and zoom the GUI as an example. And there's more.
There is no need to discuss about the functionality of blender. It is overwhelming !

I simple miss toolbars with nice icons as an alternative to all those keystrokes. Especially with new releases, I would be able to see and learn that new functions are available and in what context they can be used.

Regards
Sabrina

Antlab
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 12:50 am

Post by Antlab » Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:06 pm

kAinStein wrote: Oh this is so true! The discussion has become calm and is going in a direction with more understanding I guess...
Yes, and I am quite happy, because I think this is the best method to exchange ideas in a contructive way. From the discussion, IMO, it is clear that there are at least three categories of users that should be considered in developing the new concepts for the Blender interface:

- already expert users of the programs. They have already developed a good feeling with the actual UI, and don't want that a new design could decrease their productivity

- new potential users. Often they are intimidating by the overwhelming number of buttons and by the non standard widgets. Yesterday I installed for the first time the free version of Google Sketchup. Apart the limited features of the program, the introduction for new users is something really fabulous. They also use a simplified toolbar, that can be expanded after the beginning tutorial. Probably Blender could take advantage of a similar welcome for new users.

- professional and users expert in other 3D software, like Sabrina, that find easier working with a more "visual" UI. As Sabrina well explained, this category can be very important, because a more appealing interface could bring to a massive switch towards Blender by organizations and high skilled people accustomed to other 3D platforms.

So, I hope that ALL the three categories wll be considered in the development of the new interface for the 2.5 release.

Ciao

Antonino

kAinStein
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2002 3:08 pm

Post by kAinStein » Mon Aug 13, 2007 6:08 pm

GDP_Sabrina wrote:There is no need to discuss about the functionality of blender. It is overwhelming !
You've taken my posting out of context: It's not about the Blender functionality but where UI paradigms have been discussed. Blender has implemented many things that Jef Raskin proclaimed. Even before "The Humane Interface" has been published - you should see that point, too. Though some ideas described in the book are older. That's all. I just named some few examples.
I simple miss toolbars with nice icons as an alternative to all those keystrokes. Especially with new releases, I would be able to see and learn that new functions are available and in what context they can be used.
Only icons are a bad thing. Most icons are simply not self-explaining and tooltips don't make anything better - if you are taking the same measure you are using for hotkeys. Having icons and describing text and the possibility to turn the text off (or the icon] would be a better approach. But I would keep it optional (not only how things are displayed but also if they are displayed. And I'm repeating myself again (and you, by the way, too): Take a look at Matt Ebb's experiment with the toolboxes. There you can have your icons and buttons - but the concept goes far beyond what some people are asking for and it doesn't break anything! (Is it so hard to understand what I'm talking about?)

GDP_Sabrina
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 9:50 pm

Post by GDP_Sabrina » Mon Aug 13, 2007 10:02 pm

kAinStein wrote: Take a look at Matt Ebb's experiment with the toolboxes.
This video is excellent and interesting. It demonstrates some very nice ideas and concepts, and I really appreciate the freaks and geeks at the blender community to create and host all this stuff. There is no doubt that it would be an enhancement for professional blender users, to improve their workflow. Don't get me wrong. These functions are fantastic !

But my personal problem with blender is, that I simply miss the guideway. It simply takes so long to search and watch video tutorials, while I'd rather would like to tryout functionality by clicking onto a "fluid effect" or "wind effect" or "gravitation effect" or a "UV texturing wizard" or whatever. Blender has so much to offer, but it is a very frustrating untertaking to find out how to create a "fluid water effect" using Blender's UI. As long as I use the wind effect 3 times in half a year, every wind effect is a blender project on its own for me. I really miss the user guidance inside blender - top down from thematically arranged toolbar buttons down to specific configuration property panels and finally getting the result.

Shortcuts are nice for simple things like moving a camera or placing an object. But IMHO it is really hard to discover complex workflows without any guidance and without all those video tutorials, I guess an amount of blender enthusiasts would have dropped that software.

Regards
Sabrina

kAinStein
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2002 3:08 pm

Post by kAinStein » Tue Aug 14, 2007 3:26 am

GDP_Sabrina wrote: But my personal problem with blender is, that I simply miss the guideway. It simply takes so long to search and watch video tutorials, while I'd rather would like to tryout functionality by clicking onto a "fluid effect" or "wind effect" or "gravitation effect" or a "UV texturing wizard" or whatever.
Well... Honestly, you don't seem to have basic knowledge about the usage of Blender and expect that very advanced features (which are quite new and have a suboptimal UI) to reveal by themselves? I don't remember who it was, but someone posted an image of the optimal interface for someone that showed a similar attitude: There was a single button which said "Make kewl stuff" - no offense meant...
Blender has so much to offer, but it is a very frustrating untertaking to find out how to create a "fluid water effect" using Blender's UI. As long as I use the wind effect 3 times in half a year, every wind effect is a blender project on its own for me.
Probably you should get the basics first! You can't drive a 40 tons truck without knowing what a steering wheel is - though the truck might have an automatic drive. Learn the basics.

As I mentioned: Those features are new. And they are very universal! At least the softbody simulation. So you might have problems to know what does what if you don't have some knowledge how the simulation interna work. But this can be found out by trying out or reading the documentation. For me it wasn't a great job to find it out - even without reading documentation - but I know how to work with Blender and I know the basics. The problem is that you actually don't even know what really can be done or which different window types actually exist. So you also seem to ask for a "Make kewl stuff" button. Get the basics - even it might be somehow boring compared to bouncing balloons, wobbling jelly, waving flags, flying pyjamas or splashing water. I can't say it enough!

Of course do wizards have their right to exist. But you can't expect to have wizards for every occasional event that might occur. It also would be very unrealistic to expect that such wizards pop up out of nothing! The current UI for it is nearly a direct access panel to the underlying physics simulation engine. Most probably it won't change that much in the next few years. The reasons are: How to design a good UI for it that hides the complexity but gives you full access to the simulation? Who should do it? How long would it take? etc., etc. ... There so much to do that this part probably doesn't have much priority at all. It works and it works well...
I really miss the user guidance inside blender - top down from thematically arranged toolbar buttons down to specific configuration property panels and finally getting the result.
All that's missing are the toolbars... So?
Shortcuts are nice for simple things like moving a camera or placing an object.
It's nice for working on a mesh or animating it. For the rest there are panels where you can adjust different values to get what you want...

Have you perhaps had the thought that Blender is not the tool that you are searching?

lukep
Posts: 0
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2004 1:39 pm

Post by lukep » Tue Aug 14, 2007 3:34 pm

kAinStein wrote:Of course do wizards have their right to exist. But you can't expect to have wizards for every occasional event that might occur. It also would be very unrealistic to expect that such wizards pop up out of nothing! The current UI for it is nearly a direct access panel to the underlying physics simulation engine. Most probably it won't change that much in the next few years. The reasons are: How to design a good UI for it that hides the complexity but gives you full access to the simulation? Who should do it? How long would it take? etc., etc. ... There so much to do that this part probably doesn't have much priority at all. It works and it works well...
In fact, there is some middleground to find, but that is the hard part.

You could very well apply to blender the old Unix joke :

"Blender is user friendly, it is just picky about who can be friend with him"

blender UI (note i dont say GUI here) is (for most of its parts) very good for the power users. But i understand begginers or people who use other packages can find it intimidating.

A first step is a friendler GUI, that is true. But making it is much more work than slapping some icons palettes, because there is more than a slight risk of damaging the existing UI concepts.

And no work in that area can be reasonabilly done before the event refactor is done. Some experiments (Matt's work is full of nice ideas) can go on, but we, the coding team, really need to change the foundations before we even start on new GUI. Coders are well aware of public demand for GUI refactor, this was one of the main feedback at siggraph, but this will take time.

Some things, like the 3D cursor will also have to mutate, it is one of the real strengths of blender, and yet, one of the less understood features.

But devising a new UI for interaction with it while keeping the current usability is a huge task.

Also, remember that this is OSS, which mean coders do it for fun, and it is more rewarding to add new WHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOAAAAAAH feature than doing grunt work on usability ;)

Antlab
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 12:50 am

Post by Antlab » Tue Aug 14, 2007 4:07 pm

lukep wrote: Also, remember that this is OSS, which mean coders do it for fun, and it is more rewarding to add new WHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOAAAAAAH feature than doing grunt work on usability ;)
Ok, this is obviously related to personal preferences and objectives, but are you sure that is more rewarding to continuosly add new WOW features than take also the time to better integrate the existing ones in a well designed, organised and aestethically pleasant interface?
I ask this because I sincerely admire the genius and efforts of Ton and the other Blender coders, but I suspect that the development of the program could risk a sort of "imbalance". From reading the forums, and also from the reported reactions at Siggraph, it seems that there is an increasing distance between the "inner core" and the external potential users. As I repeated several times, I understand the needs of both categories, but defining the work on improving the interface only as "grunt" seems strange to me :-)

Ciao

Antonino

kAinStein
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2002 3:08 pm

Post by kAinStein » Tue Aug 14, 2007 9:21 pm

Antlab wrote:Ok, this is obviously related to personal preferences and objectives,
It always is and mostly will be. That's why I pointed Azrael in this specific direction. People do things because they like to do it. Not because they have to or are told to do so. Something that gets ignored by most people that start such threads.
but are you sure that is more rewarding to continuosly add new WOW features than take also the time to better integrate the existing ones in a well designed, organised and aestethically pleasant interface?
As you can read Sabrina is attracted by the so-called WOW features not by the tool itself. So she actually refuses to learn the basics and wants to use those features instantly. I guess she would be as frustrated aswell when sitting in front of Maya's nCloth (Ok, buttons and settings are named more closely to what they do and it's more specific in what it does, but they are way more IIRC). Now what's more rewarding? Having unrealistic expectations and not being able to do anything with Blender for the next 5 years or invest some time to learn fundamental things (not only restricted to the Blender interface - I've seen professionals that have an university degree that were wondering why rendering times are so high because they were used to simply click a global illumination button but weren't able to create one of the basic lighting setups that would have fit) and probably being able to grow beyond limitations that a tool with wizards brings - meaning that they could do things the wizard doesn't allow you to do or optimize the stuff they want to have and so descreasing baking and rendering times? It's not a trivial matter we are talking about and you can expect a professional to have some knowledge - especially if there are so many hobbyists out there that actually have it! Having the knowledge and knowing that it is essential has much more to do with professionalism than simply ignoring those facts but having a job in that area!
I ask this because I sincerely admire the genius and efforts of Ton and the other Blender coders, but I suspect that the development of the program could risk a sort of "imbalance".
Of course there is an imbalance. This imbalance is there for every tool! Either it is too limiting or it's nothing that you can learn within 4 hours with a few video tutorials! You can simplify it to that degree.
From reading the forums, and also from the reported reactions at Siggraph, it seems that there is an increasing distance between the "inner core" and the external potential users.
You named it: Potential users! What do they offer? Or better: Was had been offered till now? Most people even refuse to read a manual! As if they won't have to do it with any other tool to get a good base that allows you to do serious work. Why do you think exists an industry that offers courses, seminars, learning DVDs and much more for learning the tools that you would like compared to Blender? Many of those people don't get what kind of tool Blender actually is. It's not intended for occasional use. If someone is looking for something like that then the limitations that wizards bring don't matter much - and you get the "effect" quite instantly. But if you have to do something that goes beyond that those people then are screwed because they have to program it by themselves - hard to achieve if people don't have a basic understanding of basic principles... Do you know any group consisting of a few guys that made an 11 minutes short in that quality that Elephants Dream is, including storywriting and even extending the software they are using in just a couple of weeks? I don't! That should say enough about Blender and the workflow which can be achieved with the way it works.

And what weighs more? Having people that have spent money that his project could have become true, that spend time and money so it can continue, people that actually code for Blender, help people out with tutorials or in user forums, use Blender in personal and professional use, love the way the tool works, create art to show off and "spread the Blender word" - or is it having people that don't read manuals, are here because of the WOW features ignoring the fact that it is not trivial (regardless which tool you are using), haven't done much for Blender or the community, are possibly not intending to spend some money so the foundation can raise funds and just want a cheap replacement to save license fees? I'm not saying that it is not legitim wanting to save license fees - but how does the community have some profit out if it? Only because some hardware producers might give away some hardware for the developers? This already happens because Blender is already a mass phenomenon and because they have feedback from the developers!
As I repeated several times, I understand the needs of both categories, but defining the work on improving the interface only as "grunt" seems strange to me :-)
Rewriting an event system is no simple task and most of it is quite a boring job if those people don't also have an use for it. For someone that knows Blender well and doesn't care much about not having colorful icons it's certainly not the first thing he wants to do! There's nothing strange about it. You are probably seeing only your point of view! As I mentioned earlier: Most Blender users are happy with the way they do things - or even: They actually use Blender because it works that way!

That doesn't mean that there is no need for improvement: There's so much far away from being perfect - but you must keep in mind that this is Blender and not something else! So fundamental things about the usage should not change. I named you the reasons - accept them or don't. Why should one use Blender then if he can have Maya for example if both programs behave the same? There a lots of programs out there that work that way: Take K3D for example. Use that instead. But I tell you: Regarding workflow speed, usability and ergonomics Blender wins - though K3D is kind of a Maya clone.

I can fully agree with you to make the interface more accessible. But I can't agree with you that the workflow advantages which come from the way Blender works now should be dropped to have a good-looking, icon-plastered interface that brings less workflow, is less ergonomic and does take half of your screen away! In no way I can agree with something like that!

Antlab
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 12:50 am

Post by Antlab » Tue Aug 14, 2007 10:49 pm

kAinStein wrote: I can fully agree with you to make the interface more accessible. But I can't agree with you that the workflow advantages which come from the way Blender works now should be dropped to have a good-looking, icon-plastered interface that brings less workflow, is less ergonomic and does take half of your screen away! In no way I can agree with something like that!
But I never said that the new interface should eliminate or reduce the present workflow advantages :-)
Maybe I have to clarify a bit my position. I like very much the idea behind Blender. I willingly tried to help the Foundation by purchasing two versions of the manual and the Texture Disk. I am not a professional in 3D (I am a physicist), but I used some 3D programs also for work (e.g. Cinema 4D for a little animation on a solar energy system), and graphics is one of my principal hobbies. After the usual initial difficulties, I think to have been able to understand the basic Blender principles and learn the main keywords. Maybe differently by Sabrina, I don't expect "wizards" for advanced effects (maybe because I know the physics behind certain phenomena is very complex :-)).
But when I talk about "imbalance" I would simply like to signal a potential problem for the future of Blender. I know that many of the hardcore users probably would be able to obtain real masterpieces also with a command line, but if the interest of the developers is also to gain other users (both professional and hobbysts) I think the two paths (WOW features and interface) should proceed together. From the other hand, it is very possibile that the idea is to mainly develop Blender for existing users, and I am not entitled to argue with a similar philosophy :-)

Ciao

Antonino

kAinStein
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2002 3:08 pm

Post by kAinStein » Tue Aug 14, 2007 11:41 pm

Antlab wrote: I know that many of the hardcore users probably would be able to obtain real masterpieces also with a command line,
That reminds me my first steps into the 3D world a long, long time ago! :)
but if the interest of the developers is also to gain other users (both professional and hobbysts) I think the two paths (WOW features and interface) should proceed together.
Of course. But you must see that the first intention of Blender is to work with it - and better interface is something about your point of view: There are a lots of problems in other applications and so much stuff that doesn't make that much sense. Why would you need the pointing device to trigger a menu to pop up - it would make more sense to use the right mouse button for something else that needs the pointing device! Or remember what Sabrina wrote about the buttons window: Now guess - it's tabbed. She did not get along with it. So tabbing fundamental functionality would be even worse than tabbing optional things as Blender does it. If they are tabbed it's hidden and you've got the same situation that is now: If you want to explore you would have to select the tabs and hover the mouse over the buttons to actually get to know what's behind it. In Blender you can open the menus and directly read. So, sincerly, I can't see any advantage in it besides that people are used to it. But it doesn't mean that it works better, is more intuitive - not to speak about ergonomics. And I don't believe that it is easier to learn. I've worked with several packages, all are not easy to learn, all need their time to get into and all need documentation if you really want to work with it. Well, ok, Google Sketchup is a bit different though you can't compare it to "real" 3D tools - but also there you would need at least very basic instruction. Wings is also quite easy to learn (and actually a good tool) and has an extremly clean look (so are most of my Blender screens, too - very minimal) but the functionality is restricted only to modeling (nearly) and I always miss the UI approach of Blender - even though I have hotkeys. But it's different to work with and doesn't feel as fluent...

lukep
Posts: 0
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2004 1:39 pm

Post by lukep » Tue Aug 14, 2007 11:57 pm

Antlab wrote: Ok, this is obviously related to personal preferences and objectives, but are you sure that is more rewarding to continuosly add new WOW features than take also the time to better integrate the existing ones in a well designed, organised and aestethically pleasant interface?
Problem is simple. rewriting the event system is probably in the 4-6 weeks range of full time coding for Ton who know by heart the internals (he wrote most of them). For someone like me it is probably more 3 months, and i have a job and probably not the knowledge.

BUT, Ton has plenty of duties, especially with peach starting in october, so it is not easy to fit that amount of work in his busy schedule. No other coder has enough spare time and knowledge to do it. We can prepare the path on design, but coding the whole stuff is something else.

And that done, no work has been done on the new UI, it is only internal stuff that is being replaced. But it must be done before. Once this is done, others can contribute, and Matt for example did a lot of stuff for experiments that could be included.

By contrast, working on a whoah feature, even if it can be more work, is a lot simpler. You have only to know the area you work on, and you have all your time, as it dont affect the rest of blender. Jahka worked on his particles for more than a year now, without interfering with the rest. And you get kudos for this !

This event system rewrite is akin to heart surgery, and as such there is also no room to fail here or blender dont work anymore.
I ask this because I sincerely admire the genius and efforts of Ton and the other Blender coders, but I suspect that the development of the program could risk a sort of "imbalance". From reading the forums, and also from the reported reactions at Siggraph, it seems that there is an increasing distance between the "inner core" and the external potential users. As I repeated several times, I understand the needs of both categories, but defining the work on improving the interface only as "grunt" seems strange to me :-)
I was probably unclear in my wording. There is several people interested in UI stuff. But contributing actually in the GUI stuff is really difficult because that part of the code is so old and convoluted that it includes a lot of head scratching, searches and digging for the hidden nugget. plus, you have to do it at least twice for each feature. hence the grunt work.

The result of the rewrite should make contributions in that area much easier and enjoyable to do.

GDP_Sabrina
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 9:50 pm

Post by GDP_Sabrina » Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:10 am

kAinStein wrote: Having people that have spent money that his project could have become true
I don't know if this counts, but I bought myself the "blender gamekit book", the "2.3 guide" and the "character animation with blender" book. Beside that, I have downloaded Blender since version 2.3 all way long and played around with every release. So if you agree, I add myself to the supporters side.

Because of your postings, I have read some basic tutorials recently and watched several videos and started to create some example scenes with blender. Now I slowly start to "feel" what you are talking about. As soon as I had learned to use the NumPad keys to switch my camera views or changing objects and meshes by using shortcuts, things have gotten simplier and clearer.

For example I just created a "hair example" after watching a video tutorial using the particles panel. As soon as I understood what buttons to de-/select, things were very easy. But without that tutorial, I guess I never would achieved such a result.

Maybe there could be a learner startscreen, that shows an amount of effects as preview and links to some (video) tutorials, explaining how to create it - or maybe just starts some python scripts to setup an initial scene.

After starting to work with blender, I think the problem is how to get people interested in learning shortcuts and the blender UI. If there was a initial effect or startup scene creator feature, users could be lead to results more easily. And quick results is the reason why people get envolved and start to invest into something.

Here is an example, how carrara seduces its users: When starting carrara you get an selection of prepared scenes or effect demonstrations to choose from - or simply start off with a new empty scene.
Image

This selection screens reminds me of the blender tutorial collections at the web page.: http://www.blender.org/tutorials-help/t ... materials/

Maybe there could be an (optional) startup feature, that groups functionality and starts prepared python scripts on demand !? (This would not force a change at the UI coding, but it would additionally pack the inner functionality into logical scene setups or sample effects)

Regards
Sabrina

kAinStein
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2002 3:08 pm

Post by kAinStein » Wed Aug 15, 2007 1:07 am

GDP_Sabrina wrote: I don't know if this counts, but I bought myself the "blender gamekit book", the "2.3 guide" and the "character animation with blender" book. Beside that, I have downloaded Blender since version 2.3 all way long and played around with every release. So if you agree, I add myself to the supporters side.
Of course it counts and I'm pretty sure it's really appreciated because it helps a lot. Actually I wasn't refering to the single individual...
Because of your postings, I have read some basic tutorials recently and watched several videos and started to create some example scenes with blender. Now I slowly start to "feel" what you are talking about. As soon as I had learned to use the NumPad keys to switch my camera views or changing objects and meshes by using shortcuts, things have gotten simplier and clearer.
I'm really sure about it that you will get the rest quite fast, too. It's just somehow that especially people experienced with something else often miss to get the basics. That's an experienced I made not only with other but also when I started with Blender.
For example I just created a "hair example" after watching a video tutorial using the particles panel. As soon as I understood what buttons to de-/select, things were very easy. But without that tutorial, I guess I never would achieved such a result.


I wouldn't dare to put that in question. As I said: I know that from my own experience. I never intended to behave like an ass and drive you away!
Maybe there could be a learner startscreen, that shows an amount of effects as preview and links to some (video) tutorials, explaining how to create it - or maybe just starts some python scripts to setup an initial scene.
Well, we had once a very basic playback feature that vanished again. I'm not sure when that was and I don't remember how reliable it was. But from what I've read about the event system refactor it'll come back. So tutorials and guides which would show you how things work and which run in your Blender screen would be possible. Would be a matter of creating a few and pack it with Blender in a decent distribution. That also would mean less searching for information.
After starting to work with blender, I think the problem is how to get people interested in learning shortcuts and the blender UI. If there was a initial effect or startup scene creator feature, users could be lead to results more easily. And quick results is the reason why people get envolved and start to invest into something.
That's true.
Here is an example, how carrara seduces its users: When starting carrara you get an selection of prepared scenes or effect demonstrations to choose from - or simply start off with a new empty scene.

This selection screens reminds me of the blender tutorial collections at the web page.: http://www.blender.org/tutorials-help/t ... materials/

Maybe there could be an (optional) startup feature, that groups functionality and starts prepared python scripts on demand !? (This would not force a change at the UI coding, but it would additionally pack the inner functionality into logical scene setups or sample effects)
Presets and samples are a little bit difficult at the moment. This would only work with .blends that act as library files. Though appending those samples isn't difficult the UI for it (Also without the big G - because all the graphical stuff resides only on the filebrowser - which is somewhat suboptimal and doesn't fulfill modern needs) isn't very userfriendly. I also can't tell how this might change after the refactor. There haven't been published any details yet. It's all quite vague right now...

But I'm happy to hear that you have given it a try and are making progress!

Post Reply