71–80 of 116 posts
I really like Blender and it's an amazing product, but I can't get over the standard Blender keymap. The "industry compatible" workflow is more sane, but then I have to translate tutorials from the Blender keymap to the industry compatible controls, and they're not always 1:1
"industry compatible"? You mean Maya keybinds ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Almost no one is being paid to make desktop apps any longer. And the UI/X discipline did not make it to the web for whatever reason. The last gasps became designers and settled on more padding, rounded corners, and hidden scrollbars. Most of which are pretty but counterproductive. Dead discipline except for very large products.
UI/X did not make it to the web? How did you come to that conclusion?
As mentioned the responsibility tends to have been subsumed by designers, but believe few designers study HCI. Part of the reason interfaces get harder to use every year.
Anyone know why Netflix doesn’t respond to their job site? I applied to several positions where I’m an exact match, with a decade of VFX and another decade of internet company experience in LA. Never heard a single word in response from them, for years. Reqs stay open a long time as well. What are they doing? Are they ghost jobs? They don’t even respond with a “no” form letter. (Lately their site is broken at the ver…
It's the lowest priority of job for the hiring team and the role is normally forgotten about once the hire has been onboarded.
I worked for an animation studio and they didn't take down roles.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"industry compatible"? You mean Maya keybinds ?
Blender's limited support for the Universal Scene Description format is an immediate showstopper for most medium size to large studios.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a self-reinforcing loop. Once a FLOSS tool becomes good enough , it'll start to attract professional users, who are willing to invest in it, which makes it even better. And it is quite hard for commercial players to compete with free. But FLOSS software is mainly made by developers. Who like writing new flashy features, but are awful at UX, and making sure all the small kinks are worked out. So most FLOSS softwa…
> But FLOSS software is mainly made by developers. Who like writing new flashy features, but are awful at UX, and making sure all the small kinks are worked out. That is what product managers are for; someone to lead the product's direction, ensure quality control, and to instill taste. That requires being able to say when a feature is poorly implemented or outright bad and unnecessary -- it's not always just kinks.…
Anyone know why Netflix doesn’t respond to their job site? I applied to several positions where I’m an exact match, with a decade of VFX and another decade of internet company experience in LA. Never heard a single word in response from them, for years. Reqs stay open a long time as well. What are they doing? Are they ghost jobs? They don’t even respond with a “no” form letter. (Lately their site is broken at the ver…
Simply they don't bother taking down the advertisement once hired. It's the lowest priority of job for the hiring team and the role is normally forgotten about once the hire has been onboarded. I worked for an animation studio and they didn't take down roles.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but are awful at UX This is such a weird trope. For those of us who've used microsoft teams, jira, servicenow, salesforce, or basically any insanely popular (in the commercial if not upvote sense) products, it's unclear what is being compared to with these tired claims.
> This is such a weird trope. No, it isn't. Lots of non-trivial OSS desktop applications are clearly made by people with no interest in aligning with expected desktop GUI behavior. From Gimp with dozens of windows to LibreOffice which is slow and has bad font rendering. And those are the 'poster apps' for FOSS desktops, lots of apps are worse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It might sound weird, but I think the key factor is the rise of Youtube. There is unbelievable amount of Blender content on Youtube. Like, probably more than all the other DCCs (Maya, 3DsMax, Houdini, Modo, etc...) combined[0]. It's beyond the DCC for hobbyists. I've seen people who think it's the only DCC. A few years ago, I met an 2D artist who started integrating 3D workflow and he genuinely didn't know the existe…
The people that use Maya have been using Maya since the days of it being the only thing available. When you have students as young as junior high school getting active in computers and graphics, they have no money. Using myself as an example, I was a frequent user of newsgroups like a.b.m.a. to find the software to learn how to use. Now that I'm a "professional" by earning money with software I "borrowed" while learn…
That approach works great when someone's first experience is in a traditional education system, but these days any interested kid will start to explore the options way before that - and all those self-taught hobbyist Youtube teachers haven't been offered free licenses to make content either!
So now you've got a decent pool of enthusiastic kids flowing into education with pre-existing Blender knowledge. And Blender is good enough for educational purposes, so as long as it doesn't significantly hamper the students post-education it is very attractive for educators to adopt as well - why bother with all the hassle of getting educational licenses when you can just download it for free?
The second Blender started to get industry adoption it was basically over for Maya. They could've saved it by turning it into a freemium product which hobbyists can download and install as easy as Blender, but it's probably too late for that now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with (3D) CAD I've heard is that the Open CASCADE CAD kernel is a huge mess. So as much as they update and fix FreeCAD (and they've made a lot of good progress, but it's still very rough around the edges) they're always going to be hampered by that. And making a new CAD kernel is a massive undertaking.
Question for someone who is very far away from this kind of development - why does CAD software need a kernel that’s wholly separate from the UI? Why aren’t they the same thing? I just don’t understand the abstraction that necessitates writing the software this way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I think especially since the UI overhaul in Blender 2.8 the project has been on a steep upwards trajectory. 100% agreed. I know a lot of people don't like that but sometimes I feel that FOSS projects are intentionally sabotaging themselves by ignoring industry standard options/conventions and instead they are following open source ideas just to be different. UI/UX is the main symptom of that. Blender could move forw…
The problem with (3D) CAD I've heard is that the Open CASCADE CAD kernel is a huge mess. So as much as they update and fix FreeCAD (and they've made a lot of good progress, but it's still very rough around the edges) they're always going to be hampered by that. And making a new CAD kernel is a massive undertaking.
For example, the Topological Naming Problem (as I understand it) is made quite bad due to OpenCASCADE design - but as we've seen with 0.19 and later it is possible in a lot of cases to work around that. But that's a lot of really hard work with relatively little reward, so for years it languished on the backlog, and users had to deal with even trivial designs randomly blowing up in their face for no clear reason.
The result is a CAD program filled with footguns. Nobody wants to address structural issues, so you just pretend they don't exist, hide a half-baked tutorial on a Wiki on how to work around the worst of them, and blame the user for holding it wrong.
Commercial applications can solve this by shoveling copious amounts of cash at any skilled developer who is able to make any real-world improvement - even when it's not a perfect solution yet. FLOSS applications have to wait for a developer to come around who is masochistic enough to tackle it for free.