Damned artsies ...

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-06-05 11:37am

What is it with artsy types and their fear of dimensions? I tried downloading and playing with Blender, and I discovered that everything in the goddamned software is done by "feel". There are no accurate dimensioning schemes anywhere in the software, you can only change the shape of something relative to its current size. Everything is eyeballed, there's no way to tell if the width of cube A is 2.5 times the diameter of sphere B.

How the fuck do people function like this? What kind of person would even think of creating a 3D modeling system which does not allow for input and querying of precise dimensional data on objects?

I know this is my Engineering/CAD background speaking, but seriously, WTF?

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-06-05 11:45am

It sounds like one of those 3D modelling programs who's target audience is people with no art or technical training but can read a manual, like Bryce or Amorphium, though to be fair to Bryce, you can manually input object diminsions. A buddy of mine from the Art Institute calls them "3D so you can Impress Your Dumbfuck Friends!" (if that seems harsh, keep in mind, he was a Maya chauvanist)

Oni Koneko Damien · Post by **Oni Koneko Damien** » 2004-06-05 01:19pm

It doesn't so much sound like a problem with 'artsy' types, they're usually more concerned with dimensions/precise measurements than one would usually expect. I mean, someone who composes a symphony, do you think it would sound half as good if they didn't keep track of every single note, making sure it occurred at exactly the right time, conformed to the right beat, and was sustained for the proper length of time?

Or hell, consider the Sistine Chapel (sp?). Think it would have turned out so well if ol' Micheal didn't know what was going exactly where, exactly how far they'd be from the walls, etc. beforehand?

If dimensions/exact measurements are being neglected in the program, it sounds more like a metaphysical/abstract obsessed person created it, not a purely 'artsy' person.

-Damien

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-06-05 01:27pm

I can't imagine a serious 3d graphic artist wouldn't want at least the ability to measure the exact dimensions of what he's creating. Sounds like you got crippleware, or Blender is a second rate program.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2004-06-05 02:26pm

RedImperator wrote:I can't imagine a serious 3d graphic artist wouldn't want at least the ability to measure the exact dimensions of what he's creating. Sounds like you got crippleware, or Blender is a second rate program.

Blender has been freeware for awhile now. Imagine that piece of crap actually costing money at a certain point in time

Bob McDob · Post by **Bob McDob** » 2004-06-05 02:29pm

You're not the only one - Blender pisses me off. Such a potentially great program, and free, but WTF is with the interface? gmax is much better, IMHO, even if you can't render.

Nevertheless, I think you have a point, though I wouldn't necessarily say that artsys have a "fear of dimension" as a preference to play on gut instinct and go with "what feels right" - because, let's face it, art is subjective. Blender is an extreme example, though.

Post by **Zaia** » 2004-06-05 02:53pm

Can't you just feel your way to the correct dimensions, Mike? And don't say 'no' before you've even tried...

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2004-06-05 02:59pm

Lightwave has better measurement tools. It's got a built in grid and when you select a point it gives xyz positions. But it doesn't exactly allow you to do things like select an object and find its dimensions, primarilly because Lightwave is a purely mesh-editting program that gives you complete control over the individual points and polygons that constitute a model while sacrificing the object-oriented nature of programs like 3D Studio Max. In other words, in Lightwave, when you want to modify an "object" as a whole, you have to manually select it's points and modify it that way, whereas in Max you just click on the object and the whole thing is selected. Conversely, in Lightwave, if you want to bevel a particular polygon, you select it and bevel it, whereas in Max you have to place a mesh-modifier on the object to allow you to manipulate the objects parts, then select the polygon you want to manipulate and put a bevel modifier on that.

Both systems have their benefits, and it'd be nice if someone could unify them into a single system where, for instance, to mesh modify you just double click the object and you can do everything Lightwave allows, and when you double click again you return to the Max-like modifier system. :

:

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-06-05 03:48pm

Zaia wrote:Can't you just feel your way to the correct dimensions, Mike? And don't say 'no' before you've even tried...

LOL, FUQ

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-06-05 06:34pm

Darth Wong wrote:What is it with artsy types and their fear of dimensions? I tried downloading and playing with Blender, and I discovered that everything in the goddamned software is done by "feel". There are no accurate dimensioning schemes anywhere in the software, you can only change the shape of something relative to its current size. Everything is eyeballed, there's no way to tell if the width of cube A is 2.5 times the diameter of sphere B.

How the fuck do people function like this? What kind of person would even think of creating a 3D modeling system which does not allow for input and querying of precise dimensional data on objects?

I know this is my Engineering/CAD background speaking, but seriously, WTF?

Which is why I never got into it other than messing around, the interface was a bitch too.

I have Turbo CAD and Auto CAD at home which my dad used in the past. Manuals are massive though and it doesn't have the artistic apps that make most 3-D art programs great looking.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-06-05 11:46pm

Oni Koneko Damien wrote:If dimensions/exact measurements are being neglected in the program, it sounds more like a metaphysical/abstract obsessed person created it, not a purely 'artsy' person.

-Damien

There is a difference. Artists and designers, even when they are going for something that is improved or amatuerish, do it in a controlled and generally rule abiding manner. Just like it takes a really talented singer to make a bad note with any volume or a talented figure skater to look like they are stumbling over the ice without falling over, it takes alot of design and control to make something look like it wasn't designed at all in a decent way (which is why alot of people think that they could do modern art if they wanted to). As Pablo Picasso once said "When I was eight, I could draw like Raphael, but it took me a lifetime to learn to draw like a child". In the same way, it takes alot of precision and control to freestyle it in a consistant manner on graphics applications. That requires the ability to make very precise measures and diminsions.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-06-06 12:12am

I can speak for 3ds Max's ability to precisely manipulate objects quantitatively.

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2004-06-07 09:31pm

In the same way, it takes alot of precision and control to freestyle it in a consistant manner on graphics applications. That requires the ability to make very precise measures and diminsions.

In other words, the artsy-feeliness is in WHAT we want to create, rather than HOW we create it.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-06-07 11:27pm

SPOOFE wrote:
In the same way, it takes alot of precision and control to freestyle it in a consistant manner on graphics applications. That requires the ability to make very precise measures and diminsions.
In other words, the artsy-feeliness is in WHAT we want to create, rather than HOW we create it.

Exactly. Execution is about precision--the more precise, the better, because the more care the artist takes, the closer his creation will be to what he imagined, which is the whole point of the exercise. The same goes in all the arts--I doubt there's a single word in Joyce, Fitzgerald, or Hemmingway that wasn't carefully examined and weighed against the alternatives before it was chosen.

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2004-06-08 07:17pm

How can you badmouth a program that advertises spanking a nurse in the ass?

BTW: Object->Transform Properties (N)

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2004-06-08 08:13pm

I doubt there's a single word in Joyce, Fitzgerald, or Hemmingway that wasn't carefully examined and weighed against the alternatives before it was chosen.

Well, I'm sure they got lazy with a few "and"s and "the"s...

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2004-06-08 08:28pm

Well in XSI you can conceivably scale/rotate/translate anything in numerical increments (I haven't figured how to do that in relation to another object though as of yet---I think writing an expression might to that) whether globally or locally.

But really, if you're using a graphical application to design something like engineer or architecture-wise, then I suppose those CAD programs and their related applications are more suited for the job.

If you're doing it for purely art, then you may not be always concerned about exact measurements and can afford to be rough on those things, and would be more concerned over the visual quality of the work. More of the 3d programs in the market are of course geared toward this approach.

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2004-06-08 10:38pm

Darth Wong wrote:What is it with artsy types and their fear of dimensions? I tried downloading and playing with Blender, and I discovered that everything in the goddamned software is done by "feel". There are no accurate dimensioning schemes anywhere in the software, you can only change the shape of something relative to its current size. Everything is eyeballed, there's no way to tell if the width of cube A is 2.5 times the diameter of sphere B.

How the fuck do people function like this? What kind of person would even think of creating a 3D modeling system which does not allow for input and querying of precise dimensional data on objects?

I know this is my Engineering/CAD background speaking, but seriously, WTF?

I think you can specify numbers with an obscure keyboard shortcut somewhere.

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2004-06-08 10:42pm

http://www.elysiun.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14636

DarkFlite · Post by **DarkFlite** » 2004-06-18 04:36am

Blender is just a poor tool from what I've seen.

I hear POV-Ray is the opposite of Blender - all numbers, no "feel."

I use Cinema 4d. Its not free - but its got a great interface and is easy to learn. You can be very precise with coordinates, sizes, scales, transforms, etc.

Singular Quartet · Post by **Singular Quartet** » 2004-06-18 08:44am

DarkFlite wrote:Blender is just a poor tool from what I've seen.

I hear POV-Ray is the opposite of Blender - all numbers, no "feel."

It is. It's the reason why I use it. If you want to use something in which everything is by the numbers, you use Pov-ray. I would, however, recommend that you read at least some of the tutorial, so that you vaguely understand SDL.

The tutorial being the help menu, of course. I recommend the Windows Povray help files, due to the ease of searching them and how expansive they are. The Mac files aren't that great, and I have yet to try the 'nix version.

*goes back to tooling around with his tank*

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Damned artsies ...

Damned artsies ...

Re: Damned artsies ...

Re: Damned artsies ...