Students / people serious about 3D should not give up just because they cant learn the whole interface in one day. So the answer is: no one gives up Blender because of “learnability” issues. At least no one serious, because everything can be eventually learned. The only reason to give up Blender is if you outgrow its feature set and need something that does a task better than Blender.
But maybe you wanted to ask a different question: Is Blender interface easier to learn / teach than XY program? I would say no, all such professional software is difficult to learn. If Blender covers all your teaching needs, then go for it.
Interesting responses so far people, thanks for your great input
Richard, I think you are right on here. I’ve been teaching programming for 12 years and good instructional design for courses that extend over a year or two is paramount. Good materials are important but not sufficient, IMHO.
My motivation for this thread comes from the fact that I’m currently learning to use Unity. It’s a struggle, despite the fact that I’m not an idiot, not lazy, have five years experience with 3D apps (blender and others), and there’s some good material out there. And I’m very comfortable with programming. I’m wondering how people with not so strong a background cope. Of course many do, but then how many don’t? Perhaps I’ll create some learning material myself, once I get up to speed. However I’ll be attempting to address the needs of people who struggle with what’s currently available rather than competing with it. However CG is my hobby and I try to keep it separate from my work.
Hey now. Criticizing two FOSS in one post is overachievement. Get back down here with us mortals.:evilgrin:
But really, having spent much time helping people on the Inkscape (+1. Draw freely!:D) boards and reading a lot of these ‘giving up on blender’ posts I feel that the biggest problem is that people just don’t want to read ANYTHING before starting to do something quite complicated. Not even a 2K ‘getting started’ file.
The very first time that I downloaded it, I left clicked on the gray box and dragged thinking that I could draw on the screen like photoshop.
Would you apply this attitude to a power drill? A circular saw?
I took it out of the box, plugged it in, hit the red button and the blade flew off and killed my hamster. This is a defective tool. I didn’t have to read a manual to use my pencil sharpener and it does pretty much the same thing.
a long history of hating arbitrarily custom interfaces
Is there such a thing as a ‘standard’ interface? How can you possibly separate the functions of a program from its interface? Does Photoshop have its vert/edge/face selector in a better place than blender?
If anything it seems that the new Word 2013 interface takes some blender ideas- like the toolshelf getting pulled out from the side of the window and collapsing back in - and puts them to good use. What could possibly be more standard than Microsoft.
(BTW Inkscape has completely customizable shortcut keys now.)
In my experience there is still quite a division between people who are artistically inclined and those who are more technically inclined, who like to know how things work. I have a gut feeling that most of the good art in the future will be made by the former group, just as most of the technical advances will be made by the latter group.
So, imagine a young artist who may be interested in working in various media. Of course 3D is going to look attractive, but this person may not be serious about 3d, simply serious about making art. So how difficult is it for such a person to become proficient in any 3D content creation tool? There is always a conflict between motivation and difficulty. Most of my teaching (programming) is to students who don’t have much motivation or natural ability (they’re more interested in hardware/networking courses).
Its generally a lie that 3d asset creation is hard to learn. Its not hard, in fact its quite simple. Whats difficult is finding the methods and technically designed approaches used to create a result they wish to achieve. Theres also a difference between just creating, as an artist, and understanding, as a programmer or technical artist. A good interface should make it readily available for people to come in and achieve their desired goal, not everyones a good artist, but those that are can adopt and make good stuff with a interface that helps them as opposed to gets in their way. Of course the world of CG is deep and the deeper you go the more you will naturally have to learn, for the simple creation side, modeling, texturing, rendering even, it need not be such a daunting task. Too many designers and developers often forego user centric design principles, which is fine but that usually means the job is half done.
I have learned more 3d and cg based applications than I can count over the years and the only ones to give me trouble were Blender and zbrush. After 2.5 and discovering someone’s custom keymap which made it more “normal”, I was able to finally work in Blender past the point I usually delete it in frustration. Frustration, not because I couldnt learn…I could with enough time and slamming ones head into the desk, but the point was that it wasnt worth learning something completely alien that seems to be arbitrarily different for the sake of being different. Zbrush on the other hand is a one of a kind application with no real competition, their though process is different as well but consistent and simplified in the UI. This made adoption easier to accept. Blender does not that have luxury when its in a market oversaturated with 3d creation software.
I’m a 63 years old grandma and I have managed learning Blender, starded in nov. 2012. Have earlier worked in a program called Rhinoceros, but I like Blender much better. I try to learn some new things every day mostly by looking at youtube. The thing a have a problem with is to remember the hot keys.
At least my grandchildren are impressed of my images.
No for a long time I mainly used Inkscape (I got started on Corel Draw when I was like 12 but I only used it for a week), but once I started using Illustrator it was impossible for me to go back to Inkscape because everything is so tedious and the default keyboard shortcuts are so inconvenient. Which is my main problem with Blender too (barring the shortcuts, which are mostly great); even though I’m familiar with the interface, there’s always, always so much scrolling all the time.
This isn’t some kind of seminary, we’re not trying to weed out the people who “aren’t serious”. The point is that people don’t want to have to learn the whole interface to use the software.
My impression of the current state of the entertainment industry is that most concept artists are using 2D tools. I’ve done quite a few tutorials from Gnomon and the like, and there seems to be a clear division between concept creation and implementation in terms of the tools they use. So why are not more concept artists using 3D tools? Perhaps they’re all old and learned their craft before 3D became available??
ETA There are some concept artists who use 3D. David Revoy’s Blend&Paint being an example, also people like Chris Stoski and Rafael Lacoste will composite 3D rendered content into their concept art, but it’s still quite a minority I think.
Indeed they are a minority, but its not all that uncommon to have other tools compliment the act of concept creation. There are massive black artist who will create thumb nails in photoshop, pick one, use google sketchup to make some quick 3d elements and then take it back to photoshop to begin the illustration. Scot Robertson is known to use Modo and alchemy for some of his work. Nevil Page uses Zbrush for designs.
Many however dont get into 3d for their concept art because it gets in the way and is unnecessary. Concept art is about conveying an idea, visually. If this can be done quickly and artistically, without diving into technical interfaces and pipelines, they will do so. I kind of agree with them as well. In 2d applications they can focus on what matters, the concept. If they were to jump into 3d as part of their pipeline, they can unnecessarily complicate their work flow and with the possibility it wont look better in the process or will take longer to do. People like Feng Zhu dont even need 3d to pump out amazing concepts and illustrations. They would probably just get in his way.
That said, there are concept artist who also make what they concept and those will use 3d. There is certainly a means to connect the two in a 3d environment but that would have to be present in the design from the ground up. Zbrush did a good job with tools like shadowbox and dynamesh, allowing the artist to just quickly draw out and sculpt with little worry about the technicalities.
Please don’t think I’m trying to weed anyone out. I am trying to let people know that their frustrations are resolvable with only a little effort and reading. The thing about Illustrator vs. Inkscape is easily seen as a matter of taste. The things that illustrator can do that Inkscape can’t of course it does much better. The things that zbrush does that Blender doesn’t, ditto.
even though I’m familiar with the interface, there’s always, always so much scrolling all the time.
Blender has those little arrows that collapse the panel and reduce scrolling to almost nothing (Not every program has this nice option for dockable dialogs, which is what these panels all are, pretty standard these days). The ‘A’ shortcut opens and closes them. Set the parameters and close the panel if you are not going to be resetting them often. Many of my panels stay closed; that way I can easily focus on the values that I am working with, and not screw up some other setting! Did you enable a bunch of addons and now your toolshelf is a mile long with rarely used settings? Collapse them, save your startup file and you are good to go. Are you a super power user who needs access to every single setting at all times? Sorry about that!
What does get to me is the constant reiteration that the keyboard shortcuts - in some program or another - make no sense. They made sense to somebody at some time who, although capable of writing an extremely complex program, was apparently not as smart as a first time user. But they were nice enough to give you a way to replace them very easily with shortcuts that make perfect sense and additionally have the meaning of the universe encoded into them. So change them already. Consider the amount of skill it takes to assign a meaningful key combo to a command as a basic prerequisite of using a complex program. The same goes for all those ‘right click select is unintuitive’ complaints. Change it. The idea of customizable user preferences is easily one of the oldest and most universal in desktop graphics. time to embrace it.
If you need every single thing done for you, you should seriously consider being a billionaire!
Note: I’m not talking about you, LuftMensch! The ‘you’ here is directed to a large rant audience who could care less about what I have to say!
Here is the thing. I know Blender and also Zbrush. I would not say that Blender is lacking in consistency any more than Maya, LightWave or XSI which I also know.
And Blender does not have to have a luxury or a reason or anything. It is what it is because it had a design focus. And that focus is very clear and documented. Anyone can find it and study it.
What I did when I decided to learn Blender was that I opened up the manual at page one and read about the history and background of Blender. Learned about the theory of the data system. All before even setting foot inside the interface. I mean sure I did. I had my share of frustration in the past with it. But not when I decided to learn it. I decided rather to find out what was the ideas behind Blender. What was the thought process that Ton had in mind. He writes about it and you can learn it and understand it. It is very clear and he had a specific workflow in mind with it.
That kind of understanding can not be underestimated.
The same was true with Zbrush for me. I had a hard time understanding the interface logic until I realized it was once a 2.5D program. Then it clicked. I don’t think those guys are great at interfaces at all. And they have very little idea about planning for the future. And this is a perfect example. Why you still have to draw things out in 2.5D before you can work in 3D. It is because rather than scrap that, or shift it to another tool set, they left it. For most sculpting you don’t even need or use it. It is just something to get past, a gateway to sculpting. And it is a powerful feature - still very useful - bit it is a very poor design for a 3D sculpting interface.
But the point is through study and research I did find out the answers I needed to learn, understand and appreciate the “logic” behind Zbrush. That it makes no sense to me is not important. That I understand what they are thinking - or failing to think of - gives me the information I need to get comfortable. Because I understand the environment I am in.
And that is the key to creating with CGI. It is knowing where you are, what the tools are, what was the thought process behind it, good bad or indifferent, and become comfortable within that environment, and finally learning to adapt that environment as much as you can to your own tastes.
But if you go into it trying to make a foreign environment fit in your preconceived ideas about what should be or what is familiar you will fail every time.
I’m learning Blender for some months. I had never used a 3D design software before. Of course I’ve learned some hot keys by having used them many times, but the Space Bar is always our best friend . And in Edit Mode W key, Ctrl+V for vertex, Ctrl+E for edges and Ctl+F for faces…
I think I do not use much more than that to find what I want, for now
I downloaded Blender when it first came out (circa 2000) and within a couple of weeks I deleted it from my hard drive. There were no tutorials back then and trying to figure it out was mind numbing. I was used to user-friendly programs like Bryce and Truespace that you could figure out just by playing around with them. I even managed to figure out Rhino when the free Beta version came out. But Blender was in a league by itself. The one thing I remember being most frustrated with were the zillions of teeny-tiny buttons. They were almost unreadable. I didn’t realize you could enlarge the properties panels. Oops. A few years later I found the Blender 2.3 Guide at a book store and decided to give it another try.
I really like the new interface. I know a lot of people still complain, but I don’t have any problems with it. Between the revamped interface and loads of tutorials, I don’t see why anyone would give up these days.
Of course its lacking in consistency and I can prove it quite easily with the most obvious of design choices within blender. The fact alone that Blender has different windows with their own set of hotkeys, menus and mouse sensitivite activation is a huge signal that its not consistent. What might be one button in one window will do something completely different if the mouse is over another, the thought process and controls are not universal.
Look, I use Maya…quite a bit actually, and it is very consistent in its controls and layout. In fact its quite simple and direct in how it lays everything out. There is no juggling of hotkeys and memory recall based on which window the mouse happens to be over. A good example is the UV editor, it acts EXACTLY like the 3d viewport. Blender, not so much.
So I find it kind of dishonest or maybe ignorant is the right word, when someone tries saying Blender is no less consistent than Maya. It tells me they either havent used it or have a bias which keeps them from being honest about the state blender is in currently.
Additionally, when I say Zbrush has the luxury of being “different”, I made it quite clear that its about the market. There are no 3d sculpting applications that compete head to head with Zbrush, this means pixologic, and they know this (a few of my friends work at pixologic and I was trained by one of their own developers) has the luxury to do things their way because of lack of equal competition. Mudbox isnt even trying to compete head on anymore, they focused instead on being the one of the better texturing applications instead, thus finding their place in larger pipeline that can include Zbrush rather than oppose it directly.
When you say Blender doesnt have to have the “luxury or reason or anything” it tells me you didnt understand a thing I just typed. Blender doesnt have the luxury to be different for the sake of being different because of a fact that exist, whether you or anyone else likes it or not. Its just reality. That reality is that Blender is a tool competing in market over saturated with 3d applications that for the most part DO THE SAME THING. Even if you dont say “we are not competing”, the fact you have a tool thats trying to do what other tools are doing in the same category means competition… its the users who decide this as well. How often do you see “should I use blender or modo, blender or max, blender or C4d”…ect Users weigh their choices based on two or more applications than can do the same thing or hit the same area of the pipeline. This naturally means Blender is being weighed and compared the packages that make up their pipeline.
Learning a 3d suite isnt so much just the cost, but the time investment required as well. Blender is one of a handful, its strength is that its free, but thats also its weakness in many ways.
What I did when I decided to learn Blender was that I opened up the manual at page one and read about the history and background of Blender. Learned about the theory of the data system. All before even setting foot inside the interface. I mean sure I did. I had my share of frustration in the past with it. But not when I decided to learn it. I decided rather to find out what was the ideas behind Blender. What was the thought process that Ton had in mind. He writes about it and you can learn it and understand it. It is very clear and he had a specific workflow in mind with it.
That kind of understanding can not be underestimated.
Kind of like when you are in the market for a car and find a vehicle with a steering wheel above your head and a series of blinking lights instead of a speedometer. There’s only so much “reading about the past or expectations of the designer” can do before it goes beyond what is reasonable. Part of design is knowing your target audience, who the users are, their experiences, their expectations. Its give and take with the focus on the goal…not the designers goal but the users goal.
In game design we often find GDD’s (game design documents) which detail the designers expectations and how people will play the game. When in actual playtesting the designer is left confused because users are not playing it the way he intended or are missing the UI elements or key areas they thought would be obvious to them. The result is that changes will have to be made or you have a game thats not balanced or even fun because there is a lack of user-centric design taking place. Another example is seen with film making. I was on the Sony lot here in Los Angeles awhile back sitting down with a few producer friends of mine and we saw a pre-screening of a film in the works. They had an audience down below watching it, and cameras were set up to watch the reactions of the audience. The writer and director might intent for a moment to be funny, they expect laughs, but when no one laughs theres a problem. If they are laughing at a scene thats supposed to be serious and generate an emotional response, theres a problem. With this they can judge whether or not the directors expectations are matching that of his audience.
The same concept applies to software and tools created to be used for a specific purpose. Just saying you read on what the directors or designers intend doesnt so much if its not actually doing a good job at it. The execution can fail or there is just a disconnect between user and designer. There can also be other factors not included in the design…Blender has grown…a lot, can we say quite honestly that current blender’s feature set and other elements fit into the original design? I dont think we can.
All that matters is the end result, the objective information. Sentiment wont change reality. So reality must come first.
The same was true with Zbrush for me. I had a hard time understanding the interface logic until I realized it was once a 2.5D program. Then it clicked. I don’t think those guys are great at interfaces at all. And they have very little idea about planning for the future. And this is a perfect example. Why you still have to draw things out in 2.5D before you can work in 3D. It is because rather than scrap that, or shift it to another tool set, they left it. For most sculpting you don’t even need or use it. It is just something to get past, a gateway to sculpting. And it is a powerful feature - still very useful - bit it is a very poor design for a 3D sculpting interface.
Knowing it started off at a 2.5 application should have nothing to do with it or how you learn it. That makes no sense, and it sounds silly. Like most 3d applications, you need to be in some form of edit mode. The same applies to Zbrush. If not knowing you had to be in its version of an edit mode was the sole thing that kept you from understanding zbrush, then theres probably a larger problem at play here. I would wager its isolated with the user not so much the application. That said, what I see throw most people off with zbrush is where things are on the interface.
Instead of finding a file, edit, help… on the top, they see every menu laid out in alphabetical order. Their muscle memory clashes with what they see, and the naming conventions are different as well. It has nothing to do with 2.5 or 3d, its just different. Finding and activating parts of the interface, and finding out how zbrush wants you to do some things is the hard part, once you get that its fine.
But the point is through study and research I did find out the answers I needed to learn, understand and appreciate the “logic” behind Zbrush. That it makes no sense to me is not important. That I understand what they are thinking - or failing to think of - gives me the information I need to get comfortable. Because I understand the environment I am in.
And that sentiment is what might keep a few working in blender for some noble reason they themselves only see, where as others who just want to create art and assets will probably end up in the applications that are more normal to them and easier to understand. The less memory, the less recall, the better. If an interface is good without having to customize it like crazy, its doing something right. If not, its doing something wrong.
Its not about the environment, its about the goal. This isnt to say Blender is a bad piece of software or that its not loved. Quite the opposite in fact, but it has become convoluted in its design and homogenous in its userbase to some extent. Blender is seen at Siggraph these days, and theres probably a lot of feedback coming in with people interested in using blender but ultimately wont because they dont have the time or luxury to study and learn something so new that its not familiar within a short period of time.
Never forget, the key ingredient in Intuitive design is familiarity. You cannot have intuitive design with out it.
Also, if you exclude animation and games, there isn’t a strong professional community that uses Blender. While I dont generally care what other people are doing with Blender, this fact does make it difficult to get advice. Here are a couple of examples in my case.
To point out something here, Blender’s interface will never be truly familiar to any professional artist unless the UI was made to be a carbon copy of Maya’s or Photoshop’s.
In all, sometimes I get the impression that innovation (in terms of non-modality and minimizing overlap), must take a back seat to current standards and familiarity, I sure wouldn’t want someone to say that Blender needs to start introducing windows that won’t allow any operation until ‘okay’ or cancel’ are pressed, slowing down work in the name of making it more forgiving to beginners and making it more familiar to pros.
On the other inconsistencies though, I do agree that one might get an impression that the Blender devs. simply don’t care about consistency for users or are even hypocritical because of the laser-like focus on making sure there’s consistency for programmers in term of Python function and variable names (even if it means breaking addons over and over again). I do hope Ton realizes that some are implying that it might be curtains for his dream of bringing professional users to Blender if he chooses to simply ignore it, and on top of that even hurts his chances of getting more developers do to a lower amount of donations to the BF (which the issue with developer resources he also mentioned wants to see resolved). A good way to prevent this would be like what was suggested before, getting a UI team for 2.7x and making UI improvements a regular part of releases.
Apparently you have even more time to type than I do!
First of all we don’t have to agree on everything. I understand what you are saying but don’t agree is all. And I have my views which I clearly stated the first time.
I feel as if you are not as familiar with Blender as you are with other applications you use. I could be wrong there. I don’t come here much anymore so I don’t know you that well.
But from your comments and comparisons it sounds like it. And being that I actually do know and use Maya, it is based on that as well.
But a little about me is that I have been using Blender for 5 Years. Before that, LightWave since 1993.
My software of choice for sculpting is Zbrush which I love and have found how to understand it.
I love and use Mudbox too.
Maya is my current tool of choice overall. And I am loving it! I also use MotionBuilder in my pipeline as well as XSI which I am also very proficient at.
I talk about the things I know. I know Blender very well, I use it for work. I also use and prefer Maya, daily, and am able to make clear and distinct unbiased comparisons between all of the apps I use.
I don’t expect everyone to agree with me.
But I have my opinions and views based on things I actually know. I don’t feel the need ever to defend them. I will often clarify if need be. But that is it.
So I do appreciate your opinions but I just don’t agree with most of your reasoning. And I have hard won years of experience teaching me the things I have learned about life. Every now and again I try and share them.
