>For years blender's impossible to learn and use (from just using it enough to get a feel) from the get go>Can't even get past basic viewport navigation because it requires either using the numpad for non-analog movements, or some keyboard shortcut to even start with basic functionality as a requirement.>After using a super obscure and limited 3d "suite" for a few years beforehand, switch over to carrara at ~16 (2010) because blender's so utterly unusable from a UI standpoint>8 years later, still stuck with carrara>Utter garbage early 2000's tier renderer that I can't skill my way out from (pic related)>Blender FINALLY adds in proper UI for viewport navigation after well over a decade>"This is great! It's still not maya or whatever, but its renderer(s) is(are) infinity superior to what carrara ever hope to achieve, this might finally be when I switch over to,">Still can't just bloody select objects in the view port>And everything else after that's still a absolute UI nightmare from thereI just want to git gud at 3D, with software that I don't have to pirate because I'm too much of a moralfag to not pay for software, and I'm not touching anything that requires a subscription or is literally as expensive or more than the rig I'm running on.
>>630826Yes, I'm aware of how blender's usually perceived here, but carrara didn't even have normal map support until relatively recently, (About the second to last version, which was nearly half a decade ago, and I'm still not convinced it actually does anything) and It took me years to figure out how to animate UVs for eyes and such. (It's buried in a entirely separate set of menus for textures that you have to activate per shader individually through a mass of drop down menus, and any time you want to move it you have to jump between animation/the main tab and texturing to move it by amount of percent's across instead of being able to rig it to something sensible.)Blender (with a competent UI) would be by leaps and bounds a improvement, and I've animated a entire short with the thing, along with large chunks of other projects that either were abandoned halfway through or I'm still on now.
>>630826>I won't pirate because I'm a moral fagDon't worry, piracy can still be for you.Just follow two simple rules.1. You cannot pirate something you could have purchased without breaking the bank2. You cannot make money off piracy.Feel free to pirate (Even as demos) anything as long as you follow those rules and you can keep your morals in check.I've pirated plenty of shit that I bought later because it was good. I wouldn't have ever bought it if not for piracy. Piracy can be used to generate sales, in the hands of people who aren't fuck faces.Learn Max/Maya, gitgud with them and get hired at a company who will pay for it for you. This is literally what autodesk WANTS you to do.Alternatively, just buy it for yourself after you start earning money off it.3D is an expensive hobby. You have nobody to blame but yourself for your own suffering.
>>630848Can you even buy max/maya anymore? Last I was aware, they went full subscription or bust. Plus I would like to jump into indie game development at some point (so potential money making involved), and there's no way I'm using subscription only software for anything I remotely rely on.>>630826Later found out that the left/right mouse buttons are backwards apparently, so the>Still can't just bloody select objects in the view portissue is fixed with a option change (for what purpose are they backwards, honestly?), but animation functionality is absolutely 100% useless as far as I can tell, so that didn't get very far.
>>630850The animation in blender is good from what I've heard.Try using it and asking questions in >>630666 when you get stuck.The mouse thing as you found, can be reversed so that's a moot point. I think they're backwards because blender uses the mouse to fine tune a lot of things outside of modeling, so they wanted that to be on left click, and wanted selection to remain consistent across the program.
people always think about lightwave XSI when they speak about their "all time greatest".those are the same people worship maya and 3ds
>>630826>I'm too much of a moralfag to not pay for software
>>630826>I'm too much of a moralfag to not pay for softwarelol you deserve what you get
>>630826Get this book:https://www.amazon.com/Complete-Guide-Blender-Graphics-Animation/dp/1138081914/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1530720277&sr=1-5&keywords=blender&dpID=51uy152SjAL&preST=_SX218_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srchISBN: 978-1138081918I used to think blender was some sort of insider joke or somehting. Like they stayed up at night thinking of ways to make it harder to use. This book fixed most of that.
>>630850>animation functionality is absolutely 100% useless as far as I can tell, so that didn't get very far.>lol idk how this works so it must do nothing!!!Jesus, dude, did you just install Blender blindly without reading any documentation whatsoever? Every single comment you've made can be resolved easily with a simple search. Just watch some beginners' tutorials on youtube or whatever and stop excusing your idiocy on the software.
>>631138not OP but I find that stuff on youtube and etc is usually half-assed and often expect to already know how to use it for some reason.>I'm going to use the keyboard short cut to do this job>doesn't tell you the shortcut keys>doesn't tell you the name of the tool so you can look up the shortcut>doesn't tell you why you're clicking the buttons they tell you to click or what they do
>>631149Eh, was just trying to be helpful with OP's "too moralfag to not pay for software" comment. Youtube in general sucks for any lengthy tutorials, and only works good for really niche one-off tutorials. I made another post in that BlenderGuru thread talking about how tutorial quality differs insanely and it's pretty much the same thing here. If you're following a tutorial where your tutor glosses over something without explaining it somewhere before, then you're just following a bad tutorial. The only way I can think of curbing this would be to head to proper tutorial sites and sit through a lengthy beginner-to-advanced course. That way, you'll learn everything from the bottom-up and if you're lucky enough to snag a decent tutor, you'll be able to follow it easily.
>>630826>I'm too much of a moralfag to not pay for softwareQuit being such a faggot. Autodesk knows that the vast majority of people using their software doesn't pay for it. They get most of their money from major studio licenses and contracts. They legitimately don't give a fuck if cheap faggot kid on the internet pirates shit, because that kid was never going to pay them anyway.
>>631138That comment was being rather facetious, of course there's no way to remotely master any software without at least making reference to documentation or following along with some ground zero crash course or something. With that said, a well designed program UI should at minimum make the absolute most basic of functions (like view port navigation, or the ability to generate keyframes from just moving objects around) well labeled and self obvious without having to bust out the instructions right off the bat.>>631137At some point after 2.8 becomes established as the stable standard version I might / probably will go and try to learn it properly through online tutorials or with a physical book if it seems worth the effort / dedication to a hard copy, and migrate relevant assets to it some point after. Pretty confident that after learning the basics and some of the intermediate, after that everything else should be straight forward to feel my way through via playing around with the available options.1/2
>>6311682/2>too much of a moralfag to not pay for software>Lel, let's laugh at the moralfag / fucking retard, just pirate it, they don't give a fuckDespite being well aware of autodesks unofficial "Pirates gonna pirate, don't be commercial and it's cool because you're learning our software" stance, I don't ever intend to put possible years into assets and time to learn the ins and outs of a software environment without having a plain no-strings-attached legal-for-commercial-purposes installer .exe and license key combo, or just physical copy of the software, on hand in case something goes screwy with any on hand hardware, or I migrate to different hardware / OS at some point in the future. I've already stated that I refuse to indulge anyone with subscriptions, and the idea of using software that's locked down to otherwise arbitrary anti-piracy schemes (not because of the anti-piracy inherently per-se, but because it always makes using software a bigger pain then it has to be) and/or "You can use it, but don't make money with it", makes any amount of commitment to the software entirely unstable and a constant game of "Will I get locked out of the software, deliberately or by software issue, in the future/today because something entirely arbitrary came along and now nothing works anymore?"
>>631149that's because your overall level is very low.i remember when i tried to follow andrew tutorial on making 3D beer mug and i couldn't even pass the first 5 minutes. now i can follow any tutorial i want and it doesn't bother me.your whole argument of "very poor tool quality" or "tools that are not industry ready" stems from lack of understanding, we told you that hundred times over and you don't want to listen.i personally seen a guy that used SFM for years and migrated over to blender, he completely shocked me with his animation skills. so it tells me that even a shit program like SFM can teach you about animating, if you are willing to put in the time.
>>631169>this entire rantWow, this is honestly some next tier faggotry. Never seen someone cuck themselves so fucking hard before. I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, thinking "maybe anon's country has laws against piracy and he doesn't want to get caught", but no. You're just... stupid.>something goes screwy with any on hand hardwareIf it does, just redownload after fixing your shit.>I migrate to different hardware / OS at some point in the future.if you do, just redownload after setting up again.Note that I'm saying redownload, because you're gonna have to do the same even if you own a legitimate copy of the software.I'm not sure you realise this, but you can just retorrent anything, right? If there's a problem with the crack you found, you just look for another crack. If the software is a version behind, you just look for the latest one. You seem to think "the moment I download this I'm forever locked to using this very specific .exe" and if you don't actually think that, please learn to phrase your thoughts more coherently.>makes any amount of commitment to the software entirely unstable and a constant game of "Will I get locked out of the software, deliberately or by software issue, in the future/today because something entirely arbitrary came along and now nothing works anymore?"You're really some new breed of pussy, aren't you? The worst that can happen is that your cracked software becomes a version old. And like above, you just go and download the newest crack. Very rarely do any apps include "le piracy kill switch", and if they do then just block the application from accessing the internet so it can't communicate with servers. The only downside of doing that would be the inability to access in-app community galleries/stores. Jesus Christ, dude, grow a spine.
>>631205The majority of your response seems to come down to "redownload cracks it if there's any problems", to which I say I don't want to run software that requires the internet to be able to use at any point during operation if there's no legitimate reason for it, including when there's any uninstall/reinstall cycles, because that hinges on relying on things I have zero local control over. Things go unseeded, versions become dated (that had features removed later that I want/need), and it can ultimately make operation without said internet impossible.That on top of the whole legal for commercial thing, and finicky licensing thing if I can't use a plain offline .exe, there are legitimate expanses of time I'm without reliable internet, and I can't rely on software that requires internet to function/work with if something goes wrong. I have zero issue with downloading cracks if genuinely necessary (with a paid copy on record, so there's zero possibility for legitimate whining from anyone), it's I don't want to have to rely on them, or any internet connection for that matter, to any capacity to be able to use software that is and/pr should be offline.
>>631205Also to elaborate on>makes any amount of commitment to the software entirely unstable and a constant game of "Will I get locked out of the software, deliberately or by software issue, in the future/today because something entirely arbitrary came along and now nothing works anymore?"A while ago, when I was running a linux machine built of hand me down parts gifted by friends for a variety of reasons before I could afford a big boy rig, I had to run carrara in wine because no native linux version. Whatever, it worked. Until at some point where carrara suddenly stops being compatible with wine for no discernible reason I could find, and at the time could not find/get a older releases of wine that would install at all. If it were a case of running on native windows, then I could of just wiped the program and install it straight fresh, but for the life of me I couldn't get that or any older wine version to install at all. And if I had lost internet shortly after, I'd of been completely boned. It wouldn't be until that big boy rig was built a year or two later that I could run carrara again. I'll admit that it was probably a case of just being too much of a brainlet at the time to be able to figure the problem out, but the point still stands that weirdness comes about that just can't be solved even when it's not because of anything done deliberately.
>>631212...have you never used any paid software before?>I don't want to run software that requires the internet to be able to use at any point during operation if there's no legitimate reason for it, including when there's any uninstall/reinstall cycles, because that hinges on relying on things I have zero local control over.I don't think you realise, but pretty much all the industry big boys operate exactly like this. They require you to be logged into your account all the time so you can even _open_ them.The best part about your post is that cracks are pretty much what you're looking for. People crack software so they no longer need to be connected to the internet or require an account to function. You have full local control over them and you don't need to connect to access them.The only valid point you've made is the part about legitimate whining since plan to use your stuff in commercial applications. Unless you are somehow an entire production studio running pirated software, no one gives a shit if it's just one single person (exception: you're some internet personality and you somehow let it slip that you're EXPLICITLY running pirated software). You can even use the pirated software to earn a couple of bucks to then pay for a legitimate license. I know it sounds a lot like I'm egging you on to just pull the trigger and become a pirate, and while I partially am, I'm more of just trying to get you to understand how narrow your viewpoint is. If you seriously don't want to pirate something, then don't do it. No one's going to give you a cookie for being on the moral up and up anyway. Just stop giving such half-assed uneducated answers when you're asked why.
>>631214>...have you never used any paid software before?Yes, the copy of carrara I keep going on about was purchased, though past that the software I make use of I generally try to avoid both for being cheap and the previously mentioned stability issues. I tried unity once for the purpose of familiarizing myself with it, and that forced a log in, as well as the forced subscription later (or a $3000 license that can be obtained with enough faffing around, that they deliberately obscure in their tos for the subscriptions), that completely put me off from making use of their engine, and I was completely committed to the idea of using unity at the time.I don't care about other people's views on my own morality, I care about having as close to, to preferably absolutely zero potential for legal ramifications, and 100% offline flexibility to using the software I paid for.If all the industry big boys require operating like that, then I won't be using their software. Not like they care, not like I care. Blender might be a meme around here, but no one can fault it for being able to get good work out of it with dedication and effort.
>>631169Can't you get the student version?
>>631216>BlenderThere's your answer, then. It fits your requirement for running software without access to the Internet ever.Not sure whether there are any other programs that can do that, though. Nowadays, probably not more than a couple of them.
>>630826man how dense can you be?i literally learn blender in les than a weekEVERY software in the market uses shortcuts.if you can't memorize shortcuts, go work with something else
im too lazy go through all this shit and read it all , but i saw blender been mention couple of times and as Autodesk user i feel complied to say that you're wrong and you should be using Maya
>>631255>im too lazy>you should be using MayaNo wonder that those statements are so close to each other.
>>631235That still incurs the "licensing for commercial" nonsense, as well as lots of faffing around with approving of installers and such.>>631247That's why there's potential plans to move over once 2.8 becomes stable, but for reasons of industry "standards" and liking the option of being able to use that sort of software, using said "industry standards" over blender would be nice.>>631254Virtually all programs have shortcuts as a option over UI, not many have shortcuts as something mandatory for basic use. Blender for the entire time I've known of it has had this problem. It's not a well designed program if you absolutely require the keyboard beyond text and functionality that absolutely couldn't be done otherwise. They're called "short"-cuts for a reason, not "only"-cuts.
>>631255>lazy>>631319>stupidTypical Autotards>in after "hurr typical Blender user!"Sorry you wasted your life learning a program whose only redeeming value is that it has the dominant market share due to timing and has held on to that market share because artists are some of the most easily tricked, most group-think people alive.
>>631320Haven't and don't use autodesk software (or blender past some light file conversion use), and frankly wouldn't ever want to touch it for all the horror stories of how much of a mess it is to use entirely separate from any annoyances with obtaining the dang software officially, without having the benefit of being open source so someone can come along and eventually fix it, so the only genuine redeeming quality unfortunately is that it gets all the professional support, because the industry uses it as a standard, so it keeps getting more professional use, etc.Whatever software at whatever level of popularity I don't care, just that it does what I want it to do without being ass-backwards to learn to use.
>>631327>Whatever software at whatever level of popularity I don't care, just that it does what I want it to do without being ass-backwards to learn to use.If you don't want to deal with Autodesk's crap and still want to be able to work in professional environments, SideFX's Houdini may be the best option. You can buy a perpetual license and have it served from your own intranet license server.
>>631327the right click thingy and the 3d cursor are there for a purpose. it makes camera control much more intuitive if you know how to use it.i mean yes, blender "forces" you to use those things but after actually using them you see how fast it can be. i mean, most users don't even know how to use the camera controls efficiently, and if you combine all the methods together the camera control becomes a none-issue
>>631337>SideFX's HoudiniThat sounds great, lets have a look:>$3000 for HOUDINI CORE, which has all the standard stuff.>Or $7000 for that plus all the fun heavy computing stuff like fire, fluid and particle fx's with HOUDINI FX.>And it's $1500 to upgrade versions of CORE, or $4000 for FX, which is fine relative to the amount you're paying for it. If I had infinite money, I might of, but considering my PC budget was as much as upgrading HOUDINI CORE, and that was a strain to put together on minimum wage, I'll unfortunately have to pass. Plus, the "Intranet license server" sounds like a pain to work and set up outside of a studio environment where that has a legitimate use. Why can't we just have plain .exe's anymore?
>>631339It's by definition not intuitive if you have to look up how to do it. Which is absolutely fine for intermediate and advance functionality of a program to have to look up how to work it, but to mandate being able to do the basics to obscure keyboard controls makes for a poor initial user experience. If you're determined to work through the backwards UI and power through it, then all the best to you. I didn't think it was the effort all those years ago, so I guess here we are now.
>>631341yes, its not good for beginners. but most beginners won't utilize the "easy routes" for learning blender like buttons,search and freestyle camera. pretty much every blender teacher shortcuts and that's a problem
>>631340You missed this option. Yeah, it's subscription, but you are getting the full Houdini for two years at a price that puts Autodesk to shame.And with this version, the licensing server is mostly a non-issue. You install it together with Houdini, and it just works.
>>631340>>631344Oops, this option = Houdini Indie.
>>631344>Yeah, it's subscription>>630826>and I'm not touching anything that requires a subscriptionSubscription is a absolute no go, if I'm paying for software (and thus have assets tied to that software), I expect to be able to install that software at any time anywhere to be able to work with the software and assets. Any amount of subscription will always be a ticking time bomb of potential un-useability without perpetually throwing money at it, plus because of the inherent nature of having a reliable software time bomb, that then requires at minimum a semi-constant internet connection.
>bitches about software>anons try to help him out>they suggest better alternatives>"but muh corporate jews and their ''''subscription'''' shekel farms!!"Pack it up boys. It's clear he doesn't want to listen to us. And, OP, nice blog post man. Real cool.
>>631348>bitches about softwareYes, this was kind of the inception of the thread.>anons try to help him outAnd I'm grateful for that,>they suggest better alternativeswhich I looked into,>"but muh corporate jews and their ''''subscription'''' shekel farms!!"literally the opening post, explicitly stated "not touching anything that requires a subscription or is literally as expensive or more than the rig I'm running on.", not because of "muh corporate jews and their ''''subscription'''' shekel farms", but because of of a desire for 100% reliability, which cannot be with any amount of subscription model, and not having the funds of a major animation house or FX studio to keep throw down a hole. I obviously have zero issue paying into "muh corporate jews" by my lack of desire to jump straight to piracy, because that causes its own issues with legality for commercial purposes.If you have suggestions for software, other than blender, that doesn't break the bank, doesn't have a subscription model, and is a competent piece of software in technical ability compared to its contemporaries, I'm all ears.
>>631351Pal, you of all people should know the word "compromise". Your sob story about your linux hand-me-down and using carrara all this time is proof of that.Why do you keep bitching about "subscriptions are the devil" when they're in fact what makes these products affordable? Let's look at some products, shall we?SideFX's Houdini:>indie rental: $269/yr for three seats>FX perpetual license: $4495, $2495/yr after two years to receive updates, five seatsFor the price of one perpetual license, you can rent Houdini for _sixteen_ years. And you have to continue paying even with the perpetual license to get any updates.Indie license gives you all the features of FX. The FX perpetual is if you're in a studio earning more than $100k/yr, however.Allegorithmic's Substance Suite:>access to current versions of Painter, Designer, B2M: $397, only 12 months of updates >$75 for both Painter & Designer to continue updates>annual plan (entire suite + source): $239/yrLess extreme example, but these are all indie license prices. Shit gets WAY more expensive above the $100k/yr.Autodesk products are subscription based. So are Adobe products. But, before they transitioned, I can assure you the one-time licenses for them were exorbitant, and you still had to pay on top of that to upgrade. The only non-subscription product would be ZBrush. Even then, it's a pretty $895.1/2
>>6313472/2Building on your "subscriptions are the devil", I need you to elaborate a fuck ton here as well.>always be a ticking time bomb of potential un-useabilityWhat the fuck does this even mean? What do you mean "un-useability"? You know all software go through rigorous QA before they get released to the public, right? If not, no one would even be paying for them.>inherent nature of having a reliable software time bombWhat the hell is a "reliable software time bomb"? >at minimum a semi-constant internet connection.Isn't this a given? I don't understand your complaint about having to be connected. Aren't you always connected? Are you going to lug your rig to the middle of the Pacific and work there? In this day and age, if there's power, there's internet. I'll understand this fear of being connected if you were running pirated software, since you can be discovered through that. But since you want to use legitimate software, what's the harm in that? Are your priorities seriously that unbalanced where you place "software reliability" over a (modern) necessity like an internet connection?You're seriously fucking paranoid at this point, man. Just bite the bullet and you'll see how many of your complaints are moot, if not so minor that what you can make will outweigh them easily.
>>631358>always be a ticking time bomb of potential un-useability>What the fuck does this even mean?This line cannot make sense without its adjacent statement:>without perpetually throwing money at itIf you don't continuously pay money to use the software, then you cannot continue to use the software after the period of subscription is up. That's what a subscription is. So by extension,>the inherent nature of having a reliable software time bomb, that then requires at minimum a semi-constant internet connection.In order to make sure that the software stops functioning after the subscription runs out, that must require some form of connection back to the people issuing the subscription in order to deactivate the software (or otherwise you could put your machine completely offline and forever set the internal clock back in time), so hence the need for a internet connection. I shouldn't have to have a reliable internet connection to use software, especially software I paid for, that has zero genuine business making use of that internet connection. And I do periodically loose internet connection for a variety of reasons, nothing's perfect.1/2
>>6313592/2>Are your priorities seriously that unbalanced where you place "software reliability" over a (modern) necessity like an internet connection?Internet, again, is not a unwavering thing. That has it's own constant costs associated with it, and that's fine, that goes to physical infrastructure upkeep, which isn't always maintained perfectly. If I don't have internet for whatever reason, then I don't get to use the internet, which includes anything that relies on having a internet connection to function. That's also fine. What isn't fine is using software that doesn't make any use of the internet for its primary functionality, or whatever functionality I intend to use it for, but forces it anyway.On principle of the nature of the continuous money sink for continued usability that subscriptions create, I refuse to endorse them. I pay for software, I expect to be able to use software (unless it's for something like continuous server costs for a MMO, which is fine, not that I play MMOs because of not liking to have to continually throw money at things I don't have to). I don't care about the ability to "upgrade", as long as I have access to the software in a compatible state with the work I do on it, then any "upgrades" can go sod off unless I later choose to optionally purchase a new version of the software because it has new features I want.
>>630826In modern Blender there are UI options for pretty much anything you'd use shortcuts for.>Still can't just bloody select objects in the view portYes you can, you just need to be in Object Mode.
>>631363>>630850But thanks for the input anyway.Haven't seen much in the way of UI that makes any sense to anyone who doesn't know blender inside and out though, lots of random buttons that aren't labeled with anything strung about seemingly at semi-random.
what a bunch of crybabies in this threadwhen people say "free" what they mean is1. its portable2. its lightweight3. its capable of doing most things the big dogs can dothis is what you should base your decision on
>>631319>if you absolutely require the keyboard>They're called "short"-cuts for a reason, not "only"-cuts.You don't have to use them. Stop being a retard.
Instead of investing 15 minutes in Blender basics tutorial, you would rather cry how hard it is for years. Good job. All of the things you mentioned are covered in every beginner tutorial.I'm always seeing really similar wordings in these Blender UI hate posts, which makes me think there really are only a few samefags who constantly post the same shit on /3/ for months.
>>631351>because of of a desire for 100% reliability, which cannot be with any amount of subscription modelIn IT, you cannot have 100% reliability. Anyway, I'm pretty sure your installation will tend to be more reliable with a subscription and direct line to support, than with a perpetual license and no support after, usually, one or two years.Somewhere else you say that you don't care about updates. Well, I'd say you really ought to. Updates are not just about new features, but most importantly about fixing bugs. No software comes out perfect, and it's a given you'll need a bugfix release sooner or later.>Subscription is a absolute no go, if I'm paying for software (and thus have assets tied to that software), Your premise is inaccurate. Only asset/scene files in proprietary formats tied to one program may be thus locked. But you can store your assets/scenes in open formats, such as OBJ, Alembic, or, soon, USD too.So, even if you stop paying for your subscription to X, provided you were careful with your asset management (and you should, of course), you will still be able to work with them in whatever software you decide to use next.(Currently, though, the most difficult part to preserve is rigs and shading, but Pixar's USD may solve this satisfactorily enough.)(1/2)
>>631415(2/2)>>631351>not touching anything that requires a subscription or is literally as expensive or more than the rig I'm running onThe way the market is, for better or worse, and unless you're running a pro workstation valued at $20.000 or more, most perpetual licensing will be more expensive than your rig. The only way to avoid this as a small producer or a solo artist is to go the subscription route.Note that subscription doesn't mean being 100% of the time online. With Houdini for example, you download (or install manually, or ask by phone) the license key and put it in your computer. This license comes with an expiry date, which is the final date you paid for, and the server will issue it whenever it's needed without checking the internet, as long as it hasn't expired. So you can go two years from install without ever coming online, and your computer will start the program without any complaints. Most subscription-based software that I know of works like this.
>>631416>and put it in your computer*and put it in your licensing server, which may be running on the same computer you work with
>>631265well of course, im using a software that makes my job as easy and as enjoyable as possible and the build in tools help me achieve that. why would i be interested in waste my time energy and productive by using blender and having to redo almost everything by hand? in what world would you unirronically support a software that lacks basic tool that are pretty much standard for this day and age? there is a reason why blender is not industry standard and it will never be, the sooner you put that through your head and move on to something better the sooner you will actually learn something...
>>631428Who said anything about Blender?
>>631433this whole thread is a blender shill thread
>>631435I don't think Blender is mentioned in this thread as a serious option for professional work -- but as more of a last resort in some kind of 3D DCC post-apocalyptic scenario.
>>631381Really? It's certainly never been designed with the intent of learning in program and using the on screen UI the entire time I've known it.>>631415>>631416Of course nothing's 100% perfect, but at the end of the day, if something completely breaks the program to a unrecoverable state, if I have the installer in hand all I have to do is wipe it and install it fresh. If I have to faff about with logging into subscriptions every time this happens (which has happened multiple times in a row when I needed to clear something I didn't know about in some file that didn't wipe when it should have for example), then it becomes even more of a frustrating mess to work with when I'm already in a state of frustration because the program I'm relying on to do work with isn't working for reasons I can't otherwise deduce, on top of requiring internet to do it.Maybe I'm asking too much of modern software development culture in thinking that releasing a relatively stable and bug free release with a static price tag on it whenever is a reasonable request instead of regarding software as a perpetually moving and never static thing that requires end users to constantly throw money at its constant development because it gets shoved out on a semi-regular schedule with no end in sight regardless of stability because "Why bother when we can just send updates out literally whenever?". Basically how modern video games tend to operate with the data on the disc possibly being a buggy unfinished mess that has to be patched day one, because we don't care about the disc being able to operate on its own outside the context of the internet. At least with that you're not relying on it to do work with.in short, I expect to be able to pay once for stable software (even as a option along side a subscription for those who don't care), not required to continuously pay for broken software.1/2
>>6314482/2>Somewhere else you say that you don't care about updates. Well, I'd say you really ought to. Updates are not just about new features, but most importantly about fixing bugs. No software comes out perfect, and it's a given you'll need a bugfix release sooner or later.Please see above about my possible delusions about thinking in a professional software development environment that at minimum a relatively stable release should be expected that at worst would need a wipe with a fresh install to fix.>Only asset/scene files in proprietary formats tied to one program may be thus locked. But you can store your assets/scenes in open formats, such as OBJ, Alembic, or, soon, USD too.I'll admit that my experience with doing this has never been in the context of moving between software that actually had any amount of mainstream support, so that literally anything outside of OBJ (which is useless for rigs and reliable shader replication between programs, as you already said.) or the native format of the program being utterly unreliable. I'd have far preferred to use a open file format for everything, but again, there isn't a reliable non-static-mesh one.
>>6314493/2> This license comes with an expiry date, which is the final date you paid for, and the (internal/local) server will issue it whenever it's needed without checking the internet, as long as it hasn't expired.Pardon my french, but how in the royal fuck is that supposed to be a reliable system without cheesing the internal clock of the rig you're running it on? If there's no internet connection, there's literally zero reliable way to determine how long a expanse of time has passed in real time on any computing device. Even if it's a system of "Run a timer during known operation to make sure they're not abusing the ability to constantly turn the internal clock back, or even just pull the RTC battery off the mobo." Then it's a game of running the timer down during use instead of during real time, which considering most of us aren't using software literally 24/7, would increase the "expiration date" far beyond what its intended cut off date is. Which doesn't solve the need for needing the internet during every install, or the fact that it'll still artificially die eventually, but certainly vastly increases the subscription length.
>>631450>If there's no internet connection, there's literally zero reliable way to determine how long a expanse of time has passed in real time on any computing deviceTrue. The license server may keep a timestamp somewhere and check it periodically to prevent that, but it's not entirely reliable, and honestly I don't know whether they do (or even care to do) that.In fact, there are cracks out there that just patch the licensing server. You block its access to the internet, to be on the safe side, and the server gives you full licenses forever. Which goes to reinforce the fact that this method of licensing is somewhat risky for the software producer, certainly more risky than for the user.>not required to continuously pay for broken software.It's in the nature of software development that new features tend to be unstable. The more open the development is, the more clear this appears -- think of the Linux kernel, or any other big open source project. The solid, stable parts usually correspond to old functionality.The same happens with 3D DCC suites, in my experience. You can go old and stable (say, stay with Maya 2015 or Houdini 16.0), or fancy new but possibly unstable (Maya 2018 or Houdini 16.5). But even here "unstable" is quite an overstatement -- these releases undergo loads of quality assessment before release, and (usually) only "niche" fixes are needed afterwards. Which is why you normally want to be able (and will need) to download new versions. This just goes with the territory, the more complex a piece of software is, the more moving parts it has and the bigger is the probability of it failing in some scenarios.In my opinion, you are demanding a level of software quality that simply isn't found outside of NASA and similar venues, and thus setting you up for inevitable frustration. You won't be able to find what you are looking for.
>>631454NASA levels of reliability although would be nice, is entirely unreasonable in most use cases. If unstable means "Once every 6-12 months on average something just out right breaks and it requires a fresh install", then that's fine. If we're talking about "Certain intended functions are guaranteed to crash without warning without any reasonable reason as to why, and takes stuff down with it", then that's ridiculous, especially for software you're paying exorbitant amounts for.If we're releasing software with the exact same level of quality each release before mandating subscriptions, then for what purpose are the subscriptions if the software is effectively exactly the same as it was before, aside from gouging a profit for work already done, which is absurd.
OP the choice is clear as day. Learn c++ and install gentoo. Then write a mathematically proven system all the way down from userspace code to the c++ compiler itself. Buy 8-10 copies of the same bargain bin hardware to have redundancies at the hardware level in the event of device failure. Make your own 3D suit which you own outright by virtue of creators intellectual property rights. Then do all your animation within this homegrown system such that the results are entirely what you'd expect.
>>632510But who compiles the compiler?
>>630826The real tragedy is that 2.8 won't have a customizable UI like they promised, they just revamped it and that's it.A customizable UI was the only thing I wanted from 2.8. I really fucking hate the dev team.
>blender is so good because it's free>buy my assets, don't be a "cheap artist">open source is the way to go>but pay me for my work.
>>632996What do you mean by customizable UI? What do you want to achieve?
>>633004>implying you're morally forbidden from making money from your open source development
>>633019>morally forbiddent. shit blender users say
>>633021I'm not even a Blender user, but you do you, mate.
>>630826>Still can't just bloody select objects in the view portI think you need to stop being a fucking idiot. there have always been idiot proof means of learning blender. if you cant learn a program you probably cant 3d. maya is a shitty modeling tool anyway.
>>633012In the initial 2.8 design the plan was to allow users to create toolbars and menu windows, and their buttons, from scratch, like in C4D.
>>633029they've added a customizable "quick" menu in 2.8 - you add commands to it from their context menu and then access the quick menu with the "Q" key.if you want more control, you might want to consider using one of the built-in python templates to add a custom panel or menu.pic related is a template accessible from text editor -> templates -> ui panel. to add operators (commands) to it, you need to get the operator name by hovering over the command you want with "python tooltips" enabled in your user settings. for example, the python tooltip for the operator to add a plane is bpy.ops.mesh.primitive_plane_add()bpy means "blender python", ops means "operators", so the actual operator is mesh.primitive_plane_addyou would add that to the to the python template in the same format as the other commands on it:layout.operator("mesh.primitive_plane_add")there are templates for panels, lists and pie menus too.once you have it set up how you like, you just save the python file somewhere, install addon from file and enable it.
>>632511>not writing in assembly in 2018rapidly alternating the z-rotation of my cranium in all sincerity, consanguine
>>633027>>630850I fully admit to my own retardation on that point, but that still doesn't affect how utterly non-intuitive blender is to get into from square one without jumping straight into tutorials.
Blender has the best UI. Everything important is a default shortcut. How are you unable to select things?
>>633032>you might want to consider using one of the built-in python templatesIs this new in 2.8?Can I remove all the default UI and build one from scratch using these python templates?Why haven't they made any videos about these python txt templates?
>>633101Why would you want to fully rebuild the UI though? It already has the most important information visible in the base view.Unlike Maya or 3ds max where shit is hidden.
>>630826If you cant figure out how to use Blender in that long then you should give up. I mean come the fuck on, you can't select an object? Really? It's right click you fucking retard
>>633106>>630850How many times am I going to have to point people to this post? Does no one at least skim the previous posts to make sure there's no new developments?Plus this is a handful of attempts over that period of time, not endlessly failing at the basics being a retard.
>>633105>It already has the most important information visible in the base view.Yeah that's the problem, it throws everything and the kitchen sink at you and it's splattered all over the place with no coherence.If you don't understand why someone would like to build a new UI from scratch then just stfu.
>>630826You come off as a simpleton. Stop looking for excuses. You can learn anything if you just bothered to try harder.
>>633101>Is this new in 2.8?no, it's there in earlier versions too.>Can I remove all the default UI and build one from scratch using these python templates?you could certainly collapse all the existing panels, move your own to the top and then save the layout in your startup file. sounds like a lot of work though.>Why haven't they made any videos about these python txt templates?i blame paulo there's a short course available on the high seas named "Lynda - Python Scripting for Blender" which will teach you everything you need to get started.
>>633208What about the new workspace feature in 2.8, I'm trying to find info if I can easily create a UI from scratch with it but info about it is sketchy.
>>630826The software war is a meme and not based in facts. But if you can't even handle blender right you will never get far in 3d. It's not perfect but it can do everything any other software can.
>>633265>It's not perfect but it can do everything any other software can.
>>630826>or some keyboard shortcut to even start with basic functionality as a requirement.You know, I think I just invented the proper word to sum up what Blender can do: Fuckshitanality
>learn to model for free in blender>learn to sculpt for free in blender (dyntopo or multires or both)well done you can now model in anything because you've developed modelling skills, that aren't dependent on programwell done you can now sculpt in zbrush because you're learned sculpting skills, that aren't dependent on program (but will be greatly enhanced in zbrush)obviously your work flow might slow down a bit because you'll have to train your brain not to use quick shortcuts but instead dumb menus designed for pooboy brainlings
>>633330More like:>download trial version of Max>learn it>get a job and forget blender exists
>>633336If you could get a job by learning 30 days of Max either it's a really shitty studio or you're a prodigy. There's no way you could get employment-level art if that's your first ever experience with modeling.
>>633330zbrush uses a shitload of shortcuts too if you want any kind of speed while sculpting and its UI is even less intuitive than blender but somehow there aren't a million threads bitching about that, curiously.
>>630826>For years blender's impossible to learn and use (from just using it enough to get a feel) from the get goAnon, I'm afraid you are a total brainlet.
>>633379that's true. when I first started using zbrush I was disgusted at how the UI and navigation worked, everything just felt so much smoother and more intuitive in blender