Why do most blender tutorials suck such major ass? Even the "good" tutorials don't follow the industry protocols for how you should model/texture something.I've been using blender since 2014 and most of the useful techniques I found were either found by watching 3dsmax/Maya tutorials or through scouring forums. Whilst the 3dsmax tutorials are good they're just so limited in number, the only really good one you'll find is Arrimus3d. It's almost like talented artists don't want to share their secrets, which sure it's understandable it's still a sort of dickish move in my opinion. Then again I don't work with 3d I only do it as a hobby next to my main job, but still if I was in better health and had more free time I'd make tutorials all day long.
My guess is because there's very little monetary incentive, combined with low demand for advanced tutorials. Most blender users seem to be hobbyists, which is why most of the well made tutorials are for beginners.
>>707900>It's almost like talented artists don't want to share their secrets, This seems to be a problem for all of 3d, and not just Blender. You'll see some fantastic textures, rigs, scripts, etc, but artist doesn't want to explain how to do it, or if he does, he puts it behind a pay wall. And it's a huge problem on this board for that matter. >Hey guys how do I make something like this?>IF YOU WERE ANY GOOD AS AN ARTIST YOU SHOULD ALREADY KNOW HOW TO DO THIS. IF YOU CAN'T DO THIS ALREADY, YOU'LL NEVER MAKE IT IN THE INDUSTRY. >>707903This is also a good point. The guy who makes the 'Lazy Tutorial' series said in his blender foundation talk that his tutorials aren't for beginners so he spends a lot of time in the comments playing tech support. It could be the intermediate, and the advanced guys don't want to be assed with trying to help beginners.But would it kill them to just screenshot their nodes or something?
I mean I've said it before, but at a certain point, just like real art it comes down to the intelligence and the knowledge of the creator when it comes to modeling/texturing. But still, it shouldn't be such a burden to at least teach the correct workflow. Would it really be that hard to create a video that shows:>Creating a low poly model.>Creating a high poly model.>UV Unwrapping. >Baking normals.>Creating custom textures in Photoshop/Gimp or Substance Painter.>Importing it into something like Sketchfab/Marmoset, etc and applying all of the finished textures? >Create a secondary video where you show how to rig and create basic animations for the model.
>>707911Grant Abbitt on YouTube has tutorials for just about all of these, and a pleasant voice as well.
>>707900for those who aint wanna sit through an 3 hour donut cg matter ducky3d Royal Skies LLC
>>707900Because barely any pros use it so most tutorials are made by amateurs who don't know what the hell they're doing.
>>708042This this this
>>708048Why do you seem to be so pumped by the fact that there are almost zero professional users of Blender?
>>708065nigga u mad
gumroad or cgcookie.i mean yes youtube is a great resource, but no one pays those poor tutors
>>707911borncg has all of these
>>708298Borncg is shit tier. Literally made mistake after mistake in the Lego Character tutorial, and even left a glaring artifact because he didn't know how to fix it.
After you learn the basics you don't need to strictly follow a "Blender" tutorialFollow whatever, do it in Blender
>>707911I have to thank you more than anything anon! I'm studying anything I can and really, just Googling what you suggested and searching on youtube has educated me in so many ways!
>>707900Why would every tutorial follow industry standard when not only are there multiple different 3d industries, but blender isn't even a fucking industry standard yet.Use tutorials to learn fundementals. If you want to learn how to do thigs in a pipeline then search for that specific pipeline and then apply that method to tutorials you are watching.>>707911At a point this no longer becomes a blender tutorial though.One of the reason blender tutorials usually wouldn't go out of blender to substance/MD/Photoshop etc is because it's apeal is to people using it as a free alternative and may not have access to these other programs.Anyway there's plenty of tutorials that cover low + high poly workflow.>Create a secondary videoOnly a secondary video? You want the pWhole process covered in only two videos?Then people complain about rushing over parts.I dunno, complaining about this is a bit autistic. There's plenty of tutorials out there that do go in-depth in industry standard techniques but they are just that, techniques, and often the industry standard is multiple softwares working together to create a final product so expecting an industry standard blender only tutorial is a stupid thing to ask for in the first place
>>707905relax anon, anyone as there begining
I really miss written tutorals. It's just easier to absorb at your own pace and skim over bits you already know. With videos you're forced to listen to some chainsmoker explain the most basic shit as a snail pace.
>>708023Grant Abbitt is the best, more of a teacher compared to all the other tuts out there that just say "do this". It's a shame he doesn't have more animation stuff.
>>709120I feel you. Not to mention, text is usually better than video as future reference. Good look trying to scrub video just for that little technique explained in 20 sec...
I have folders in which I compiled blender tutorials since the creation of YouTube. Ask me here if you want any of them.
>>709300Can you upload them on mega or something?[spoiler]If not, do you have any for character sculpting?[/spoiler]
>>708031Royal Skies LLC is fucking great for anything that is even some what technical. No bull shit straight to the point and gives you the hotkeys.
>>710523Yeh he's one of the few guys I have bookmarked when I need to quickly remember how to do something fucking top bloke
>>710525too bad he gets fucked by the youtube algo
>>709288it gets even funnier when that video is sped up streamI usually just take notes
>>709120>>709288>written tutoralsAre you Gatekeeping on /3/ ? Or are you really this retarded/clueless?Written tutorials are shit when the writer forgets to write a step he did. The explanations take x30 more time because he needs to explain what buttons to press or when to stop doing something.Written tutorials are awful at everything, they ∞% will not teach you ho to be a better artist or learn 3D.>>710576Yep take notes idiots, also learn to download a video and you can simply clip it to have the answer and keep it in your notes folder. However notes for advanced stuff are not needed and you can learn what keyboard shortcuts to use from the documentation that is written in text.Anyone who thinks text is better is simply Gatekeeping or desperate that some text will magically give you skill in 3D, it will not and only mess you up more. Cope harder no skill.
>Thinking that technical knowledge is all you need to be a good artist.It doesn’t matter what field you’re in, 2D or 3D, you’re either an artist or you’re not. The technical knowledge is just learning to use the paint and canvas.
>>711755>retard that uses trigger words like "gatekeeping" has shitty opinionsno surprise here>>7117583D is full of technical knowledge, come back after you try some rigging or procedural modelling
>>707900That's a problem common all across the industry it's not just blender. I'm still looking for one decent xgen animation pipeline tutorial. There's nothing. Zero. There's a few good ones about making the hair but when it comes to using that hair in a production environment there's nothing out there. And that's just one thing, I could name a lot like this.
>>711759>Rigging and procedural modellingRigging requires no artistic capability but modelling as a whole? You need to know what you’re doing from more than just a tech perspective.
>>711763>Rigging requires no artistic capabilithat's baloney. you need to know how to make controllers inuitive for animators. that's an artistic choice in itself.
>>711765lolwut. That's not artistic, it's just good UI design.
>>711765Rigging requires the ability to follow a design schematic. As a production rigger you are not making creative decisions about how to make a controller for an animator to best use... You are making decisions based on a design spec of how to not give an animator the ability to break the rig.
>>711796>>711774>>711765>>711763Rigging is a mixture of programming, technical operations, and artistic decisions. If you don't know anatomy you can never take rigging to the next level. Obviously this is a Blender thread and rigs can never go beyond the most basic game engine skeleton tier stuff but an actual rigger needs to know the form and function of muscles. They need to understand animation well enough to make sure that the character movements resulting from the controls are beautiful, fluid and easy to animate.
>>711802Wait what. Rigs can be more complex than this? How? Don't you just increase the amount upwards into infinity for complexity?
>>710523>Royal Skies LLCI like the actual tutorial part, but 25% of the videos are the outro, 10% the intro, and it's full of lame jokes. So, ironically, they are to a very large part "bullshit". And in my opinion, he talks like the most obnoxious person I've ever heard. If that's a regional dialect, then I'd be thankful for anyone telling me what region that is, so I'll never in my life have to go there.
>>711803Joints and skinning are just one paradigm for defining how polygons should be deformed. Nonlinear deformers, muscles, simulations, layered joint systems, mathematical expressions, custom C++ nodes... whatever it takes to get the job done.
>>711824NO ONE WANTS TO JOIN YOUR TRANNY DISCORD FILLED WITH CP
>>711824What kind of faggot ass server is that? No one on /3/ wants to go to some gay political bullshit forum.
>>711814>I'd be thankful for anyone telling me what region that is, so I'll never in my life have to go there.Uh, upstate New York.
>>711865Really? Well, I'm from Utica and I never heard anyone talk that wavily.
I used this book to learn Blender. I don't know what can be better for begginers. I don't watch all that long videos, because I want to understand how it works. Thanks Allan for this useful book.
probably because you don't research trying to find what IS useful to learn in blender rn. I know tutorials for paid software hand hold you a little bit more by guiding you into a "proper" workflow. Blender's the wild wild west baby. Do your research and figure out your workflow. find what you need/want to learn for your workflow before you seek out the material to learn it. See what plugins help with that and enable you further. do some work stop complaining on 4chan lmfao jfc. looking forward to seeing your future works posted on here though ;)
>>712035You succinctly summed up why blender is a laughing stock.
>>712028Beginners, of course.
>>712037Are you calling a software a laughing stock because there aren't hand holding tutorials? I guess xgen is a laughing stock. I guess FEM solvers in Houdini are a laughing stock. I guess thinking particles is a laughing stock. I guess deadline is a laughing stock. I guess CG pipelines are a laughing stock.Oh wait, no. I get it. You are a laughing stock.
>>712068>Are you calling a software a laughing stock because there aren't hand holding tutorials?Uhh...no friend I think you missed the point entirely.
>>712068I'm guessing it's not because of the lack of "hand-holding tutorials", but because of the prevailing disregard for (or even hostility against) industry standard practices.
>>712070>industry standard practicesSuch as? I'm genuinely curious as to what an industry standard practice is
>>712077reducing noise and getting rid of fireflies
>>712087Oh shit that's industry standard? Hmmm let's see>ArnoldIncrease camera samples, fine tune either the big sampling categories or fine tune individually>RedshiftIncredibly convoluted. It takes an expert to get a noise free render.>OctaneNo idea, heard it's pretty simple>CoronaJust let it render more time>ClarissePretty hard, I would say it's harder than Redshift but not as hard as Arnold. Have main samples but then you have to work per material and per light. It takes a long time to fine tune a scene.>3DelightAs easy as Corona.It was pretty difficult in VRay too, but I heard it got easier in VRay NEXT. Where's the industry standard way of doing it? Every renderer has its own way of controlling noise and fireflies. Redshift in particular being extremely complex (and powerful).
>>712092>harder than Redshift but not as hard as Arnoldkek, opinion discarded.
>>712094I'm sorry I fucked up. I meant to say it the other way, not as hard as Redshift but more difficult than Arnold. It's pretty obvious from the rest of my post that I acknowledge Redshfit as the most difficult renderer out of the big ones at least
>>712094But again, the point remains the same. There's no industry standard way of doing that. Take a VRay archviz professional and put him in a studio using Arnold or Redshift and he'll be completely lost. Cycles has its own intricacies just like the rest of them (except for Corona and 3Delight and maybe Octane where you just hit render)
>>712092But you would agree then that producing clean (final) renders is a desirable goal for anybody in the industry, right? The thing is, some Blender users would probably argue to the contrary, simply because it's not an easy thing to do with Blender's built-in tools.Admittedly, the noise thing sounds a bit ridiculous, but there are actual examples of such disregard for industry standard practices. For example, with 2.80 Blender devs changed the subdivision algorithm, so what you see with subdiv enabled is a projection of the mesh to the limit surface, which no other software does. The devs, which are aware of this, apparently don't give a fuck, and didn't even add a setting to preserve the old behavior. It's a perfect example of the "Blender is for Blender users" mentality.
>>712103>some Blender users would probably argue to the contrary, simply because it's not an easy thing to do with Blender's built-in tools.Well yes, the more open and accessible anything is the more retards will flock to it. That's a byproduct of Blender being free. Unless you've got actual developers saying that, but I don't think that's the case (I don't use Blender so I don't know about that though)>For example, with 2.80 Blender devs changed the subdivision algorithm, so what you see with subdiv enabled is a projection of the mesh to the limit surface, which no other software does.I don't use Blender, but I searched for what you're saying. Apparently Blender 2.80 is using OpenSubdiv as default. If that's correct and I didn't make a mistake here, it's actually a very good thing. It's funny you were talking about industry standards because OpenSubdiv is exactly that, a modern and growing industry standard. I model in maya and modo and I wouldn't use anything else than that. Also all modern DCC packages have OpenSubdiv support with the older algorithm left over for backwards compatibility.
>>712104It's using OpenSubdiv, but pushing the mesh points to the limit surface. Only other engine I know of that does the same is Mantra in legacy Catmull-Clark mode. Most other software, if not all, refine the surface in increasing levels of subdivision. The difference is perhaps subtle but can lead to visual disparities at render time.
>>712109Well shit that sounds bad especially if there's a disparity between the viewport and the render. However all programs comes with their own quirks. Maya for example has retarded bugs on each release until minor version .5 or so where it hits a sweet spot.
>>712042Yafray?So he shilled his friends renderer in his book?
>>712114Why not yafray. Here is a 2012 comparison.Blender internal displays the creepy dude outside the window having white hands.Yafray makes him look black (realism)Cycles removes the black dude and puts a Templar robe on the wall (utopism)