41–50 of 173 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When Blender was commercial it didn't have half of the features from today. >Good luck trying something similar for the desktop market starting from scratch as FOSS. Krita.
How many Krita developers are able to make a living out of it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Library management quirks aside, KiCad is pretty close to competitive unless you need simulation or other cutting edge features. If you're familiar with it and know what you're doing it'll get you where you need to go. Also check out realthunder's freecad fork, they've made some good progress on topological naming (with the effect of keeping models far more stable through minor changes). It's still unusable for all b…
Have you tried Horizon EDA?
My criticism is mainly that the PCB layout tools were still buggy. I believe it is/was using some of KiCad's router code, but it took more work to get a layout done than doing the same thing in KiCad would. It also tended to get glitchy with increasing layout complexity. The schematic editor is a lot slower than KiCad's and not as feature-rich.
The GTK widgets look and work very nicely on gnome-based environments but have issues on kde / windows. To be fair that's a GTK issue and not a Horizon issue, but unless Horizon has changed a lot lately I'd have a hard time recommending it over KiCad right now for professional use.
I hope one day there's a "Blender, but it's actually ZBrush" open source alternative to ZBrush. Once you use ZBrush, you'll never want to go back to traditional CAD-style creation. I won't claim that Blender can't solve it, but, the workflows are completely different. You end up thinking of models like clay that you can shape and paint, not triangles with textures. Please, someone, somewhere, spend five years making…
> Once you use ZBrush, you'll never want to go back to traditional CAD-style creation That's a little too broad of a statement IMO. If you're building organic shapes / characters, then yes. For mechanical parts, using ZBrush is torture. Also: as others have pointed out, there's already quite a lot of ZBrush-type features in Blender.
It's a common misconception that ZBrush is for organics. You can create some badass space marine type mechs.
Eat3D has a fantastic series of videos that goes into detail on this precise topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xOKVGbZmEc&ab_channel=Eat3D
I respect Blender and like it a lot. I just don't think it can do anything close to what you see in that video. But that's just, like, my opinion, man.
Artists love Blender, and that's good enough of a reason to stick with it. I was just hoping to see more of this style of modeling, since it was the only style that made intuitive sense to me personally.
EDIT: (Sadly, it looks like Eat3D is now offline. It was such a fantastic series. Perhaps https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdEVj39ur-U&ab_channel=Chofn... "Zbrush Hardsurface Techniques" is a sufficient replacement though. Scrub through that, to random places, and you'll see exactly the sort of flexibility I'm talking about with ZBrush's flow.)
Just playing with it now. The new geometry nodes are the beginning of something big... a more procedural approach to modeling. Perfect for natural distribution of things like rocks and plants. Our department (art and design) moved from 3ds Max to Blender last year, and have not looked back. The rapid pace of development is testament to the fact that Blender now has more than twice as many full time devs working on it…
I am so pumped for geometry nodes (and the broader effort, "everything nodes"). Tools like Houdini have been doing this for years and the stuff you can build with it is just... wow. Looks like the nodes selection for this first iteration is a little bare, but that's okay. Gotta start somewhere
decades even, but I wonder what edge Houdini will keep in the coming years.
I find Cinema4D’s UI and approach toward everything just brilliant. Tried using Blender 5 years ago and it was extremely unintuitive to use. UI consistency was all over the place. Has that changed since?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Blender is an exception to the rule, and a rolemodel. For example, FreeCAD and KiCad are OK, but not as nice (especially re FreeCad) as paid alternatives. GIMP isn't on the same level as Photoshop.
+1, thank god we've finally come to acknowledge and accept that Gimp has never been and will never be a professional alternative to Gimp for many users.
Oh, no. I am so tired of re-learning Blender for each new minor revision. There have been about three major UI revisions in the last year or so. Another round of "where did they hide X this time", trying to use Google to find out and getting obsolete tutorials, and taking half an hour to do a two minute fix.
A completely new workflow for editing meshes Oh, no. I am so tired of re-learning Blender for each new minor revision. There have been about three major UI revisions in the last year or so. Another round of "where did they hide X this time", trying to use Google to find out and getting obsolete tutorials, and taking half an hour to do a two minute fix.
I hope one day there's a "Blender, but it's actually ZBrush" open source alternative to ZBrush. Once you use ZBrush, you'll never want to go back to traditional CAD-style creation. I won't claim that Blender can't solve it, but, the workflows are completely different. You end up thinking of models like clay that you can shape and paint, not triangles with textures. Please, someone, somewhere, spend five years making…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3XtAFUWNuk
I've never used ZBrush personally, bu from what I can understand they're a pretty similar workflow...